Would you have quibbled less if I had said “authoritarianism” instead of “violence”? I wasn’t trying to be slanted, that was genuinely my impression of what the term meant.
You cannot have Marxist views if you are not in favor of using violence to impose Marxist ideals?
All states are authoritarian, in that all represent primarily one class in society that is dominant, and weild state power to subjugate those who would resist the system. In Capitalism, that class in power is the bourgeoisie, in Socialism, that class is the Proletariat. Revolution is necessary to bring about Socialism, ergo use of authority is also necessary, and core to Marxism, just as it was authoritarian for the French to overthrow the Monarchy, no matter how justified morally said use of authority was.
I recommend reading Friedrich Engels’ On Authority if you want a Marxist perspective from the Luigi of the M&E duo.
It is not a binary distinction. It is also not something all ideologies seek to use as a tool. Rather, some seek to minimize it. I think you are telling me Marxism is an ideology that seeks to fully utilize authoritarianism, almost as though it WERE a binary distinction, and there is no point in going half way.
Overall I take your response in support of authoritarianism to mean you would have found that a less objectionable definition.
Use of authority is driven as reaction, not action, typically. The United States putting down the Confederate rebellion was a good use of authority, but was driven because of the Confederate rebellion. The extent authority is applied depends on the circumstances a country finds itself in, in Socialist countries we often see invasion and active subterfuge from Capitalist countries seeking to undermine the system, and Capitalists are oppressed. This is painted as “authoritarian” by Capitalist dominated media.
You don’t reduce the use of authority by saying “no, don’t do that,” you do so by abolishing the conditions that give rise to its necessity. It is much better for the working class to weild its authority than the Capitalist class.
I don’t support something as vague as “authoritarianism.” I support the working class being in control of the state and using it in its own interests, depending on the circumstances it finds itself in, minimizing excess wherever possible.
I support the proletariat using authoritarian measures, for any time we don’t our enemies laugh at us.
When General Krasnov organized his counter-revolutionary campaign against Leningrad and fell into our hands, we could at least have kept him prisoner, according to the rules of war. Indeed, we ought to have shot him. But we released him on his “word of honor.” And what happened? It soon became clear that such mildness only helped to undermine the strength of the Soviet Government. We made a mistake in displaying such mildness towards enemies of the working class. To have persisted in that mistake would have been a crime against the working class and a betrayal of its interests. That soon became guile apparent. Very soon it became evident that the milder our attitude towards our enemies, the greater their resistance
Read that interview a few weeks ago, actually! And he’s correct, trying to go easy on an enemy that will thoroughly destroy you with the most brutal of measures possible is a luxury Socialists cannot afford to take if we want to build a world without such brutality to begin with.
It’s been said before, but you can be “authoritarian” like the Soviets and give people healthcare, housing, food, etc. or you can be a good christian against “authoritarianism” and give people a military dictatorship.
Yep, conversations around “authoritarianism” usually wind back down to just disapproving going against the status quo, regardless of how popular the measures in place are within their countries. The CPC has an over 90% approval rate, and people call it “authoritarian” functionally because businesses are heavily restricted by the state.
Would you have quibbled less if I had said “authoritarianism” instead of “violence”? I wasn’t trying to be slanted, that was genuinely my impression of what the term meant.
You cannot have Marxist views if you are not in favor of using violence to impose Marxist ideals?
All states are authoritarian, in that all represent primarily one class in society that is dominant, and weild state power to subjugate those who would resist the system. In Capitalism, that class in power is the bourgeoisie, in Socialism, that class is the Proletariat. Revolution is necessary to bring about Socialism, ergo use of authority is also necessary, and core to Marxism, just as it was authoritarian for the French to overthrow the Monarchy, no matter how justified morally said use of authority was.
I recommend reading Friedrich Engels’ On Authority if you want a Marxist perspective from the Luigi of the M&E duo.
It is not a binary distinction. It is also not something all ideologies seek to use as a tool. Rather, some seek to minimize it. I think you are telling me Marxism is an ideology that seeks to fully utilize authoritarianism, almost as though it WERE a binary distinction, and there is no point in going half way.
Overall I take your response in support of authoritarianism to mean you would have found that a less objectionable definition.
Use of authority is driven as reaction, not action, typically. The United States putting down the Confederate rebellion was a good use of authority, but was driven because of the Confederate rebellion. The extent authority is applied depends on the circumstances a country finds itself in, in Socialist countries we often see invasion and active subterfuge from Capitalist countries seeking to undermine the system, and Capitalists are oppressed. This is painted as “authoritarian” by Capitalist dominated media.
You don’t reduce the use of authority by saying “no, don’t do that,” you do so by abolishing the conditions that give rise to its necessity. It is much better for the working class to weild its authority than the Capitalist class.
I don’t support something as vague as “authoritarianism.” I support the working class being in control of the state and using it in its own interests, depending on the circumstances it finds itself in, minimizing excess wherever possible.
I support the proletariat using authoritarian measures, for any time we don’t our enemies laugh at us.
—Someone, idk
Read that interview a few weeks ago, actually! And he’s correct, trying to go easy on an enemy that will thoroughly destroy you with the most brutal of measures possible is a luxury Socialists cannot afford to take if we want to build a world without such brutality to begin with.
It’s been said before, but you can be “authoritarian” like the Soviets and give people healthcare, housing, food, etc. or you can be
a good christianagainst “authoritarianism” and give people a military dictatorship.Yep, conversations around “authoritarianism” usually wind back down to just disapproving going against the status quo, regardless of how popular the measures in place are within their countries. The CPC has an over 90% approval rate, and people call it “authoritarian” functionally because businesses are heavily restricted by the state.
You know what the single most powerful force in human history is?
Organization. Which is always hierarchal. It doesn’t have to mean socially, but definitely organizationally.
If anarchism didn’t exist, the CIA would have had to create it.
You know what the most common attribute of Anarchist revolutions is? They all failed. Every single one of them. That is what you want. Failure.
This is a subjective statement.
This is an untrue statement.
Okay CIA.
Save this one until you are crowing at me from the parapets of your Utopia. Oh wait, it has to be global, so I guess I’m the one inside the walls.
Their ideology has actually improved human well being. Yours has only created martyrs.