• Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    You may or may not be making a valid point, but you need to be clearer about who you are referring to and in which context.

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Friedrich Engels, 1872, On authority

    Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?

    Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction.

    • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      What’s the alternative? Ending up like Allende, or the Spanish second republic, or Rosa Luxembourg? “The only good socialist movements are those who fail”

      • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        You need to take power in a way that doesn’t make a majority of the population hate your guts. Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.

        • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          You say that as if communists don’t want democracy. I want the highest degree of democracy possible, I just understand that the material conditions that allow revolutions don’t always allow for extremely high democracy at the beginning, and how a vanguard party of communist intellectuals can initially serve well to guide an uneducated populace or, worse, educated against communism as we are now.

          • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            The way to such a system can’t be through a violent uprising, you’ll be seen as illegitimate and opportunists. Revolutions themselves are very volatile points in history, and it can be very easy for the wrong person or set of people to take the reigns of power. We don’t want another Stalin or Mao.

            • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              You’re insulting all the people who suffered even more oppressive regimes than Stalin or Mao as a consequence of NOT arming themselves. Chileans suffered Pinochet as a consequence of lack of oppression of the fascist opposition during Allende. Spanish suffered Franco as a consequence of lack of oppression of the fascists during the Spanish Second Republic. Oppression is sadly a tool that must be used, as sparingly as possible that’s true, to prevent reactionary elements from maintaining or reinstating even more oppressive structures.

              People everyday in post-colonial countries suffer immeasurable despair as a consequence of lack of revolution. If you criticise Stalin or Mao and consider them undesirable and illegitimate, you should be even more convinced of the illegitimacy of current western governments that impose imperialism on the global south. Every day that we delay or refuse these armed revolutions, we’re perpetuating this system which is even more harmful than the USSR or communist China by any metric possible.

          • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            So we just need super smart authoritarian communist to lead a bloody revolution backed by the uneducated masses that will then be handed over peacefully to the uneducated masses once communism is firmly established?

            I support communism, I want revolutionary change, and I’m an idealist. But I don’t understand how that’s realistically possible. Theoretically possible, but the number of complications that would arise, the number of variables that could go wrong and destroy the entire movement, how easy it would be to corrupt… It’s never happened before for a reason, and having violent, bloody revolutions every few decades in the hopes it finally works perfectly this time doesn’t seem constructive or intelligent to me. There has to be a better way to balance how fast the change happens and how fragile and volatile the system will be during the change

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              Have you read Marxist theory? Marxists don’t typically identify themselves as idealists, preferring instead Materialism, specifically Historical and Dialectical Materialism.

              Reading theory may help you better engage with leftists online.

              • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Right, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the definition of idealist "One whose conduct or thinking is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations. "

                Not that I necessarily am “An adherent of any system of philosophical idealism.”

                But yes, I’ll read more Marxist theory specifically. I don’t have trouble interacting with leftists online very much, it’s just when I see leftists who are strictly authoritarian. The “by any means necessary” just ain’t it for me

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I understand what you meant, it’s just that Marxists don’t take on that mantle whatsoever. Same with your notion that we rely on some “super smart authoritarian,” that goes against revolutionary theory.

                  That’s why I suggested reading theory. You seem to have an idea of what you want your end to be, and why current Capitalism is bad, but you lack organizational and Dialectical Materialist theory.

            • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              We need, as commies, to establish grassroots movements that will improve things locally, create safety nets, organize labor to get progressively better victories through strike and if necessary through other means, and to have a growing sector of workers that are class-conscious. When the material conditions arrive, we need to have a critical mass of class-conscious workers so that we can organise as best as possible, and help to educate the rest of people, and to discuss the wants and needs of the workers and translate those needs to the vanguard party. But we also need the vanguard party.

              You talk about how things can “go wrong and corrupt the entire thing”, but by doing so you’re forgetting that that’s already the case, that we live in a corrupt, bloody and oppressive system, which kills millions every year worldwide through violent and less-violent means. You say it’s never happened, but I disagree with you. Ask an anarchist and they’ll tell you about Zapatista and Rohinya movements. Ask a Marxist-Leninist like me and we’ll tell you about Cuba and the USSR and why we believe they’re inherently more democratic and less oppressive than the current system, although admittedly not perfect. Our best tool to prevent the system from being corrupt, is to have as many class-conscious workers as possible. So let’s organise labor, let’s create communities and activist organizations, and let’s improve things on a local level, so that people’s material conditions start to improve and as a bonus we can draw more people to the movement that actively improves their lives.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Revolution can only effectively happen with a mass worker movement, yes. Communists aren’t advocating for coups.

          Please read any revolutionary theory, even Lenin. None advocate for coups.

  • lemmyviking@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    So, more propaganda that Biden is a Communist? Really, that’s how you make that point and comparison? Tired of the Dems are Communist trope when it’s not true. Sure Biden is for the worker - THE WORKER IS THE MIDDLE CLASS!!

    Which by Trump has been shrunk, and not in a good way, making it harder for middle class workers. Biden, whether I agree with him or not, clearly thinks MORE about the middle class and worker protections than Trump ever has done.