Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian?
As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian.
I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing you shared which resonated with me deeply, and highlights essentially the root issue I have with MLs:
A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon
Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian,
Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority.
but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian?
As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian.
No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form.
the root issue I have with MLs
The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it’s been demonstrated time and time again that you cant
Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years.
Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged.
I’m willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so.
I don’t like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is:
Marxism-Leninism isn’t authoritarian! It isn’t authoritarian because I said so. You can’t achieve shit without authoritarianism anyways! Even if you can achieve things without authority, words are inherently meaningless symbols for meanings which are constantly in flux, so who can really say where authoritarianism begins and ends. Either way, you’re wrong and also an ILLITERATE LIAR who I will accuse of being a lib for good measure”
Then I seriously doubt:
I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years.
Maybe another comrade is more patient. I’ll see myself out
You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it’s a pretty narrow sighted argument… Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^
🙄
I am once again puzzled by this thing that’s not Marxist, not anarchist, not social democracy, but is also non- authoritarian and is also communist.
looks inside
It’s liberalism
For those that don’t want to sound uneducated like @[email protected]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Thank you for sharing!
Do you realize that what you shared doesn’t argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian?
As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian.
I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing you shared which resonated with me deeply, and highlights essentially the root issue I have with MLs:
You didn’t read the text, I can tell.
Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority.
No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form.
The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it’s been demonstrated time and time again that you cant
Removed by mod
Ok stay ignorant
Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I’ve read more than my fair share of theory over the years.
Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged.
I’m willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so.
I don’t like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is:
Then I seriously doubt:
Maybe another comrade is more patient. I’ll see myself out
You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don’t need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren’t prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it’s a pretty narrow sighted argument… Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^