19
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10132 readers
78 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can you have communism without authoritarianism though? How would distribution of resources be enforced without control?
Democratically.
That answer assumes democracy can't be authoritarian, which isn't true.
Authoritarianism and democracy are directly incompatible.
How so? If the majority votes in authoritarian laws that are violently enforced on minority populations, is that not authoritarian?
No, because a simple majority could also reverse them, it wouldn't be authoritarian, it'd be fascistic.
I know Wikipedia isn't the ultimate arbiter of truth, but this is how it's article on Fascism begins, and I think it would be fairly common for people to consider fascism a form of authoritarianism:
FWIW I'm not meaning to attack democracy here, I find it to be far preferable to the other systems we have at our disposal. But it is a tool that can be used for good or bad.
Well, it's more like a large portion of the people voting would have to be fascistic, not that the system itself would be fascistic
It'd be a weird contradiction to have such an anarchist system end up fascistic, I don't think it's a concern in the real world.
After the revolution their resources would already be controlled democratically, there would be no bourgeoisie.
And what would you do, make a new bourgeoisie while pretending not to have one?
In an anarchist framework, we understand that a revolution cannot be solely achieved through voting or referendums. Anarchism seeks to dismantle hierarchical structures and establish a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.
To address your concerns, anarchists recognize that the bourgeoisie will resist revolutionary change. That's why anarchism advocates for a decentralized society where power is dispersed among communities, making it harder for counter-revolutionary forces to consolidate. Anarchists believe in direct action, self-defense, and community organizing to confront and neutralize counter-revolutionary threats.
Moreover, anarchism goes beyond removing individual bourgeoisie. It aims to eliminate the structural mechanisms that perpetuate capitalism. Anarchists advocate for the abolition of capital-generating private property, wage labor, and the state, which are fundamental pillars of capitalism. By dismantling these institutions and replacing them with non-hierarchical alternatives, anarchism seeks to create a society where capital accumulation and exploitation are impossible.
While voting alone cannot prevent the emergence of new capitalist classes, anarchism emphasizes grassroots organizing, communal decision-making, and direct participation in shaping social and economic structures. Through these means, anarchists strive to create a society that is fundamentally egalitarian, cooperative, and resistant to the reemergence of capitalism.
Ultimately, anarchism seeks to foster a society where power is decentralized, individual autonomy is valued, and economic relations are based on solidarity rather than exploitation.
I get your concerns about anarchism. Some people think that decentralization can lead to chaos, but anarchists believe in principles like mutual aid and solidarity to unite communities. Decision-making involves direct participation and consensus-building, taking into account diverse perspectives.
Anarchism isn't a single ideology, so there are debates and different strategies within the movement. However, this diversity can be a strength, encouraging critical thinking and adaptability to local contexts.
Anarchists aim to abolish private property, wage labor, and the state. Private property means control by a few, while personal possessions are respected. Wage labor is seen as exploitative, and the state is considered a hierarchical and coercive institution. Anarchists propose non-hierarchical alternatives like collective ownership and self-management.
Grassroots organizing, communal decision-making, and direct participation are important for creating a decentralized society. It's not just fluff, but practical ways to resist capitalist dynamics and foster solidarity.
Anarchism has real-world examples of successful organizing and communities. It's an ongoing process, learning from history and adapting to confront oppressive systems.
To fully understand anarchism, it's important to delve deeper into the theory and history of the movement. Anarchists don't claim to have all the answers, but they offer a vision of a more just and sustainable world based on freedom, equality, and voluntary cooperation.
Is that because you can't address any of my points?
That's just a deflection.
edit: did you even bother to read your chatgpt thing? it doesn't even do a good job, all of those things could be solved by simply reading what it outputs and editing before you post...
The bourgeoisie are by definition a minority. In a non-corrupt democratic system with a well-informed populace, their power is negligible.
Yes.
well, we'd have a more settled answer if historically communists of all stripes weren't immediately persecuted wherever they win power (whether democratically or through revolution), but Revolutionary Catalonia strongly suggests the answer is yes. its most anarchist regions successfully managed themselves pretty well for more than 2 years during a vicious civil war before being crushed, and those are the literal worst circumstances possible to try and build an egalitarian, stateless, classless society in.
(also ironically, the anarchists in Catalonia sometimes had to fight the Marxist-Leninists who were ostensibly united with them against the Francoists, because the two sides had such radically different visions of society)