To be fair, the political compass absolutely does not bring nuance. All governments are authoritarian, all states are instruments of class opression. What matters is which class is being oppressed, by which. The political compass is closer to astrology for political nerds than a coherent theory.
Yes, absolutely. Socialist states governed by Communist Parties are states where the Proletariat oppresses the Bourgeoisie. You can’t simply eliminate all property relations overnight, the role of a proletarian state is to sieze the large firms and key industries that are necessary to maintain that power, and gradually appropriate firms and industry until the entire economy can be publicly owned and planned.
There aren’t really degrees of authoritarian or libertarian in a state, just what circumstances the system finds itself in. At times where class struggle is sharpened, the state employs more drastic measures to maintain the class in charge, and this goes for bourgeois states or proletarian states. It isn’t a decision to be made on a sliding scale, but a reflection of circumstances.
Even comparing Anarchism with Marxism as “libertarian vs authoritarian” isn’t apt. Anarchists also employ authority in overturning class relations, just via a horizontalist approach. Marxist states also are more comprehensively democratic than Capitalist ones, as they spread democracy to the economy, for the many rather than for the few.
Just my 2 cents as a Marxist-Leninist.
Side note: a higher stage Communist society where class has been abolished and the oppressive elements of government that make up the state have thus withered away would not be authoritarian, as there’s no longer class struggle. That’s more of a future thing though, not something that has immediate relevance.
he did say communist governments are authoritarian, in them the capitalist class would be getting oppressed by the state in service of the working class. this is why it’s called the dictatorship of the proletariat - the proletariat should still be getting their interests as a class represented in this arrangement, while bourgious have no special status or access due to their capital.
All governments are authoritarian, all states are instruments of class opression. What matters is which class is being oppressed, by which.
My point is that there is no genuine divide between “libertarian” and “authoritarian” leftism. There are different types of leftism with different strategies and goals, different views of the state, etc, but there is no continuum between libertarian and authoritarian, period. All systems exist in context and in motion, and depending on the class character of the state will respond differently to heightened contradictions, which sharpen over time.
I understand, the point in response was that non-authoritatian states don’t and haven’t existed. The compass portrays a field that is equal, but in reality only the top half is anything but idealism, historically speaking.
a classless stateless society is what I would prefer. That’s something we can conceive of, but getting there is another issue. Revolutions tend to be pretty authoritarian no matter how you slice it.
I commented elsewhere, but all states are authoritarian. What matters is which class is exerting its authority. In Socialist states, that class is the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie. Marxists are not any more “auth” than other ideologies, and not any less.
States can present as more or less auth depending on the circumstances they are in, when the class struggle is a sharpened contradiction, but that doesn’t mean the state is making a choice to be more or less auth, just that it responds to different circumstances.
Marxists are not “anti-free speech,” nor are Hexbear and Lemmy.ml. Rampant misinformation and bigotry should be removed, and is. Marxists, including .ml and Hexbear, are absolutely pro-Human Rights. Marxists do hate liberals, liberals are pro-Capitalism apologists, and thus liberalism has been a target of Socialists of all stripes since liberalism became a thing.
How do you create so many nearly identical posts? Is it just copy pasta? Is it full automation? I mean holy shit, if I created a bot, it would react to questions like this.
In case you didn’t read that thing here’s that thing again. Ehhh.
In this case, I copied and pasted a response to a comment they copied and pasted. I’m not doing it for them, but for onlookers, I don’t genuinely think psythik is going to be meaningfully convinced either way. Leaving psythik’s comment open and unopposed, though, isn’t preferable either, as bad takes should be properly elaborated on.
I tend to just link previous comments I have made, in most cases. I copy and paste responses far less now than I used to. In my defense, though, when you see the same talking points from different people, they don’t always need a unique bespoke response, and I don’t actually spend all that much time on Lemmy out of my day.
deleted by creator
To be fair, the political compass absolutely does not bring nuance. All governments are authoritarian, all states are instruments of class opression. What matters is which class is being oppressed, by which. The political compass is closer to astrology for political nerds than a coherent theory.
deleted by creator
Yes, absolutely. Socialist states governed by Communist Parties are states where the Proletariat oppresses the Bourgeoisie. You can’t simply eliminate all property relations overnight, the role of a proletarian state is to sieze the large firms and key industries that are necessary to maintain that power, and gradually appropriate firms and industry until the entire economy can be publicly owned and planned.
There aren’t really degrees of authoritarian or libertarian in a state, just what circumstances the system finds itself in. At times where class struggle is sharpened, the state employs more drastic measures to maintain the class in charge, and this goes for bourgeois states or proletarian states. It isn’t a decision to be made on a sliding scale, but a reflection of circumstances.
Even comparing Anarchism with Marxism as “libertarian vs authoritarian” isn’t apt. Anarchists also employ authority in overturning class relations, just via a horizontalist approach. Marxist states also are more comprehensively democratic than Capitalist ones, as they spread democracy to the economy, for the many rather than for the few.
Just my 2 cents as a Marxist-Leninist.
Side note: a higher stage Communist society where class has been abolished and the oppressive elements of government that make up the state have thus withered away would not be authoritarian, as there’s no longer class struggle. That’s more of a future thing though, not something that has immediate relevance.
he did say communist governments are authoritarian, in them the capitalist class would be getting oppressed by the state in service of the working class. this is why it’s called the dictatorship of the proletariat - the proletariat should still be getting their interests as a class represented in this arrangement, while bourgious have no special status or access due to their capital.
are there any examples of libertarian states?
100%, excellent explanation!
deleted by creator
I think that still qualifies as a bourgious dictatorship
deleted by creator
My point is that there is no genuine divide between “libertarian” and “authoritarian” leftism. There are different types of leftism with different strategies and goals, different views of the state, etc, but there is no continuum between libertarian and authoritarian, period. All systems exist in context and in motion, and depending on the class character of the state will respond differently to heightened contradictions, which sharpen over time.
I understand, the point in response was that non-authoritatian states don’t and haven’t existed. The compass portrays a field that is equal, but in reality only the top half is anything but idealism, historically speaking.
a classless stateless society is what I would prefer. That’s something we can conceive of, but getting there is another issue. Revolutions tend to be pretty authoritarian no matter how you slice it.
deleted by creator
Thanks for pulling out the political compass, cause it helps me illustrate my point:
Karl Marx, famous right-winger? Very silly comment.
deleted by creator
Nuance doesn’t seem to be their strong suit
No tankies are authoritarian left.
I commented elsewhere, but all states are authoritarian. What matters is which class is exerting its authority. In Socialist states, that class is the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie. Marxists are not any more “auth” than other ideologies, and not any less.
States can present as more or less auth depending on the circumstances they are in, when the class struggle is a sharpened contradiction, but that doesn’t mean the state is making a choice to be more or less auth, just that it responds to different circumstances.
They’re pro censorship, anti-free speech, anti human rights, and constantly talk shit about “liberals”. Sounds like a hard authoritarian right to me.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Marxists in general are in favor of controlling the speech of the bourgeoisie, as were Marx and Engels:
>6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Marxists are not “anti-free speech,” nor are Hexbear and Lemmy.ml. Rampant misinformation and bigotry should be removed, and is. Marxists, including .ml and Hexbear, are absolutely pro-Human Rights. Marxists do hate liberals, liberals are pro-Capitalism apologists, and thus liberalism has been a target of Socialists of all stripes since liberalism became a thing.
How do you create so many nearly identical posts? Is it just copy pasta? Is it full automation? I mean holy shit, if I created a bot, it would react to questions like this.
In case you didn’t read that thing here’s that thing again. Ehhh.
In this case, I copied and pasted a response to a comment they copied and pasted. I’m not doing it for them, but for onlookers, I don’t genuinely think psythik is going to be meaningfully convinced either way. Leaving psythik’s comment open and unopposed, though, isn’t preferable either, as bad takes should be properly elaborated on.
I tend to just link previous comments I have made, in most cases. I copy and paste responses far less now than I used to. In my defense, though, when you see the same talking points from different people, they don’t always need a unique bespoke response, and I don’t actually spend all that much time on Lemmy out of my day.