- Communist ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English45•10 months ago
The real problem was never about communism, it was about authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism is the enemy of everyone.
- rothaine ( @rothaine@beehaw.org ) English7•10 months ago
Can you have communism without authoritarianism though? How would distribution of resources be enforced without control?
- Communist ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English14•10 months ago
Democratically.
- Pagliacci ( @Pagliacci@lemmy.ml ) English4•10 months ago
That answer assumes democracy can’t be authoritarian, which isn’t true.
- Communist ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English4•10 months ago
Authoritarianism and democracy are directly incompatible.
- Pagliacci ( @Pagliacci@lemmy.ml ) English3•10 months ago
How so? If the majority votes in authoritarian laws that are violently enforced on minority populations, is that not authoritarian?
- Communist ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English2•10 months ago
No, because a simple majority could also reverse them, it wouldn’t be authoritarian, it’d be fascistic.
- Pagliacci ( @Pagliacci@lemmy.ml ) English2•10 months ago
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:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
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.
Can you have communism without authoritarianism though?
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. i would imagine doing this is substantially easier without a well-armed state trying to murder you.
(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)
- guyman ( @guyman@lemmy.world ) English8•10 months ago
Yes.
- Celediel ( @Celediel@slrpnk.net ) English7•10 months ago
Everyone but the state, and unfortunately the capitalist states have much more power to push their narrative. Thus “communism” became the enemy to latch onto, and now it’s synonymous with Stalinism in the eyes of many.
Same thing happened with “anarchy” and it being synonymous with “chaos” in the eyes of many. But indeed, anarchy is order.
Edit: A quote from the linked article, absolute nonsense lmao.
On the Right stand the committed anti-totalitarians
- guyman ( @guyman@lemmy.world ) English5•10 months ago
That’s not entirely true. It’s possible to have a benevolent authoritarian government and an oppressive democratic one.
- Communist ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English21•10 months ago
It’s not possible to have a benevolent authoritarian government.
- Revan343 ( @Revan343@lemmy.ca ) English7•10 months ago
It’s happened on incredibly rare occasion. The problem is they don’t stay benevolent; eventually the benevolent dictator dies or is deposed, and their replacement is never so kind
- Communist ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English12•10 months ago
If they were so benevolent, they would give up the power that could be abused later. They just wanted to seem benevolent.
- meldroc ( @meldroc@infosec.pub ) English2•10 months ago
Authoritarianism always eats itself from the inside with corruption. Always.
- guyman ( @guyman@lemmy.world ) English1•10 months ago
Yes it is. I’m sorry your too narrow-minded to understand that.
- Communist ( @communist@beehaw.org ) English4•10 months ago
It simply is not, it has never happened, anyone who is benevolent would give up power.
Ultimate power corrupts, ultimately.
- Em Adespoton ( @adespoton@lemmy.ca ) English11•10 months ago
Well, authoritarianism isn’t the enemy of the authorities. It usually works out quite well for them, at least for a while. It’s definitely detrimental to society as a whole though, where communism is generally neutral (though more easily abused than capitalism).
- RedMarsRepublic ( @RedMarsRepublic@lemmy.world ) English9•10 months ago
We already live in a nightmare capitalist autocracy and people still fearmonger about the USSR.
- Em Adespoton ( @adespoton@lemmy.ca ) English7•10 months ago
That’s because it’s demonstrably worse than capitalist autocracy. Communism itself isn’t a problem, but it has yet to function properly at a state level; China came the closest, but that was still based on stratification and a ruling elite. And now it has the worst of capitalism as well.
- nephs ( @nephs@lemmy.world ) English6•10 months ago
Didn’t expect to see this in beehaw. I’m really confused with lemmy’s ongoing drama. D:
- nicholas ( @nicholas@beehaw.org ) English6•10 months ago
Communism is on the same level as Nazism. Evil and rotten to the core.
- Rick ( @Rick@lemmy.world ) English4•10 months ago
I swear the instances better actually start moderating or are all the lemmy mods fucking communists…