that depends if you draw distinction between the people and the state (which is merely an abstraction of capital)
state capitalism, as defined by lenin, is not a classless society, and is indefensible as a liberatory philosophy.
just as liberalism abolished the monarchy only to replace it with a dictatorship of private capital, authoritarian socialism replaced monarchy with a beaurocratic ruling class and unilateral control of the means of production.
how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.
no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that
edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for
There’s a lot of abstractions in that link but I think the following action is a meaningful distinction to call out:
The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[7][8] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung.
Removed by mod
what is “authoritarianism” to you?
heirarchy in any form
Removed by mod
"he’s not hurting the right people, " painted red
Removed by mod
I’m an anarchist, but nice try.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
well that’s just childish isn’t it
do you consider that a rebuttal?
yes because it’s not anything intelligent enough to be thoughtfully argued against. a 7 year old could see the holes in such an idea
I oppose one more system of authority than you do, in the interest of ideological consistency, intellectual honesty.
are you taking the position of a literal child?
is revolution not putting the authority of the people over those in power, and bringing those people low? that’s “hierarchy”
that depends if you draw distinction between the people and the state (which is merely an abstraction of capital)
state capitalism, as defined by lenin, is not a classless society, and is indefensible as a liberatory philosophy.
just as liberalism abolished the monarchy only to replace it with a dictatorship of private capital, authoritarian socialism replaced monarchy with a beaurocratic ruling class and unilateral control of the means of production.
the neck cares not the color of the boot
how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.
no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that
edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for
Removed by mod
You should read about anarchy before you speak on it lol
There are all kinds of organizational styles that are non heirarchical.
Look into horizontal organization
Also look up the zapatistas, while they do not call themselves anarchist. They use a non heirarchical form of government.
There’s a lot of abstractions in that link but I think the following action is a meaningful distinction to call out:
No way they support pol pot. I refuse to believe that