This is the first time I’ve seen this mentioned on lemmy, and it’s always been my fundamental concern with communism. We’ve never made it to the end state of communism - to date, it has always stopped at the authoritarian stage, which is supposed to be temporary and transitional.
Arguments can be made that this is a product of foreign interference, and there’s definitely merit to that, but it’s not the whole picture. No matter what political system you have, highly concentrated power is not easy to dismantle and socialize. It doesn’t magically get easier just because you ousted the old guard and put new people in that position. So long as there is benefit to being the leader, you’re generally looking at people who want those benefits, not the responsibility of carrying the project forward.
Technology could address some of the difficulties involved in direct democracy (which, imo, is THE fundamental thing required in communism - hell, democratic capitalist countries would benefit too), but there are many ways to manipulate a populace so that it almost wouldn’t matter.
I’m not going to pretend I have any answers here, or that communism as a political system is inherently bad, but the draw of power is a fundamental source of corruption no matter what your stated intent is.
Communism is simply an economic framework, not a political one. I dont agree with the notion that authoritarianism is a prerequisite for communist society.
At the very least the existence of anarcho communism points towards that.
Fair - I did wonder about inappropriately conflating things around this point - but a transitional ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is definitely a stage of development in communism. For what it’s worth, what I’m reading on the subject right now is this (only started reading after commenting, prior comments based on previous knowledge/discussions of communism): https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm
Admittedly, perhaps not all flavours of communism, but it’s hard to argue with this showing up in history. The question becomes: is it really a dictatorship of the proletariat? Or a separate political class using that language and ideology to justify their position?
I will be the first to admit I’m not up-to-date with my communist theory, nor aware of the dominant strains of it in contemporary good faith discourse. So I’m happy to be presented with rebuttals or different positions on this - the more you know and all that.
Just for an example, Im a libertarian communist. I believe in a Democratic communism where a direct democracy makes larger political decisions.
Somewhere between anarcho communist and socialist. My view on governments, communist or otherwise, is that they should be only big enough to help the people. It should serve effectively no other purpose but to run social programs and to stop greedy people.
The dictatorship of the proletariat originally, in Marx’s work, did not mean a literal dictatorship, but a democratic government run for the workers with the effective exclusion of other potential power centers. He refers to capitalist democracy in turn as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, for reference.
Marxist-Leninists are the big offenders here, because two of the major ‘innovations’ to Marxism introduced by Marxist-Leninists (at least, two which are relevant here) are that of the revolutionary vanguard (that you need to give power to a small number of people who are really well-read on theory, and THAT’S what will save the revolution), and the idea that you can ‘skip’ over capitalist democracy and go straight to socialism if you just try really hard and shoot a lot of people who think wrong.
Marx was long-dead by the time Marxism-Leninism came about.
This is the first time I’ve seen this mentioned on lemmy, and it’s always been my fundamental concern with communism. We’ve never made it to the end state of communism - to date, it has always stopped at the authoritarian stage, which is supposed to be temporary and transitional.
Arguments can be made that this is a product of foreign interference, and there’s definitely merit to that, but it’s not the whole picture. No matter what political system you have, highly concentrated power is not easy to dismantle and socialize. It doesn’t magically get easier just because you ousted the old guard and put new people in that position. So long as there is benefit to being the leader, you’re generally looking at people who want those benefits, not the responsibility of carrying the project forward.
Technology could address some of the difficulties involved in direct democracy (which, imo, is THE fundamental thing required in communism - hell, democratic capitalist countries would benefit too), but there are many ways to manipulate a populace so that it almost wouldn’t matter.
I’m not going to pretend I have any answers here, or that communism as a political system is inherently bad, but the draw of power is a fundamental source of corruption no matter what your stated intent is.
Communism is simply an economic framework, not a political one. I dont agree with the notion that authoritarianism is a prerequisite for communist society.
At the very least the existence of anarcho communism points towards that.
Communism is an entire social philosophy, not just an economic model.
Fair - I did wonder about inappropriately conflating things around this point - but a transitional ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is definitely a stage of development in communism. For what it’s worth, what I’m reading on the subject right now is this (only started reading after commenting, prior comments based on previous knowledge/discussions of communism): https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm
Admittedly, perhaps not all flavours of communism, but it’s hard to argue with this showing up in history. The question becomes: is it really a dictatorship of the proletariat? Or a separate political class using that language and ideology to justify their position?
I will be the first to admit I’m not up-to-date with my communist theory, nor aware of the dominant strains of it in contemporary good faith discourse. So I’m happy to be presented with rebuttals or different positions on this - the more you know and all that.
You seem well intended, no worries.
Just for an example, Im a libertarian communist. I believe in a Democratic communism where a direct democracy makes larger political decisions.
Somewhere between anarcho communist and socialist. My view on governments, communist or otherwise, is that they should be only big enough to help the people. It should serve effectively no other purpose but to run social programs and to stop greedy people.
The dictatorship of the proletariat originally, in Marx’s work, did not mean a literal dictatorship, but a democratic government run for the workers with the effective exclusion of other potential power centers. He refers to capitalist democracy in turn as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, for reference.
Marxist-Leninists are the big offenders here, because two of the major ‘innovations’ to Marxism introduced by Marxist-Leninists (at least, two which are relevant here) are that of the revolutionary vanguard (that you need to give power to a small number of people who are really well-read on theory, and THAT’S what will save the revolution), and the idea that you can ‘skip’ over capitalist democracy and go straight to socialism if you just try really hard and shoot a lot of people who think wrong.
Marx was long-dead by the time Marxism-Leninism came about.
I fully agree, it’s refreshing to find someone open minded that can have an actual discussion over politics without going all agressive and insane