I’m pretty sure I’ve heard/seen it but never took the time to figure out what it meant.
Yeah that explanation makes sense.
Authoritarian communism, is , from my perspective, not genuine communism.
Isn’t a core principle of communism (as the term itself implies) a communal society. Which would be where each citizen has more control over legislation and government actions. ?
No single leader would be needed. And would always cause a failure of the system.
A rotation of elected counselors would be optimal.
Authoritarianism only leads to fascism. Doesn’t matter what the intention is behind implementation. It will inevitably lead to fascism.
Many Democratic presidents who gave themselves more power, paved the way for the position we are in right now.
Authoritarian communism, is , from my perspective, not genuine communism.
Isn’t a core principle of communism (as the term itself implies) a communal society.
“Communism” is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. But while communists see this as an end goal, many don’t believe it’s possible to go directly to that. Colloquially, the term “communism” is sometimes used to describe a society in which communists hold power, even if it has not reached that ideal, i.e. “Communist China,” although the more acurate term for that is “Actually Existing Socialism” or AES.
Frederick Engles argues for the necessity of authority in “On Authority:”
All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
If we’re at the point of saying that Marx and Engles weren’t “genuine” communists, maybe it would be better to just chose another word for what you’re describing, because most self-described communists around the world are Marxist-Leninists, or “tankies.”
No single leader would be needed. And would always cause a failure of the system.
A rotation of elected counselors would be optimal.
Both the US and China (as examples) already have “a rotation of elected counselors,” do they not? Both have a congress of elected representatives which represent the highest legal authority. Or do the president/general secretary count as “a single leader?”
Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
This is, of course, the distant ideal and not what Marx and Engles advocated for doing immediately. This is why it’s important to understand the distinction between the ideal of communism and what communists advocate for in the present material conditions.
And because of Citizens United, and Israel, “elected officials by the people” might be a subjective interpretation of our current politicians.
And this is precisely why some form of authority has to exist in order to stop the bourgeoisie and reactionaries from influencing the political system. Even if you got rid of Citizens United and made bribery illegal again, the rich would still exert influence on politics through the press and through their control of the means of production. Citizens United is a symptom of that problem, not the cause. There’s a broader reason why Citizens United became a thing in the first place.
“Authoritarian communists” believe a state is needed to build communism, and as aspects of people’s lives are made better with a socialist state, the influence and impact of the state will wither away as the systems of community direction become more robust and helpful.
Anarchists believe the state is a fundamentally broken tool, and that it will only seek to maintain power, rather than wither away.
Both believe in the end goal of a stateless, classless, and moneyless society.
Removed by mod
What’s a tankie. ?
Anyone who said Harris should run on popular policies in a popularity contest.
The people the McCarthyists here are obsessed about and can’t keep crying about.
Anyone to the left of Biden or the dnc
Edit, see lots hate that being pointed out
Account age 11mo?
(Tbf .world has a bunch of those instances de-fed’ed.)
Urban dictionary says it means authoritarian communist.
Removed by mod
The liberals and Israel supremacist on lemmy.world are getting really annoying though. I can see the appeal of tankies
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard/seen it but never took the time to figure out what it meant.
Yeah that explanation makes sense.
Authoritarian communism, is , from my perspective, not genuine communism.
Isn’t a core principle of communism (as the term itself implies) a communal society. Which would be where each citizen has more control over legislation and government actions. ?
No single leader would be needed. And would always cause a failure of the system.
A rotation of elected counselors would be optimal.
Authoritarianism only leads to fascism. Doesn’t matter what the intention is behind implementation. It will inevitably lead to fascism.
Many Democratic presidents who gave themselves more power, paved the way for the position we are in right now.
“Communism” is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. But while communists see this as an end goal, many don’t believe it’s possible to go directly to that. Colloquially, the term “communism” is sometimes used to describe a society in which communists hold power, even if it has not reached that ideal, i.e. “Communist China,” although the more acurate term for that is “Actually Existing Socialism” or AES.
Frederick Engles argues for the necessity of authority in “On Authority:”
If we’re at the point of saying that Marx and Engles weren’t “genuine” communists, maybe it would be better to just chose another word for what you’re describing, because most self-described communists around the world are Marxist-Leninists, or “tankies.”
Both the US and China (as examples) already have “a rotation of elected counselors,” do they not? Both have a congress of elected representatives which represent the highest legal authority. Or do the president/general secretary count as “a single leader?”
I don’t know about China but the U.S does not have term limits for Congress. So. No. It does not have a rotation.
And because of Citizens United, and Israel, “elected officials by the people” might be a subjective interpretation of our current politicians.
Term limits = limit corruption. That’s something that’s a big problem with our justices as well.
Also , most leftist, who support communism, consider communism to still involve money being exchanged.
I don’t think Marx advocated for no money to exist or be exchanged.
We can’t do trade and barter for everything.
It sounds like your interpretation of communism is a hippie commune or co-ops. Not really the same thing.
Hippie communes can only work at a small scale. Same for co-ops.
Again, Engles:
This is, of course, the distant ideal and not what Marx and Engles advocated for doing immediately. This is why it’s important to understand the distinction between the ideal of communism and what communists advocate for in the present material conditions.
And this is precisely why some form of authority has to exist in order to stop the bourgeoisie and reactionaries from influencing the political system. Even if you got rid of Citizens United and made bribery illegal again, the rich would still exert influence on politics through the press and through their control of the means of production. Citizens United is a symptom of that problem, not the cause. There’s a broader reason why Citizens United became a thing in the first place.
Removed by mod
Aren’t you describing anarchy ?
My understanding is communism still supports laws and regulations.
“Authoritarian communists” believe a state is needed to build communism, and as aspects of people’s lives are made better with a socialist state, the influence and impact of the state will wither away as the systems of community direction become more robust and helpful.
Anarchists believe the state is a fundamentally broken tool, and that it will only seek to maintain power, rather than wither away.
Both believe in the end goal of a stateless, classless, and moneyless society.
A bullshit term that liberals like to use whenever they hear something they don’t agree with.
Save yourself while you still can
No wait for someone who you just watched murder a bunch of people to save you