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.
I’m not sure how you would test it, outside of looking at states through history, in different contexts. Germany is a good example. Germany in the early 20th century, after World War I, was in serious debt and had rising contradictions that led to increased worker organization. The bourgeoisie was terrified of a Communist uprising, so they employed the Nazis to purge them. After the fall of the Nazis, the system didn’t radically change, but the need for the Nazis as a sort of alter-ego to stamp out Communism was done. They remained Capitalist throughout the entire time, but each change in policy was driven by changing conditions.
Marxists posit that the Mode of Production is the base, which creates the superstructure, which is the laws, ideology, and culture, which shapes the base. This cyclical relationship shows that biggest shaper of policy is the needs of the ruling class, and the conditions they are dealing with. I am not “inventing” this stance, of course, its been here for a long while.
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.
Sure, but I think you’re both missing why I brought up the political compass, to make a distinction between libertarian leftism, and authoritarian leftism.
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.
What do you mean by “authoritarian” vs “libertarian,” then? In which respect, and for which class of society? Capitalism is authoritarian for the working class, and Socialism is authoritarian for the bourgeoisie, but Capitalism is libertarian for the bourgeoisie and Socialism is libertarian for the working class. That’s my point, really, terms like “authoritarian” vs “libertarian” don’t really describe anything at a useful level.
For example, when comparing Anarchists with Marxists, Anarchists take the stance that horizontalism is necessary, while Marxists see centralization as a necessity. However, this centralization in Marxist Socialism means each worker has more of a say across society, while workers in Anarchist society have more say over a smaller area. That also is ignoring that Marxists typically break things up into local, regional, national, and international levels. These aren’t “libertarian” vs “authoritarian” decisions, but decisions about how power should be structured, not where along a scale they reside.
The Political Compass, really, is just political astrology. People like to be sorted based on quizzes, that’s it. There’s no real political theory behind it. Whenever I take the test, I land solidly lib and max left, but I’m a Marxist-Leninist and support AES. It will then say those same systems I support are max authleft or somewhere up there. It’s all a vibe check made by liberals.
Would you call communist states (an oxymoron, I know) instruments of class opression?
All governments are authoritiarian, but to what extent?
I more-meant the difference between the libertarian and authoritarian right/left, its a useful distinction to have.
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.
This sounds like that rare thing in political science: a falsifiable assertion. Do you happen to know if anyone has tested it?
I’m not sure how you would test it, outside of looking at states through history, in different contexts. Germany is a good example. Germany in the early 20th century, after World War I, was in serious debt and had rising contradictions that led to increased worker organization. The bourgeoisie was terrified of a Communist uprising, so they employed the Nazis to purge them. After the fall of the Nazis, the system didn’t radically change, but the need for the Nazis as a sort of alter-ego to stamp out Communism was done. They remained Capitalist throughout the entire time, but each change in policy was driven by changing conditions.
Marxists posit that the Mode of Production is the base, which creates the superstructure, which is the laws, ideology, and culture, which shapes the base. This cyclical relationship shows that biggest shaper of policy is the needs of the ruling class, and the conditions they are dealing with. I am not “inventing” this stance, of course, its been here for a long while.
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?
a relevant passage from This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong
100%, excellent explanation!
In a neoliberal sense, kinda, but those are really just shifting who is oppressing people to capitalists.
I think that still qualifies as a bourgious dictatorship
Sure, but I think you’re both missing why I brought up the political compass, to make a distinction between libertarian leftism, and authoritarian leftism.
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 should have used the word society instead of state.
What do you mean by “authoritarian” vs “libertarian,” then? In which respect, and for which class of society? Capitalism is authoritarian for the working class, and Socialism is authoritarian for the bourgeoisie, but Capitalism is libertarian for the bourgeoisie and Socialism is libertarian for the working class. That’s my point, really, terms like “authoritarian” vs “libertarian” don’t really describe anything at a useful level.
For example, when comparing Anarchists with Marxists, Anarchists take the stance that horizontalism is necessary, while Marxists see centralization as a necessity. However, this centralization in Marxist Socialism means each worker has more of a say across society, while workers in Anarchist society have more say over a smaller area. That also is ignoring that Marxists typically break things up into local, regional, national, and international levels. These aren’t “libertarian” vs “authoritarian” decisions, but decisions about how power should be structured, not where along a scale they reside.
The Political Compass, really, is just political astrology. People like to be sorted based on quizzes, that’s it. There’s no real political theory behind it. Whenever I take the test, I land solidly lib and max left, but I’m a Marxist-Leninist and support AES. It will then say those same systems I support are max authleft or somewhere up there. It’s all a vibe check made by liberals.
My original point was that leftism isn’t linear, and that marxism-leninism and anarchism are quite different.