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.
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.
Sure, that’s a point I agree with, but that wasn’t how you made that point, which is what I disagreed with.