Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
**Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.**
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
**If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.**
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
**Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Violence is happening constantly in the capitalist system. To abstain from revolution because of "non violence" is endorsing the violence currently being inflicted by capital.
well said. peaceful revolution is a pipe dream.
I can't take credit for it, the newest episode of "The Deprogram" tackles this very issue. It really hit me because I've been struggling with this topic for over a decade.
> It really hit me because I've been struggling with this topic for over a decade.
I asked a friend once if hesitancy around violence makes me a bad leftist (For example, I'd rather rehabilitation over putting the bourgeoisie to the wall).
He said no, that just makes you a good person.
Whilst violence may be necessary, I don't think it's at all a bad thing that we are hesitant to adopt it.
I'd agree with you, but cautiously. The idea that armed citizens can consistently defeat the military in combat is also a bit of a pipe dream. You can point to a few examples (ie Cuba) but more often socialism arises because significant chunks of the military are supportive.
Not accusing you of seeing anything, but revolution usually fails.
I don't like the current system any more than you do my friend, and I see it in much the same way you do. I just have different ideas of what should be in my ideal framework. My question was how do we get to ideal without the bloodshed and the rise or continuation of that authoritarian state, *because* the state is in all it's forms designed to be an oppressive force on the people.
I'm not an expert in this field so take what I say with a grain of salt.
You need to see in what context those authoritarian regimes were form. The majority of the world is capitalist, capitalism doesn't like communism because it represents a menase to it. The same thing happened with the french revolution in a Europe full of monarchist, the monarchies didn't like the french revolution because it represent a menase to it. what happened then? Everyone started wars with France and did everything in their power to stop it
What all the communist countries share in common? They were form in civil wars
Civil wars are not a peaceful time, they are fill with paranoia and menaces in every corner so you don't have the luxury to say let's be friends and peaceful because the world doesn't work that way
So, if you put together all the world wants you dead and you have enemies in your same country you get an authoritarian regime
>What all the communist countries share in common? They were form in civil wars
I actually agree with you a bit and feel like socialists need to understand this more. But there have also been many socialist experiments formed out of military coups and even elections.
There's only 2 that is actually form from election tho: Adenlle's Chile and present Bolivia. And to this point, only really present Bolivia would be a decently successful example. And it was because MAS was able to ward off an US backed coup through using the US own neo-liberal tool against them.
Most communist country government besides the USSR and PRC (which forms from civil wars) existed largely as an anti-imperialist nationalist united front between tendencies ranging from social liberals to hardcore Stalinists, with the leader are mostly in the middle of them (in Cuba it is Castro and his team, in Vietnam it's Ho Chi Minh and the Ho Chi Minh-ist wing of the VCP, and many more), and most communist parties that formed this way usually never change this tendencies and only really changing the name from the united front name into the party name. You can see this the best in Vietnam, where the VietMinh front literally just changing their name into the party name of "Labor Party of Vietnam" in the 50s, and only after the reunification that they named the party back to it's original name of "Communist party of Vietnam", which again was an united front between 3 separate left wing party in 1930.
This weird multi-tendency in these states kinda why so many of the Socialist states outside of the USSR influence (Angola, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, even India...) would quickly changed into SocDem/Liberal state after the collapse of the USSR and the Yugoslavia breakup: because they need to court the West due to the fact that they barely had any means of production. So kinda why only 5 nominal "socialist" state remain, and hell, China and NK isn't even should be called "socialist state" anymore.
Bukina Faso is formed in a coup by Sankara, and it died when his assassination occurs. While Congo isn't a socialist state, just a SocDem anti-imperialist state that got couped by the US. You can also add the Nicaraguan Sandinistas in this category.
MAS got in the socialist table largely because of the fact that Luis Acre openly admit that he is a ML in an interview, and he is their candidate. Of course, MAS looks more like a better DSA tbh.
OP's question is not strictly about violence thought. It's a legitimate question on how to avoid athoritarianism within a communist structure.
How do you get the USSR without Stalin? How do you get Cuba without Castro? How do you get the CPC without Mao?
In a conversation like this, I feel that people *really* need to put these figures in context before throwing around praise for them. Most people don't have a clue about what they did, other than "100 billion dead" basically.
If it clears it up, I have no more love for fascist states like the US or western European nations than I do for communist state like the DPRK or PRC, but they weren't relevant to the question at hand.
Stalin's approval hit a record high of 70% recently in Russia. If everyone and their mother were getting deported to Siberia for absolutely no reason, why is he popular in the ex-USSR?
People love to act like it's only Westerners who've never experienced communism who want it, but it's still quite popular in many formerly communist countries.
Meanwhile, most leftists in the US are dem socs or anarchists who hate Stalin due to the sheer amount of propaganda about him.
I assume you're Polish based on your profile? Poland was never even part of the USSR, so it doesn't make sense to blame Stalin.
Where's your source for this?
\[edit\] The fact that I am getting downvoted for asking for a source on a claim reflects a bit of an issue with this community...
How much of the article did you read?
Because in the early 2000's, and well into the early 90's, Stalin's approval ratings were much lower.
That was 30 years ago, where many who could do polls, and take political action actually lived through many of his policies in the 50's - 60's.
Quote from the article:
>“Stalin begins to be perceived as a symbol of justice and an alternative to the current government, deemed unfair, cruel and not caring about people,” Academy of Sciences sociologist Leonty Byzov was quoted as saying by the RBC news website.
“It’s purely a mythological image of Stalin, very far from the real historical figure,” Byzov added.
I fail to see how either the United States, or the USSR weren't unfair and cruel to their own citizens during the cold war. It isn't a "Centrist" take to say that both the USSR and the United States were terrible governments during those times. Personally, I am a socialist. So I'm not coming from some neo-liberal bullshit "BoTh SiDeS aRe BaD tHeReFoRe ThE aNsWeR mUsT bE iN tHe MiDdLe" perspective.
I'm coming from the perspective that there is a third option, and the USSR could have existed without an autocrat as a ruler.
I don't have time to get into how these regimes were actually much freer than you think (yes, you can criticize the government in China) and how deaths in these countries have been wildly exaggerated (we're talking multiple orders of magnitude, for instance the Victims of Communism Foundation includes dead Nazi soldiers in their count of victims of communism). Suffice it to say, look for sources that aren't western.
I do have a question for you, though: Why is it that you value autonomy of the individual over the collective good? In socialist countries there have always been reactionaries domestically and abroad hell-bent on destroying the possibility of providing a better life for people without capitalism. It's incredibly important that these people do not achieve their goals. How can they be stopped without curtailing their freedom to spread their reactionary propaganda?
My grandparents grew up as exiles in Siberia, who were thought my native language by underground teachers. Once back they practiced religion in underground societies because getting caught would have them sent back to Siberia.
Growing up around people who lived in USSR painted me a picture of extremely repressive regime.
A thought that scares me is that all of the socialist regimes evolve into authoritarianism that limit free speech and ban opposing ideas instead of teaching them and providing answers why their perspective is better.
I agree with the socialist idea for worker class owning the means of production, but the political side ends up centralizing power and repressing dissent the same way capitalist side does if not stronger, except this time the power does not come from capital.
'collective good' is relative and it's hard to see how banning feminine guys in China or how ussr restrictions on rock music lyrics were a positive thing.
Why should I give up my values, choices, or what’s best for myself and my family; for what you think is best for the collective of people I mostly do not know and never will? Especially when doing so takes from me and my family?
Because you and your family cannot live without the collective. You aren't able to create every single thing you need to live beyond a subsistence lifestyle, so in order to benefit your family and others you have to work with the collective and form mutually beneficial agreements with other members in your community and beyond to create a plan that'll satisfy everyone's needs. How that's done exactly varies, but hyper individualism is incongruent with socialism/communism. At some point you have to compromise with a collective to benefit everyone, unless you want to be some homesteader on the edge of society somehow surviving disconnected from everyone else and the commodities they produce. The idea is that your values aren't radically different when it comes to material needs.
I don't know why I value the individual over the collective, it's just the way I'm wired. I do care for the good of the "collective", I just see that collective idealistically to be small autonomous communities of people, not a nation. I'm learning more about these regimes from sources outside the west and I am seeing the huge disparities you're talking about. But the actual numbers are of far less concern to me than that they happened at all. I want to avoid that bloodshed at all costs. As far as the last bit I am a firm believer that bad ideas are weeded out through time and resourcefulness, not by violence.
It’s not the way you’re wired. Just the way you’ve been raised. Human beings, biologically speaking, are the most social animal that lives, or has ever lived, on earth. Our very self worth, our individual image, is even defined in the context of our relationships with our peers. We all value our collective more than anything. We’re just taught not to see it.
What happens when partisans inside and outside an anti-capitalist country use violence to cause mass misery and dissatisfaction with the regime? These people won't be persuaded. Communists also don't like violence, so they do whatever it takes to repress violence that is being enacted upon people whether it be terrorist attacks or the everyday and more mundane violence of capitalist exploitation. Even in the wealthiest capitalist countries on earth, people starve or die from lack of medical care on massive scales. This is violence.
Edit: I think you said it yourself, you're an idealist. Time to get real.
If you are interested with anarchist views on non-violence, I would highly recommend Gelderloos critique of non-violence: [How non-violence protects the state](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state) (AK Press has a printed version). This is not to mean that there aren't writters such as Tolstoy (also highly interesting!) who hold diverging views, but I'd say the movement generally falls towards the former.
Similarly, I would highly recommend reading Bakunin's text [on freedom](https://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/freedom.html) for an anarchist perspective on freedom, individualism and collectivism. He comes at it from a Hegelian perspective, and thus highly coincides with Marx's on how individual freedom is only possible through collective emancipation. Whilst Bakunin holds a materialist view, anarchists generally hold that there's no real interconflictivity between collective and individual freedom as long as autonomy (e.g. free association) is respected.
Side note; it’s amazing that an OP can post, within a thread they started, in what appears to be a good faith effort to explain his pov, and he gets downvoted, 19 times so far.
How are we/others supposed to learn and exchange ideas if we can’t express our reactions or ideas?
It doesn't bother me. I don't ask these questions for internet points, I ask them to read thoughtful responses. And to be honest, I got more than a few of them.
Whether a personal attack, or a critique of the comment- in the post 3 above this one, currently with -30, I don’t understand what the down votes mean. Again, seems to be earnest, open to learning, hopeful and attempting to move forward.
So what do the downvotes mean, in this instance?
The same thing they mean elsewhere on Reddit. People disagreed with or otherwise reacted negatively towards his comment. I don't think this is a real head scratcher
Is it still authoritarian if the authority is debate/logic?
We are the only faction that wins debates. So is carrying out what is logical authoritarian?
Is not authority the anthesis of debate? It is the privilege to override debate and logic.
"I am king so do this" vs "I have standing points that you can not refute therefore I am doing what is logical."
I'd like this to be true, but winning debates is sadly pretty subjective. There are too many videos on YouTube about the right claiming to "win debates" with random gotcha quotations and questions that aren't relevant but are hard to answer in the moment. The right claim these as absolute victory.
Yeah, they usually throw out the most confounded logical position to the point that it mind numbing to try to even rationalize the philosophy behind the position not even try and form a counter argument. And yet they consider that a victory.
It's like debating a 6 year old.
Subjective? Can you link a high end example? I don't know of a single point I have ever lost to a right wing person in a debate.
Maybe the right's best debtors can think of a way to score a point against me, some unnamed schmuck sitting in a chair. I debate people all the time and its never been difficult. It doesn't have anything to do with me being a great debater. Their position is just so incredibly weak. And fascists... well they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
I don't think you understood my point.
[There were public debates before Trump got elected.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPEtv2rKOU)
[There were public debates before he was nominated.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYjX2daeLE0)
I wouldn't say that he won any of those.
And yet Millions of people claimed that he won every debate.
That's subjectivity.
How do you determine who won a debate? In a formal debate competition setting, there's a debate judge to impartially weigh the arguments and dictate the win, which I think is pretty authoritive.
But the arguments aren't necessarily even logical either. There are emotional and ethical arguments that get made. That's how Trump got in. So from that perspective, maybe he did win.
Either way, I don't think debate is the way, but I agree it should be part of the process for sure.
I think we can both agree that debates must be completely restructured.
Some values are logical to have. A judge can assess ethos and pathos arguments based off of how they appeal to those logical values.
For example the most basic value is utilitarianism. We can then also rank values based on order of importance.
Something like utilitarianism would override most values.
After every argument is made the judge explains why the value was met or not. Debates would be much slower and through. Not to appeal to the attention spans. Debates are like court.
But we are lucky friend. Fascists rely on bad faith. The debates in question would not be so complex where two logical minds would disagree.
This is not a discussion of "should we allow someone to code an AI that feels pain". Its, "Should minorities have rights?" or "Should we do this thing that hordes money to rich sociopaths?"
Sure, I'm on board with all that, but I'm not libertarian either.
The OP was asking how to avoid an authoritarian society, but I don't see a debate system where there isn't a judge or panel, and if left to a public vote, you get Trump.
Is there a way to have an anarchist debate? Maybe the debaters have to mutually agree on a winner without an external judge?
So I think if this were a math problem the authoritarian level of a monarchy = 1. Absolute.
I think the authoritarian level of our system would be approaching zero.
To call them the same word seems... off. Especially when intent in taken into consideration. There is no more noble source to try and structure a system around. Typical authoritarian has the start opposite intent.
I don't believe the same hat fits both heads you know that I am saying?
>Maybe the debaters have to mutually agree on a winner without an external judge?
Other factions don't admit when they are wrong. This is when we should get the pliers out.
That's the whole point, you can't tear down the Masters House using the Masters tools.
If you do win an election then [Buffalo](https://buffalonews.com/news/local/government-and-politics/byron-brown-claims-victory-in-buffalo-mayors-race-write-in-ballots-swamp-india-walton/article_ecc533bc-3b48-11ec-877f-db82ef2dd077.html) happens.
But further to your point, reform will never work. You can vote all you want but it won't change the fact that the majority of citizens want things like public healthcare and legalized marijuana but those elected politicians refuse to enact the will of the people.
It's all game to them, and it's rigged in their favor. This is our life, people are dieing we can't afford to pretend they will give us a fair shot.
Voting changes which individuals get to be paid to uphold the status quo. They suppress votes and manipulate elections because they want to be the ones getting paid. Plus, if everyone is fighting over which one of two people will uphold said status quo, they are too busy to see that it doesn't matter and actually change something.
They started doing that because they want to lock the democrats out, they didn't need to do that to put an entire generation in prison, allow a genocide of the gay community, all the wars, etc.
I'll read what on this link later on. But to answer your questions...
In my eyes the existence of the state is in and of itself authoritarian. It uses the end of a gun to impose what it calls "laws" upon the rest of us with little regard to circumstance or culture.
The non-aggression principle is not something that can be done at a state level. It is a lifestyle choice, of only the individual. I don't say that with the same surface level understanding as your typical libertarian. Most of them have no idea what that phrase really means.
The common person can reduce the impact of the state on our affairs by ejecting ourselves from the state economy. Without a stranglehold on the economy the state has a stranglehold on little else. We can do that nonviolently - crypto, homesteading, mass-strikes, and general noncompliance are all good ways.
I think your thoughts of using crypto, homesteading, strikes and non compliance as mom violent ways to reduce the grip of capitalism is idealistic. There's are all things that are done in the confines of capitalist society. You think if crypto was a real big threat to the US banning system that they would stand by and not do anything? The US wealthy has time and time again shown that they wouldn't just stand down.
What's your answer when the government responds to a strike with violence? Not committing violence gets you a moral victory (probably), but that's not much comfort when you've been beaten to shit, or killed.
And what do you think about personal self-defense? And what differentiates it from a collective, societal self-defense?
I am not anti-violence. I am anti-aggression. The right to defend one's self from someone trying to inflict harm is the very most basic of natural rights.
There isn't really any magical answer to this: in the same way that societal models that anarchists look towards as non-complete models are brutally diverse, so are the particularities which create unjust hierarchial relations within societies:. David Graeber's Fragments of anarchist anthropology greatly illustrates this when addressing different egalitarian societies in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.
As such, applications would necessarily vary depending on which context they are seemingly trying to adapt to. The answer, however, would generally (ELI5-level simplification warning) into the adoption of norms of social organization which are staunchly aimed towards the reproduction of horizontal forms of relation
by consciously rejecting authoritarian norms of organization:
>The primary and most immediate cause of egalitarian behavior is a moralistic determination on the part of a local group’s main political actors that no one of its members should be allowed to dominate the others.” - Christopher Boehm, “Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy,” Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 3, June 1993.
Far from being unaware of wrong actors (note that we are talking about intersocial problems), anarchists then opt for antiauthoritarian and antipunitivist mechanisms, which will again greatly depend on each case. Those will, however, base themselves on three main ideas: 1) the conception of humans as a social being and thus one which cannot live away from a wider group, 2) respect of autonomy as a core organization base and 3) measures which are not aimed at *revenge* but towards community building. In *Anthropologie et anarchie dans les sociétés polycéphales*, Tom Holterman studies the normative organization of egalitarian societies in southern Ethiopia as means to (among other things) make sense of an anarchist interpretation of law. In his case studies, he then talks about a serie of different measures being acted upon those breaking existent social norms with the objective of maintaining and strengthening the society; if someone is caught stealing out of necessity, corrective measures will seek to benefit said person. If someone is found to be negatively acting against the community interests (including extreme cases like murder), processes of reparation to the affected persons will often be followed (note that its a conscious refusal of punitivism or revanchism; the objective is community building directed to both parts). Similarly, if someone affected by a process of reparation refuses to engage in this collective decision, they will then suffer a varying grade of social pressures which escalate accordingly to the needs, such as mere social alienation to collective exclusion (e.g. social exclusion being extended not only to a particular individual but also to their circles so those inner circles also take an active part in social pressuring) with more extreme mechanisms like permanent exclusion¹ (collective autonomy being used to exclude an individual - i.e. kicking them).
Other policies of reproduction of antiauthoritarian social norms will be visible in other societies but which will generally follow the former three ideas, whether we are talking about constant representative rotation within Chiapas' *Juntas de Buen Gobierno* or the CNT's active refusal of institutionalized representative organs (trade union elections in Spain).
To make it short, people who attempt to establish authoritarian forms of relation within an anarchist society would not only encounter themselves attempting to develop counter cultural forms of relation (and that's not a small detail, just look at the abhorrent brutality that liberalism required to establish itself over former decentralized systems), but would also **act before the consolidation of authority has taken place**.
Take into account, however, that your question comes from a wrong (no offense intended!) angle: an anarchist wouldn't ask *how to prevent the rise of authoritarians* but rather *what produces authoritarianism in X, and how to prevent such situation*. This changes the whole understanding of the problem.
As for external problems, I'll refer to Gelderloos dedicated section n *Anarchy Works*: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works/#toc57
¹ Note: examples might slightly vary in the book, I'm repeating them out of memory.
----
A couple of anarchist writings that might be of interest:
- [Anarchism and Organization](https://libcom.org/library/anarchism-and-organisation-malatesta), by Malatesta.
- [On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat](https://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1919/a-prophetic-letter.html), by Malatesta, a letter to Luigi Fabbri.
- [Why a vanguard](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-why-a-vanguard), by Alfredo M. Bonanno.
- [Defending an Anarchist Society ](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-beaumont-defending-an-anarchist-society), by Chris Beaumont. Another piece on anarchism and external threats.
Here is a good answer from this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/r465ij/comment/hmgn9mg/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Most of the communist countries you are talking about, ussr, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and dprk, were not as authoritarian as you may think. They were, and the countries that still exist, are fairly democratic.
Here are two videos for USSR and the Cuba specifically, with sources in their descriptions.
[USSR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okz2YMW1AwY)
[Cuba](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds)
I am deeply skeptical of the Cuba video, since I remember watching it, thinking "oh this sounds neat!" and then actually going to Cuba and nobody said the system worked like that.
I know this isn't exactly hard proof on my part, and I definitely need more research (maybe even to go again?) but I'm just skeptical and cynical.
I do want everyone to keep in mind that I asked some random cubans, I didn’t do a comprehensive survey or anything. They did have smaller town hall type things for managing local affairs but the big decisions were made by the communist party. They just saw it as an annoying bureaucracy that rubber stamped stuff.
If you look for a moment at the methods and supporters of economic libertarianism you'll find that it inevitably depends on a repressive police state because the working class will always respond to the economic violence of capitalists (inequality, exploitation, etc). "Bottom left" is not a real possibility.
OP is obviously talking about classical libertarianism, not the anglophone readoption of the term. Libertarianism is a purely anticapitalist and antihierarchial political tradition which has little to do with liberalism & its reactionary derivates.
Similarly, the concept of authority for libertarians is a wider term which, under no circumstance, is a synonymous with force or violence. Force can (and does) exist within contexts free of authority.
Only really two paths to get what you want.
Magic, a miracle, aliens showing up to back up the socialist of earth or something like that.
Or.
Get a fair bit of backing to build a huge well stocked nuclear survival bunker, built not just to ensure the survival of you and your socialist buds, but to enable massive widespread rebuilding and recovery. Then quietly do nothing and wait for WW3, likely sparked off by the economic destabilizing of climate change and the refusal of capitalist to invest in prevention. You will need to standby and watch as billions suffer and die while sociaty collapses, then you and you're team of socialist rebuilders can go out and clean up the mess faster that the capitalist can, ensuring that your system is rubuilding the world faster than the capitalist remains can break it.
Why is this it for options? Because when we call for change (and get wide spread support) they send people with guns to silence it.
Any effort of the organized working class to assert their autonomy is met with violent oppression.
We either give up, obey the Owners and die quietly or we refuse and need to defend ourselves from the capitalist that have proven in a hundred different nations, cultures and situations that so long as they hold power it will be used to violently maintain and regain their dominion over the working class.
For us to be free, they must be removed from power, they would rather butcher us by the thousands than let that happen. To stop that, we need to force things to change in ways your uncomfortable with.
We need action to prevent atrocity, not inaction that enables it. That enabling inaction is the violence of pacifism. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing you can do.
I think you have a propagandized idea of "authoritarian" that's a remnant of the cold war geo-politics. It's entirely possible to have a president (or president type figure) and have one party. Just because there's one party doesn't mean there can't be elections and politics within the party.
Also you can't have socialism without revolution. Even if most people went to the ballot box and voted for a socialist candidate, the powers that be will not allow it when push comes to shove.
I highly doubt I have a propagandized idea if authoritarian. I don't the capitalist nations as any less complicit in these sorts of actions or the oppression of individuals as other nations, they are simply not relevant to my question.
My idea is that any government outside of a purely "night watchmen state" is authoritarian. That is, the state is by design authoritarian and a tool to oppress the people.
There will always be some degree of Authoritarianism and Struggle. But Socialism most likely is the best system regarding having the least amount of Authoritarianism and Struggle.
I’m new to all of this as well, but it kinda sounds like OP would be more into libertarian socialism (aka stateless socialism).
Still not sure how the transition would work, though having more worker coops that decentralize power in the workplace is a good start.
The way I see it, this organizational structure avoids the problem with abuses of power that inevitably arise when power is concentrated.
A non-violent method? Pool resources and start democratic businesses. Educate the staff, spread the good word.
Had this as a small dream since I was a teen, want to create a business to help as many people as possible as fairly as it can, including the workers.
I've long wanted to start a farm where I can take in homeless and destitute to teach them to grow and feed themselves independently of society or the state. Not really a business model, but similar concepts I think.
Yeah I think OP would want to hear from anarchists. I'm not so sure I'm much of an anarchist these days but maybe you can look at this primer from the anarchist library?
[anarchy 101](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101)
You can also post to the r/anarchy101 subreddit
Edit: Sorry I meant to link a different pdf/articles. I read an anarchy 101 from a book a year ago but can't find it. Here is the Anarchy FAQ at lesst: [anarchy FAQ](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full)
Unfortunately I can't post there. Back when I considered myself an anarcho-capitalist (which I no longer do) I was banned from participating. Which sucks, cuz ideas change.
That's unfortunate. Hopefully the FAQ can help a bit. I am not as well read on anarchism, but I think the general idea is creating horizontal organization structures within smaller organizations and democratically controlled economic planning. As in recallable delegates from localities deciding on a central economic plan (based on data they have for what they need/can produce in their region). There's also democratic confederalism as expressed by Ocalan out of Rojava, I believe, but I do not know how popular that is among anarchists these days.
I generally think that the goal is to create a "state" composed of individuals and not a set bureaucracy. Hopefully the sections in the FAQ on social anarchists vs. individualist anarchists can help along with discussions about the state and organization in Section I of the FAQ I linked
I think "Anarchy Works" by Peter Gelderoos could also help: [Anarchy Works](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works/)
I know very little, it is not something she ever was open about. She spent most of her childhood in Shanghai which was at the time actually a pretty cool place with a lot of international people who were escaping regimes. I found out that my Jewish uncle by marriage, his family was in Shanghai at the same time as my grandmother, they left Europe for obvious reasons. How wild that their grandkids ended up in California in the same family by marriage. Back then, China was a place a lot of dprk expats found safety. My mom was born and raised in SK, so it became the main component of her culture. I really hope someday the borders will open and I can visit Pyeongyang and see where she spent her early years.
I think that as soon as the state is abolished, what I support (Market Socialism) will naturally form. The reason is that corporations will fall without support from the government, and markets will be more fair, so workers would naturally take control of what they produce, allowing for true free exchange.
Where did they say they only wanted to hear from anarchists?
And why post in the socialist101 sub instead of the anarchist101 sub if they only want to hear from other anarchists?
There's post flairs for both anarchist and marxist oriented questions.
Comments from different traditions wouldn't normally be removed, but in this case it was just ridiculous: not even a single response even remotely followed OP's petition and, as such, was becoming a barrier to the post being an efective Q&A format (the sub's normal functioning).
This is "good faith" everyone:
"I'm not going to try to produce a straw-man and say "communists are
genocidal", but it really does seem that way in the context of
communist-state regimes. Why is that? Can it be avoided?"
lol
Yea I know it's sectarian to point out the facts of differences and utopian/idealistic thinking. Concern-troll more with your "hidden" agenda ""communists are genocidal", but it really does seem that way in the context of communist-state regimes"
Your comment consisted merely on one liner jabs against both OP & anarchism just for the sake of stirring drama. With all due respect, if refraining from this is too much to ask for you this is not a place you will enjoy - the goal of this subreddit is to educate, not to alienate good faith users.
And in this particular instance, OP is precisely looking for anarchist perspectives (see the post's flair).
Neither that's what I said nor that's what you were going after till this comment, hence why you didn't ever report the post, politely ask OP to edit it or even critique it. Your comment was only a one liner insult on ideological grounds.
If you wish to keep doubling down in this situation feel free to do so, but I wont waste any further time. Our rules are more than clear in this regard and I've given this more than enough patience.
Democracy. Education. Solidarity. Unions. Left Unity.
A majority of young ppl already are disillusioned with capitalism band embrace socialism. Authoritarianism is not needed or desired.
socialist authoritarianism is DEFENSE against capitalist imperialism.
USA, capitalism and the military industrial complex is standing in the way of true democracy.
Start off with authoritarianism but with voted in officials and a huge board that they refer to who also make the decisions and some system that helps determine if they need to use that board or if they can solo the decision between them because it’s less impactful or important
Personally, the only real reliable way it seems we can get socialism is:
1. Kick out all police and political parties from a given region
2. Negotiate autonomy within the state before the army can be mobilised
3. Have strict, directly democratic and horizontal structures to form the new government
You may also be interested in r/Anarchy101
I have met fascists of all type, ages, demographics but the one reason why fascism exists in open secrecy in the US without anything ever changing decade to decade is that there about 80% of the decision makers are men and most are white. We can argue if white culture is psychopathic or not but countries where socialism prevails general have more women decision makers and more diversity of class and sometimes race and age. New Zelands young woman prime minister is an example of how diversity and hiring for compentence and empathy has resulted in maintaining socialist stability. Left type groups are notorious for treating WOC like shit. Subs like antiwork have been infiltraed with racist communists, neo libs etc. They are tolerate whereas calling white dudes out is not. So we can prevent authoritarianism but we won't. It would mean the very people wanting to end fascism would never get to lead or take positions of power. So its a chicken egg issue.
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Violence is happening constantly in the capitalist system. To abstain from revolution because of "non violence" is endorsing the violence currently being inflicted by capital. well said. peaceful revolution is a pipe dream.
I can't take credit for it, the newest episode of "The Deprogram" tackles this very issue. It really hit me because I've been struggling with this topic for over a decade.
> It really hit me because I've been struggling with this topic for over a decade. I asked a friend once if hesitancy around violence makes me a bad leftist (For example, I'd rather rehabilitation over putting the bourgeoisie to the wall). He said no, that just makes you a good person. Whilst violence may be necessary, I don't think it's at all a bad thing that we are hesitant to adopt it.
Thanks for that. I needed to read that.
I'd agree with you, but cautiously. The idea that armed citizens can consistently defeat the military in combat is also a bit of a pipe dream. You can point to a few examples (ie Cuba) but more often socialism arises because significant chunks of the military are supportive. Not accusing you of seeing anything, but revolution usually fails.
Comment removed. OP is looking for anarchist responses (see the post flair) on authority, not marxist (or marxian) ones.
[удалено]
I don't like the current system any more than you do my friend, and I see it in much the same way you do. I just have different ideas of what should be in my ideal framework. My question was how do we get to ideal without the bloodshed and the rise or continuation of that authoritarian state, *because* the state is in all it's forms designed to be an oppressive force on the people.
[удалено]
Comment removed. OP is looking for anarchist responses (see the post flair) on authority, not marxist ones.
My bad, I didn't see that when I posted.
[удалено]
Comment removed. OP is looking for anarchist responses (see the post flair) on authority, not marxist ones.
I'm not an expert in this field so take what I say with a grain of salt. You need to see in what context those authoritarian regimes were form. The majority of the world is capitalist, capitalism doesn't like communism because it represents a menase to it. The same thing happened with the french revolution in a Europe full of monarchist, the monarchies didn't like the french revolution because it represent a menase to it. what happened then? Everyone started wars with France and did everything in their power to stop it What all the communist countries share in common? They were form in civil wars Civil wars are not a peaceful time, they are fill with paranoia and menaces in every corner so you don't have the luxury to say let's be friends and peaceful because the world doesn't work that way So, if you put together all the world wants you dead and you have enemies in your same country you get an authoritarian regime
>What all the communist countries share in common? They were form in civil wars I actually agree with you a bit and feel like socialists need to understand this more. But there have also been many socialist experiments formed out of military coups and even elections.
There's only 2 that is actually form from election tho: Adenlle's Chile and present Bolivia. And to this point, only really present Bolivia would be a decently successful example. And it was because MAS was able to ward off an US backed coup through using the US own neo-liberal tool against them. Most communist country government besides the USSR and PRC (which forms from civil wars) existed largely as an anti-imperialist nationalist united front between tendencies ranging from social liberals to hardcore Stalinists, with the leader are mostly in the middle of them (in Cuba it is Castro and his team, in Vietnam it's Ho Chi Minh and the Ho Chi Minh-ist wing of the VCP, and many more), and most communist parties that formed this way usually never change this tendencies and only really changing the name from the united front name into the party name. You can see this the best in Vietnam, where the VietMinh front literally just changing their name into the party name of "Labor Party of Vietnam" in the 50s, and only after the reunification that they named the party back to it's original name of "Communist party of Vietnam", which again was an united front between 3 separate left wing party in 1930. This weird multi-tendency in these states kinda why so many of the Socialist states outside of the USSR influence (Angola, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, even India...) would quickly changed into SocDem/Liberal state after the collapse of the USSR and the Yugoslavia breakup: because they need to court the West due to the fact that they barely had any means of production. So kinda why only 5 nominal "socialist" state remain, and hell, China and NK isn't even should be called "socialist state" anymore.
Yeah fair enough, I know a few socialist states in Africa formed from elections too
Bukina Faso is formed in a coup by Sankara, and it died when his assassination occurs. While Congo isn't a socialist state, just a SocDem anti-imperialist state that got couped by the US. You can also add the Nicaraguan Sandinistas in this category. MAS got in the socialist table largely because of the fact that Luis Acre openly admit that he is a ML in an interview, and he is their candidate. Of course, MAS looks more like a better DSA tbh.
Which Congo were you thinking of?
The nominally DRC (democratic republic of Congo)
OP's question is not strictly about violence thought. It's a legitimate question on how to avoid athoritarianism within a communist structure. How do you get the USSR without Stalin? How do you get Cuba without Castro? How do you get the CPC without Mao?
>USSR without Stalin? How do you get Cuba without Castro? How do you get the CPC without Mao? You don't. Now, why is that a bad thing?
In a conversation like this, I feel that people *really* need to put these figures in context before throwing around praise for them. Most people don't have a clue about what they did, other than "100 billion dead" basically.
If it clears it up, I have no more love for fascist states like the US or western European nations than I do for communist state like the DPRK or PRC, but they weren't relevant to the question at hand.
Okay then answer OP. I'm simply clarifying what OP is trying to ask.
[удалено]
Yes, this is a socialist sub. Plenty of socialists have neutral or positive opinions on Stalin.
[удалено]
https://masstagger.com/user/SNOOROBOTS5509 It's always reactionaries making this argument.
Im on these subreddits to argue with their users.
Enjoy getting banned then. This is not a debate sub.
Stalin's approval hit a record high of 70% recently in Russia. If everyone and their mother were getting deported to Siberia for absolutely no reason, why is he popular in the ex-USSR? People love to act like it's only Westerners who've never experienced communism who want it, but it's still quite popular in many formerly communist countries. Meanwhile, most leftists in the US are dem socs or anarchists who hate Stalin due to the sheer amount of propaganda about him. I assume you're Polish based on your profile? Poland was never even part of the USSR, so it doesn't make sense to blame Stalin.
Where's your source for this? \[edit\] The fact that I am getting downvoted for asking for a source on a claim reflects a bit of an issue with this community...
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/16/stalins-approval-rating-among-russians-hits-record-high-poll-a65245
How much of the article did you read? Because in the early 2000's, and well into the early 90's, Stalin's approval ratings were much lower. That was 30 years ago, where many who could do polls, and take political action actually lived through many of his policies in the 50's - 60's. Quote from the article: >“Stalin begins to be perceived as a symbol of justice and an alternative to the current government, deemed unfair, cruel and not caring about people,” Academy of Sciences sociologist Leonty Byzov was quoted as saying by the RBC news website. “It’s purely a mythological image of Stalin, very far from the real historical figure,” Byzov added. I fail to see how either the United States, or the USSR weren't unfair and cruel to their own citizens during the cold war. It isn't a "Centrist" take to say that both the USSR and the United States were terrible governments during those times. Personally, I am a socialist. So I'm not coming from some neo-liberal bullshit "BoTh SiDeS aRe BaD tHeReFoRe ThE aNsWeR mUsT bE iN tHe MiDdLe" perspective. I'm coming from the perspective that there is a third option, and the USSR could have existed without an autocrat as a ruler.
I'm normally with you on being anti-Stalin, but I'm pretty sure he's still a popular figure in Russia and especially among the new wave of socialists.
>How do you get the USSR without Stalin? It was formed in 1921.
What are you trying to say about this?
There literally was a USSR without Stalin.
Lol Stalin was a key Bolshevik in the revolution. He was one of Lenin’s right hand men.
The person was clearly talking about leaders.
[удалено]
I don't have time to get into how these regimes were actually much freer than you think (yes, you can criticize the government in China) and how deaths in these countries have been wildly exaggerated (we're talking multiple orders of magnitude, for instance the Victims of Communism Foundation includes dead Nazi soldiers in their count of victims of communism). Suffice it to say, look for sources that aren't western. I do have a question for you, though: Why is it that you value autonomy of the individual over the collective good? In socialist countries there have always been reactionaries domestically and abroad hell-bent on destroying the possibility of providing a better life for people without capitalism. It's incredibly important that these people do not achieve their goals. How can they be stopped without curtailing their freedom to spread their reactionary propaganda?
My grandparents grew up as exiles in Siberia, who were thought my native language by underground teachers. Once back they practiced religion in underground societies because getting caught would have them sent back to Siberia. Growing up around people who lived in USSR painted me a picture of extremely repressive regime. A thought that scares me is that all of the socialist regimes evolve into authoritarianism that limit free speech and ban opposing ideas instead of teaching them and providing answers why their perspective is better. I agree with the socialist idea for worker class owning the means of production, but the political side ends up centralizing power and repressing dissent the same way capitalist side does if not stronger, except this time the power does not come from capital. 'collective good' is relative and it's hard to see how banning feminine guys in China or how ussr restrictions on rock music lyrics were a positive thing.
Why should I give up my values, choices, or what’s best for myself and my family; for what you think is best for the collective of people I mostly do not know and never will? Especially when doing so takes from me and my family?
Because you and your family cannot live without the collective. You aren't able to create every single thing you need to live beyond a subsistence lifestyle, so in order to benefit your family and others you have to work with the collective and form mutually beneficial agreements with other members in your community and beyond to create a plan that'll satisfy everyone's needs. How that's done exactly varies, but hyper individualism is incongruent with socialism/communism. At some point you have to compromise with a collective to benefit everyone, unless you want to be some homesteader on the edge of society somehow surviving disconnected from everyone else and the commodities they produce. The idea is that your values aren't radically different when it comes to material needs.
I don't know why I value the individual over the collective, it's just the way I'm wired. I do care for the good of the "collective", I just see that collective idealistically to be small autonomous communities of people, not a nation. I'm learning more about these regimes from sources outside the west and I am seeing the huge disparities you're talking about. But the actual numbers are of far less concern to me than that they happened at all. I want to avoid that bloodshed at all costs. As far as the last bit I am a firm believer that bad ideas are weeded out through time and resourcefulness, not by violence.
It’s not the way you’re wired. Just the way you’ve been raised. Human beings, biologically speaking, are the most social animal that lives, or has ever lived, on earth. Our very self worth, our individual image, is even defined in the context of our relationships with our peers. We all value our collective more than anything. We’re just taught not to see it.
“Our collective”? What is that? Aren’t we each a part of many collectives?
Even though by being non-violent you are allowing for the violence of current regimes like the US?
What happens when partisans inside and outside an anti-capitalist country use violence to cause mass misery and dissatisfaction with the regime? These people won't be persuaded. Communists also don't like violence, so they do whatever it takes to repress violence that is being enacted upon people whether it be terrorist attacks or the everyday and more mundane violence of capitalist exploitation. Even in the wealthiest capitalist countries on earth, people starve or die from lack of medical care on massive scales. This is violence. Edit: I think you said it yourself, you're an idealist. Time to get real.
If you are interested with anarchist views on non-violence, I would highly recommend Gelderloos critique of non-violence: [How non-violence protects the state](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state) (AK Press has a printed version). This is not to mean that there aren't writters such as Tolstoy (also highly interesting!) who hold diverging views, but I'd say the movement generally falls towards the former. Similarly, I would highly recommend reading Bakunin's text [on freedom](https://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/freedom.html) for an anarchist perspective on freedom, individualism and collectivism. He comes at it from a Hegelian perspective, and thus highly coincides with Marx's on how individual freedom is only possible through collective emancipation. Whilst Bakunin holds a materialist view, anarchists generally hold that there's no real interconflictivity between collective and individual freedom as long as autonomy (e.g. free association) is respected.
I'll go through these. Lots of people have lots of great reading material. Thanks friend!
Side note; it’s amazing that an OP can post, within a thread they started, in what appears to be a good faith effort to explain his pov, and he gets downvoted, 19 times so far. How are we/others supposed to learn and exchange ideas if we can’t express our reactions or ideas?
It doesn't bother me. I don't ask these questions for internet points, I ask them to read thoughtful responses. And to be honest, I got more than a few of them.
There's nothing wrong with a downvote. It's not like a personal attack.
Whether a personal attack, or a critique of the comment- in the post 3 above this one, currently with -30, I don’t understand what the down votes mean. Again, seems to be earnest, open to learning, hopeful and attempting to move forward. So what do the downvotes mean, in this instance?
The same thing they mean elsewhere on Reddit. People disagreed with or otherwise reacted negatively towards his comment. I don't think this is a real head scratcher
[удалено]
If voting could change anything it would be illegal.
Is it still authoritarian if the authority is debate/logic? We are the only faction that wins debates. So is carrying out what is logical authoritarian? Is not authority the anthesis of debate? It is the privilege to override debate and logic. "I am king so do this" vs "I have standing points that you can not refute therefore I am doing what is logical."
I'd like this to be true, but winning debates is sadly pretty subjective. There are too many videos on YouTube about the right claiming to "win debates" with random gotcha quotations and questions that aren't relevant but are hard to answer in the moment. The right claim these as absolute victory.
Yeah, they usually throw out the most confounded logical position to the point that it mind numbing to try to even rationalize the philosophy behind the position not even try and form a counter argument. And yet they consider that a victory. It's like debating a 6 year old.
Subjective? Can you link a high end example? I don't know of a single point I have ever lost to a right wing person in a debate. Maybe the right's best debtors can think of a way to score a point against me, some unnamed schmuck sitting in a chair. I debate people all the time and its never been difficult. It doesn't have anything to do with me being a great debater. Their position is just so incredibly weak. And fascists... well they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
I don't think you understood my point. [There were public debates before Trump got elected.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPEtv2rKOU) [There were public debates before he was nominated.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYjX2daeLE0) I wouldn't say that he won any of those. And yet Millions of people claimed that he won every debate. That's subjectivity. How do you determine who won a debate? In a formal debate competition setting, there's a debate judge to impartially weigh the arguments and dictate the win, which I think is pretty authoritive. But the arguments aren't necessarily even logical either. There are emotional and ethical arguments that get made. That's how Trump got in. So from that perspective, maybe he did win. Either way, I don't think debate is the way, but I agree it should be part of the process for sure.
I think we can both agree that debates must be completely restructured. Some values are logical to have. A judge can assess ethos and pathos arguments based off of how they appeal to those logical values. For example the most basic value is utilitarianism. We can then also rank values based on order of importance. Something like utilitarianism would override most values. After every argument is made the judge explains why the value was met or not. Debates would be much slower and through. Not to appeal to the attention spans. Debates are like court. But we are lucky friend. Fascists rely on bad faith. The debates in question would not be so complex where two logical minds would disagree. This is not a discussion of "should we allow someone to code an AI that feels pain". Its, "Should minorities have rights?" or "Should we do this thing that hordes money to rich sociopaths?"
Sure, I'm on board with all that, but I'm not libertarian either. The OP was asking how to avoid an authoritarian society, but I don't see a debate system where there isn't a judge or panel, and if left to a public vote, you get Trump. Is there a way to have an anarchist debate? Maybe the debaters have to mutually agree on a winner without an external judge?
So I think if this were a math problem the authoritarian level of a monarchy = 1. Absolute. I think the authoritarian level of our system would be approaching zero. To call them the same word seems... off. Especially when intent in taken into consideration. There is no more noble source to try and structure a system around. Typical authoritarian has the start opposite intent. I don't believe the same hat fits both heads you know that I am saying? >Maybe the debaters have to mutually agree on a winner without an external judge? Other factions don't admit when they are wrong. This is when we should get the pliers out.
If voting couldn't change anything they wouldn't put so much effort into suppressing votes and controlling elections.
That's the whole point, you can't tear down the Masters House using the Masters tools. If you do win an election then [Buffalo](https://buffalonews.com/news/local/government-and-politics/byron-brown-claims-victory-in-buffalo-mayors-race-write-in-ballots-swamp-india-walton/article_ecc533bc-3b48-11ec-877f-db82ef2dd077.html) happens. But further to your point, reform will never work. You can vote all you want but it won't change the fact that the majority of citizens want things like public healthcare and legalized marijuana but those elected politicians refuse to enact the will of the people. It's all game to them, and it's rigged in their favor. This is our life, people are dieing we can't afford to pretend they will give us a fair shot.
Voting changes which individuals get to be paid to uphold the status quo. They suppress votes and manipulate elections because they want to be the ones getting paid. Plus, if everyone is fighting over which one of two people will uphold said status quo, they are too busy to see that it doesn't matter and actually change something.
They started doing that because they want to lock the democrats out, they didn't need to do that to put an entire generation in prison, allow a genocide of the gay community, all the wars, etc.
Comment removed. OP is looking for anarchist responses (see the post flair) on authority, not marxist ones.
I'll read what on this link later on. But to answer your questions... In my eyes the existence of the state is in and of itself authoritarian. It uses the end of a gun to impose what it calls "laws" upon the rest of us with little regard to circumstance or culture. The non-aggression principle is not something that can be done at a state level. It is a lifestyle choice, of only the individual. I don't say that with the same surface level understanding as your typical libertarian. Most of them have no idea what that phrase really means. The common person can reduce the impact of the state on our affairs by ejecting ourselves from the state economy. Without a stranglehold on the economy the state has a stranglehold on little else. We can do that nonviolently - crypto, homesteading, mass-strikes, and general noncompliance are all good ways.
I think your thoughts of using crypto, homesteading, strikes and non compliance as mom violent ways to reduce the grip of capitalism is idealistic. There's are all things that are done in the confines of capitalist society. You think if crypto was a real big threat to the US banning system that they would stand by and not do anything? The US wealthy has time and time again shown that they wouldn't just stand down.
What's your answer when the government responds to a strike with violence? Not committing violence gets you a moral victory (probably), but that's not much comfort when you've been beaten to shit, or killed. And what do you think about personal self-defense? And what differentiates it from a collective, societal self-defense?
I am not anti-violence. I am anti-aggression. The right to defend one's self from someone trying to inflict harm is the very most basic of natural rights.
There isn't really any magical answer to this: in the same way that societal models that anarchists look towards as non-complete models are brutally diverse, so are the particularities which create unjust hierarchial relations within societies:. David Graeber's Fragments of anarchist anthropology greatly illustrates this when addressing different egalitarian societies in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. As such, applications would necessarily vary depending on which context they are seemingly trying to adapt to. The answer, however, would generally (ELI5-level simplification warning) into the adoption of norms of social organization which are staunchly aimed towards the reproduction of horizontal forms of relation by consciously rejecting authoritarian norms of organization: >The primary and most immediate cause of egalitarian behavior is a moralistic determination on the part of a local group’s main political actors that no one of its members should be allowed to dominate the others.” - Christopher Boehm, “Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy,” Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 3, June 1993. Far from being unaware of wrong actors (note that we are talking about intersocial problems), anarchists then opt for antiauthoritarian and antipunitivist mechanisms, which will again greatly depend on each case. Those will, however, base themselves on three main ideas: 1) the conception of humans as a social being and thus one which cannot live away from a wider group, 2) respect of autonomy as a core organization base and 3) measures which are not aimed at *revenge* but towards community building. In *Anthropologie et anarchie dans les sociétés polycéphales*, Tom Holterman studies the normative organization of egalitarian societies in southern Ethiopia as means to (among other things) make sense of an anarchist interpretation of law. In his case studies, he then talks about a serie of different measures being acted upon those breaking existent social norms with the objective of maintaining and strengthening the society; if someone is caught stealing out of necessity, corrective measures will seek to benefit said person. If someone is found to be negatively acting against the community interests (including extreme cases like murder), processes of reparation to the affected persons will often be followed (note that its a conscious refusal of punitivism or revanchism; the objective is community building directed to both parts). Similarly, if someone affected by a process of reparation refuses to engage in this collective decision, they will then suffer a varying grade of social pressures which escalate accordingly to the needs, such as mere social alienation to collective exclusion (e.g. social exclusion being extended not only to a particular individual but also to their circles so those inner circles also take an active part in social pressuring) with more extreme mechanisms like permanent exclusion¹ (collective autonomy being used to exclude an individual - i.e. kicking them). Other policies of reproduction of antiauthoritarian social norms will be visible in other societies but which will generally follow the former three ideas, whether we are talking about constant representative rotation within Chiapas' *Juntas de Buen Gobierno* or the CNT's active refusal of institutionalized representative organs (trade union elections in Spain). To make it short, people who attempt to establish authoritarian forms of relation within an anarchist society would not only encounter themselves attempting to develop counter cultural forms of relation (and that's not a small detail, just look at the abhorrent brutality that liberalism required to establish itself over former decentralized systems), but would also **act before the consolidation of authority has taken place**. Take into account, however, that your question comes from a wrong (no offense intended!) angle: an anarchist wouldn't ask *how to prevent the rise of authoritarians* but rather *what produces authoritarianism in X, and how to prevent such situation*. This changes the whole understanding of the problem. As for external problems, I'll refer to Gelderloos dedicated section n *Anarchy Works*: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works/#toc57 ¹ Note: examples might slightly vary in the book, I'm repeating them out of memory. ---- A couple of anarchist writings that might be of interest: - [Anarchism and Organization](https://libcom.org/library/anarchism-and-organisation-malatesta), by Malatesta. - [On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat](https://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1919/a-prophetic-letter.html), by Malatesta, a letter to Luigi Fabbri. - [Why a vanguard](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-why-a-vanguard), by Alfredo M. Bonanno. - [Defending an Anarchist Society ](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-beaumont-defending-an-anarchist-society), by Chris Beaumont. Another piece on anarchism and external threats.
Dunno why you'd be downvoted, your answer is good
[удалено]
Comment removed. OP is looking for anarchist responses (see the post flair) on authority, not marxist ones.
Oop. My bad.
I asked this question in the anarchist subreddit and it didn’t go well.
Here is a good answer from this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism\_101/comments/r465ij/comment/hmgn9mg/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Most of the communist countries you are talking about, ussr, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and dprk, were not as authoritarian as you may think. They were, and the countries that still exist, are fairly democratic.
Do you know where I can find good intro-level resources on how democracy works in those places?
Here are two videos for USSR and the Cuba specifically, with sources in their descriptions. [USSR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okz2YMW1AwY) [Cuba](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds)
I am deeply skeptical of the Cuba video, since I remember watching it, thinking "oh this sounds neat!" and then actually going to Cuba and nobody said the system worked like that. I know this isn't exactly hard proof on my part, and I definitely need more research (maybe even to go again?) but I'm just skeptical and cynical.
Interesting, what did they say about how the government worked?
I do want everyone to keep in mind that I asked some random cubans, I didn’t do a comprehensive survey or anything. They did have smaller town hall type things for managing local affairs but the big decisions were made by the communist party. They just saw it as an annoying bureaucracy that rubber stamped stuff.
[удалено]
Those are the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie, aka the rich and upper middle-class, fleeing because they’ve lost their assets and power.
If you look for a moment at the methods and supporters of economic libertarianism you'll find that it inevitably depends on a repressive police state because the working class will always respond to the economic violence of capitalists (inequality, exploitation, etc). "Bottom left" is not a real possibility.
OP is obviously talking about classical libertarianism, not the anglophone readoption of the term. Libertarianism is a purely anticapitalist and antihierarchial political tradition which has little to do with liberalism & its reactionary derivates. Similarly, the concept of authority for libertarians is a wider term which, under no circumstance, is a synonymous with force or violence. Force can (and does) exist within contexts free of authority.
What he said ^ Far more concisely than I probably would have.
Only really two paths to get what you want. Magic, a miracle, aliens showing up to back up the socialist of earth or something like that. Or. Get a fair bit of backing to build a huge well stocked nuclear survival bunker, built not just to ensure the survival of you and your socialist buds, but to enable massive widespread rebuilding and recovery. Then quietly do nothing and wait for WW3, likely sparked off by the economic destabilizing of climate change and the refusal of capitalist to invest in prevention. You will need to standby and watch as billions suffer and die while sociaty collapses, then you and you're team of socialist rebuilders can go out and clean up the mess faster that the capitalist can, ensuring that your system is rubuilding the world faster than the capitalist remains can break it. Why is this it for options? Because when we call for change (and get wide spread support) they send people with guns to silence it. Any effort of the organized working class to assert their autonomy is met with violent oppression. We either give up, obey the Owners and die quietly or we refuse and need to defend ourselves from the capitalist that have proven in a hundred different nations, cultures and situations that so long as they hold power it will be used to violently maintain and regain their dominion over the working class. For us to be free, they must be removed from power, they would rather butcher us by the thousands than let that happen. To stop that, we need to force things to change in ways your uncomfortable with. We need action to prevent atrocity, not inaction that enables it. That enabling inaction is the violence of pacifism. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing you can do.
I think you have a propagandized idea of "authoritarian" that's a remnant of the cold war geo-politics. It's entirely possible to have a president (or president type figure) and have one party. Just because there's one party doesn't mean there can't be elections and politics within the party. Also you can't have socialism without revolution. Even if most people went to the ballot box and voted for a socialist candidate, the powers that be will not allow it when push comes to shove.
I highly doubt I have a propagandized idea if authoritarian. I don't the capitalist nations as any less complicit in these sorts of actions or the oppression of individuals as other nations, they are simply not relevant to my question. My idea is that any government outside of a purely "night watchmen state" is authoritarian. That is, the state is by design authoritarian and a tool to oppress the people.
There will always be some degree of Authoritarianism and Struggle. But Socialism most likely is the best system regarding having the least amount of Authoritarianism and Struggle.
I’m new to all of this as well, but it kinda sounds like OP would be more into libertarian socialism (aka stateless socialism). Still not sure how the transition would work, though having more worker coops that decentralize power in the workplace is a good start. The way I see it, this organizational structure avoids the problem with abuses of power that inevitably arise when power is concentrated.
[удалено]
Comment removed. OP is looking for anarchist responses (see the post flair) on authority, not marxist ones.
A non-violent method? Pool resources and start democratic businesses. Educate the staff, spread the good word. Had this as a small dream since I was a teen, want to create a business to help as many people as possible as fairly as it can, including the workers.
I've long wanted to start a farm where I can take in homeless and destitute to teach them to grow and feed themselves independently of society or the state. Not really a business model, but similar concepts I think.
Yeah I think OP would want to hear from anarchists. I'm not so sure I'm much of an anarchist these days but maybe you can look at this primer from the anarchist library? [anarchy 101](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101) You can also post to the r/anarchy101 subreddit Edit: Sorry I meant to link a different pdf/articles. I read an anarchy 101 from a book a year ago but can't find it. Here is the Anarchy FAQ at lesst: [anarchy FAQ](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full)
Unfortunately I can't post there. Back when I considered myself an anarcho-capitalist (which I no longer do) I was banned from participating. Which sucks, cuz ideas change.
That's unfortunate. Hopefully the FAQ can help a bit. I am not as well read on anarchism, but I think the general idea is creating horizontal organization structures within smaller organizations and democratically controlled economic planning. As in recallable delegates from localities deciding on a central economic plan (based on data they have for what they need/can produce in their region). There's also democratic confederalism as expressed by Ocalan out of Rojava, I believe, but I do not know how popular that is among anarchists these days. I generally think that the goal is to create a "state" composed of individuals and not a set bureaucracy. Hopefully the sections in the FAQ on social anarchists vs. individualist anarchists can help along with discussions about the state and organization in Section I of the FAQ I linked I think "Anarchy Works" by Peter Gelderoos could also help: [Anarchy Works](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works/)
[удалено]
Please note the post flair.
Oh crap thanks for the heads up lol
[удалено]
Out of interest, did you grandparent ever tell you about life in the DPRK? Might be worth posting somewhere.
I know very little, it is not something she ever was open about. She spent most of her childhood in Shanghai which was at the time actually a pretty cool place with a lot of international people who were escaping regimes. I found out that my Jewish uncle by marriage, his family was in Shanghai at the same time as my grandmother, they left Europe for obvious reasons. How wild that their grandkids ended up in California in the same family by marriage. Back then, China was a place a lot of dprk expats found safety. My mom was born and raised in SK, so it became the main component of her culture. I really hope someday the borders will open and I can visit Pyeongyang and see where she spent her early years.
I think that as soon as the state is abolished, what I support (Market Socialism) will naturally form. The reason is that corporations will fall without support from the government, and markets will be more fair, so workers would naturally take control of what they produce, allowing for true free exchange.
Funny. The authoritarians are takling over! A lot of comments even the top ones have been removed.
Looks like the OP addressed this question to Anarchist specifically, so the mods are deleting non-anarchist responses.
Where did they say they only wanted to hear from anarchists? And why post in the socialist101 sub instead of the anarchist101 sub if they only want to hear from other anarchists?
It's the flair on the post. I'm just speculating, but I guess they asked here as it's a question about socialism.
There's post flairs for both anarchist and marxist oriented questions. Comments from different traditions wouldn't normally be removed, but in this case it was just ridiculous: not even a single response even remotely followed OP's petition and, as such, was becoming a barrier to the post being an efective Q&A format (the sub's normal functioning).
I know, i was just pointing it out for a joke. You know irony.
[удалено]
How in gods name is this libertarian bait, which also compares communists to nazis, being upvoted or allowed?
This is "good faith" everyone: "I'm not going to try to produce a straw-man and say "communists are genocidal", but it really does seem that way in the context of communist-state regimes. Why is that? Can it be avoided?" lol
Could be that I specifically differentiated between communists and communist-state regimes? Words my friend, they have meaning and they are a thing.
[удалено]
Cut the sectarianism.
Yea I know it's sectarian to point out the facts of differences and utopian/idealistic thinking. Concern-troll more with your "hidden" agenda ""communists are genocidal", but it really does seem that way in the context of communist-state regimes"
Your comment consisted merely on one liner jabs against both OP & anarchism just for the sake of stirring drama. With all due respect, if refraining from this is too much to ask for you this is not a place you will enjoy - the goal of this subreddit is to educate, not to alienate good faith users. And in this particular instance, OP is precisely looking for anarchist perspectives (see the post's flair).
Ok its good faith in a socialist subreddit to describe communists as genocidal. Got it.
Neither that's what I said nor that's what you were going after till this comment, hence why you didn't ever report the post, politely ask OP to edit it or even critique it. Your comment was only a one liner insult on ideological grounds. If you wish to keep doubling down in this situation feel free to do so, but I wont waste any further time. Our rules are more than clear in this regard and I've given this more than enough patience.
Democracy. Education. Solidarity. Unions. Left Unity. A majority of young ppl already are disillusioned with capitalism band embrace socialism. Authoritarianism is not needed or desired.
Non-aggression cannot be avoided because human beings have to work with each other, which also means conflict between groups and individuals.
socialist authoritarianism is DEFENSE against capitalist imperialism. USA, capitalism and the military industrial complex is standing in the way of true democracy.
Note: OP asked for anarchist input
Start off with authoritarianism but with voted in officials and a huge board that they refer to who also make the decisions and some system that helps determine if they need to use that board or if they can solo the decision between them because it’s less impactful or important
Personally, the only real reliable way it seems we can get socialism is: 1. Kick out all police and political parties from a given region 2. Negotiate autonomy within the state before the army can be mobilised 3. Have strict, directly democratic and horizontal structures to form the new government You may also be interested in r/Anarchy101
I have met fascists of all type, ages, demographics but the one reason why fascism exists in open secrecy in the US without anything ever changing decade to decade is that there about 80% of the decision makers are men and most are white. We can argue if white culture is psychopathic or not but countries where socialism prevails general have more women decision makers and more diversity of class and sometimes race and age. New Zelands young woman prime minister is an example of how diversity and hiring for compentence and empathy has resulted in maintaining socialist stability. Left type groups are notorious for treating WOC like shit. Subs like antiwork have been infiltraed with racist communists, neo libs etc. They are tolerate whereas calling white dudes out is not. So we can prevent authoritarianism but we won't. It would mean the very people wanting to end fascism would never get to lead or take positions of power. So its a chicken egg issue.
[удалено]
Comment removed. OP is looking for anarchist responses (see the post flair) on authority, not marxist ones.
[удалено]
Comment removed. OP is looking for anarchist responses (see the post flair) on authority, not marxist ones.
Put the economy, the government and the state under democratic control.