4 ms·

Maybe on paper; in practice, communism has been a process of structuring inequality differently: the criteria is how good are you in serving your current leader

by 4WIW 10y ago

Maybe on paper; in practice, communism has been a process of structuring inequality differently: the criteria is how good are you in serving your current leader/mentor/sponsor and how lucky/good are you in choosing your next one. While this criteria exists in all systems, it is the most defining one in communism and other authoritarian systems.

turar 10y ago
Communism isn't inherently authoritarian.
- nickff 10y ago
  This is a classic 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. If you would like to avoid the fallacy, you could make arguments such as 'more socialist systems are associated with _ positive outcome', or socialism is more moral because _. I lean strongly against socialism, but would prefer everyone made better arguments for their causes; G.A. Cohen is a good starting point for moral/ethical arguments in favor of socialism. Update: parent comment was substantially changed since my comment was written. It originally said something to the effect of: 'but true socialism has never been implemented'. Perhaps I should have quoted it to avoid this confusion/deception.
  - y80 10y ago
    This isn't a no true scotsman, that commentor is correct. The state building ideologies of the 20th century are inherently authoritarian, but if you think they're the only components to socialist thought then you're simply uninformed. There are a multitude of anti-authoritarian socialist schools of thought, most notably anarcho-communism. There's also mutualism which is a market based socialist system. Socialism isn't about state control, the socialist states that existed (and still do sort of exist, notably Cuba) see themselves as transitionary states between capitalism and socialism, up until the time they're no longer necessary (I don't defend this approach, there's multiple reasons why I believe this is wrong). These states never claimed to be practicing socialism, but they remain socialist states because of their end goal. If you're interested in stronger well structured arguments for socialism, from an anti-authoritarian perspective I recommend reading the writings of Bakunin and Proudhon for more theoretical looks at property and the state. Kropotkin is great for anarcho-communism. Here's some books I recommend with free links: The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (Check this one out first) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-c... What is Communist Anarchism? (Or this one first, they're both great intros) By Alexander Berkman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-wh... Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchi... Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua... And not particularly an ideology book, but an interesting firsthand recount by George Orwell of his time fighting with Socialists and Anarchists against the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War which is called "Homage to Catalonia"
    - TaylorAlexander 10y ago
      I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to provide this information. I wish more people understood that communism and anarchism are legitimate forms of government that haven't been well tried and are widely misunderstood.
y80 10y ago
>in practice, communism has been a process of structuring inequality differently: I'd agree with you if you're talking about Leninist states (i.e. the dominant socialist ideology of the 20th century), replacing the bourgeoisie with bureacrats kept the same fundamental exploitative relationship (however they did operate differently) and is precisely why these states failed. however Marxist-Leninism isn't the end-all be all of communist ideology. How does this argument hold up when confronted with the various anarcho-communist currents? It simply doesn't. >While this criteria exists in all systems, it is the most defining one in communism and other authoritarian systems. Again you're conflating the state building ideologies with all communist thought, which just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about what communism is, especially since there a multitude of anti-authoritarian socialist currents and ideologies.

by 4WIW 10y ago

turar 10y ago

Communism isn't inherently authoritarian.

nickff 10y ago
This is a classic 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. If you would like to avoid the fallacy, you could make arguments such as 'more socialist systems are associated with _ positive outcome', or socialism is more moral because _. I lean strongly against socialism, but would prefer everyone made better arguments for their causes; G.A. Cohen is a good starting point for moral/ethical arguments in favor of socialism. Update: parent comment was substantially changed since my comment was written. It originally said something to the effect of: 'but true socialism has never been implemented'. Perhaps I should have quoted it to avoid this confusion/deception.
- y80 10y ago
  This isn't a no true scotsman, that commentor is correct. The state building ideologies of the 20th century are inherently authoritarian, but if you think they're the only components to socialist thought then you're simply uninformed. There are a multitude of anti-authoritarian socialist schools of thought, most notably anarcho-communism. There's also mutualism which is a market based socialist system. Socialism isn't about state control, the socialist states that existed (and still do sort of exist, notably Cuba) see themselves as transitionary states between capitalism and socialism, up until the time they're no longer necessary (I don't defend this approach, there's multiple reasons why I believe this is wrong). These states never claimed to be practicing socialism, but they remain socialist states because of their end goal. If you're interested in stronger well structured arguments for socialism, from an anti-authoritarian perspective I recommend reading the writings of Bakunin and Proudhon for more theoretical looks at property and the state. Kropotkin is great for anarcho-communism. Here's some books I recommend with free links: The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (Check this one out first) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-c... What is Communist Anarchism? (Or this one first, they're both great intros) By Alexander Berkman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-wh... Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchi... Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua... And not particularly an ideology book, but an interesting firsthand recount by George Orwell of his time fighting with Socialists and Anarchists against the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War which is called "Homage to Catalonia"
  - TaylorAlexander 10y ago
    I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to provide this information. I wish more people understood that communism and anarchism are legitimate forms of government that haven't been well tried and are widely misunderstood.

y80 10y ago

>in practice, communism has been a process of structuring inequality differently: I'd agree with you if you're talking about Leninist states (i.e. the dominant socialist ideology of the 20th century), replacing the bourgeoisie with bureacrats kept the same fundamental exploitative relationship (however they did operate differently) and is precisely why these states failed. however Marxist-Leninism isn't the end-all be all of communist ideology. How does this argument hold up when confronted with the various anarcho-communist currents? It simply doesn't. >While this criteria exists in all systems, it is the most defining one in communism and other authoritarian systems. Again you're conflating the state building ideologies with all communist thought, which just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about what communism is, especially since there a multitude of anti-authoritarian socialist currents and ideologies.