3 ms·

I've never been convinced that communism wasn't about power, like with capitalism, it's just different people holding the sticks.

hnbad 3y ago
That's why I prefer the label "anarchism" even if the desired end state of anarchism fits Marx's definition of communism as a "state-less, class-less" society. To paraphrase Bakunin: I don't care if the stick I am beaten with is called The People's Stick, I want there to be no stick at all. Vanguardism by trying to utilize the existing systems of oppression to bring about communism fails the instance it succeeds in taking over those systems because the interests of rulers are not those of those ruled over. Aspirationally communist states like the Soviet Union or Mao's China merely succeeded in abolishing the capitalist class by replacing it with the bureaucracy. But under communism there must not only be no capitalist class but also no working class because the perpetuation of a working class means there is still a class system and the oppression that comes with it. Anarchist practice means creating federated, horizontal structures and dismantling oppressive hierarchies (i.e. the systems that enable people to exert power over others). You can still have individual bad actors but the damage a bad actor can do in a horizontal structure is negligible compared to what they can do in a hierarchy, especially one that rewards bad behavior (cf. people complaining that sociopaths make the best business people). So at worst, yes, you will have other people holding the sticks but the sticks will be much smaller and thus easier to overcome if used against you.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Some amount of hierarchy is unfortunately necessary if we want to tackle larger issues that necessarily require coordination (like, say, global warming - you can't mitigate it if any commune can just "opt out" because e.g. they personally aren't affected in a negative way). I think the important thing is to always treat hierarchy as a cost. So whenever things need to be organized, you look at that cost versus the benefits to see whether it is justifiable at all; but even if it is, you still try to minimize the cost to achieve the requisite outcome. Broadly speaking, in the context of governance in general, it means loose confederations with power mostly flowing "bottom up", but with mechanisms in place that still do allow to tackle those aforementioned emergencies like AGW that require top-down enforced coordination.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    I think you mean violence, not hierarchy. Engels made a similar mixup when he wrote a screed against anarchists based on a misunderstanding of "authority" to mean any form of violence. Anarchy describes organization and cooperation within a group. There can be groups that have different interests and those differences in interests can lead to disagreements that can be resolved in different ways. That doesn't change. Even in prehistorical gift economies there is evidence for various forms of diplomacy to arrange agreements with other groups: migration, gifts, demonstrations of power, ceremonial fights or, as a last resort, war. It's worth pointing out that this is no different today. States can make all the laws they want but if they want other states to do what they say, they need to find a different way to do so. And more often than not, this fails unless both sides can find a mutually beneficial agreement.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      I meant both. To get back to my example, groups operating completely independently would not be able to solve AGW. To solve it, you need a single coordinated plan across different groups, and people and organizations who will see it through. At that point, you have a hierarchy. Further, some groups will refuse to participate for selfish reasons, and thus it may be necessary to compel them to participate in said hierarchy. But there are different ways to arrange those things. The problem with most hierarchies today is that they're sold as something innately good, not as necessary evil to solve a particular problem. If you're building a hierarchy with the latter perspective in mind, you add plenty of checks and balances to make sure that it does not entrench and take over other issues.
shadowgovt 3y ago
Correct, and it even seems self-evident from the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" that many communist theorists adopted as descriptive of their theory.
- the_af 3y ago
  It's worth noting that in communist theory (which you mentioned), the dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate step before communism is fully achieved, it's not the end goal. In practice I'm not sure the proletariat ever held this power (as a class; individuals may have).
  - tcmart14 3y ago
    And in communist thoughts, capitalism is sometimes referred to as "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." I've always taken it to mean where power relies and not in the modern sense of what we call a dictatorship.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      It can be interpreted more or less literally, depending. Thing is, while Marx is the originator of that term and concept, the source from which most people are aware of it is actually Lenin/Bolsheviks and their offshoots (Mao etc), and they were very much on the literalist side of that interpretation. But they had to be to do what they wanted - a society run by workers - because they managed to take power in Russia, a country, where 80% of the population were peasants who did not, as a rule, support Bolsheviks (the de facto Russian peasant party was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party). Consequently, when you look at early USSR, it had gems like these in its 1924 Constitution: "ARTICLE 9. The Congress of Soviets of the USSR is composed of representatives of the urban Soviets and of the Soviets of the urban type, on the basis of one deputy per 25,000 electors, and of representatives of the Congresses of Soviets of the rural districts on the basis of one deputy per 125,000 inhabitants." That is, rural (peasant) votes were explicitly diluted ~1:5 wrt urban (worker) votes in the Soviet council system. Needless to say, this has very little to do with democracy, but it is a good example of taking "dictatorship of the proletariat" literally.
Jiro 3y ago
"Under capitalism, man oppresses man. But under socialism, it's the other way around."

hnbad 3y ago

That's why I prefer the label "anarchism" even if the desired end state of anarchism fits Marx's definition of communism as a "state-less, class-less" society. To paraphrase Bakunin: I don't care if the stick I am beaten with is called The People's Stick, I want there to be no stick at all. Vanguardism by trying to utilize the existing systems of oppression to bring about communism fails the instance it succeeds in taking over those systems because the interests of rulers are not those of those ruled over. Aspirationally communist states like the Soviet Union or Mao's China merely succeeded in abolishing the capitalist class by replacing it with the bureaucracy. But under communism there must not only be no capitalist class but also no working class because the perpetuation of a working class means there is still a class system and the oppression that comes with it. Anarchist practice means creating federated, horizontal structures and dismantling oppressive hierarchies (i.e. the systems that enable people to exert power over others). You can still have individual bad actors but the damage a bad actor can do in a horizontal structure is negligible compared to what they can do in a hierarchy, especially one that rewards bad behavior (cf. people complaining that sociopaths make the best business people). So at worst, yes, you will have other people holding the sticks but the sticks will be much smaller and thus easier to overcome if used against you.

int_19h 3y ago
Some amount of hierarchy is unfortunately necessary if we want to tackle larger issues that necessarily require coordination (like, say, global warming - you can't mitigate it if any commune can just "opt out" because e.g. they personally aren't affected in a negative way). I think the important thing is to always treat hierarchy as a cost. So whenever things need to be organized, you look at that cost versus the benefits to see whether it is justifiable at all; but even if it is, you still try to minimize the cost to achieve the requisite outcome. Broadly speaking, in the context of governance in general, it means loose confederations with power mostly flowing "bottom up", but with mechanisms in place that still do allow to tackle those aforementioned emergencies like AGW that require top-down enforced coordination.
- hnbad 3y ago
  I think you mean violence, not hierarchy. Engels made a similar mixup when he wrote a screed against anarchists based on a misunderstanding of "authority" to mean any form of violence. Anarchy describes organization and cooperation within a group. There can be groups that have different interests and those differences in interests can lead to disagreements that can be resolved in different ways. That doesn't change. Even in prehistorical gift economies there is evidence for various forms of diplomacy to arrange agreements with other groups: migration, gifts, demonstrations of power, ceremonial fights or, as a last resort, war. It's worth pointing out that this is no different today. States can make all the laws they want but if they want other states to do what they say, they need to find a different way to do so. And more often than not, this fails unless both sides can find a mutually beneficial agreement.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    I meant both. To get back to my example, groups operating completely independently would not be able to solve AGW. To solve it, you need a single coordinated plan across different groups, and people and organizations who will see it through. At that point, you have a hierarchy. Further, some groups will refuse to participate for selfish reasons, and thus it may be necessary to compel them to participate in said hierarchy. But there are different ways to arrange those things. The problem with most hierarchies today is that they're sold as something innately good, not as necessary evil to solve a particular problem. If you're building a hierarchy with the latter perspective in mind, you add plenty of checks and balances to make sure that it does not entrench and take over other issues.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Correct, and it even seems self-evident from the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" that many communist theorists adopted as descriptive of their theory.

the_af 3y ago
It's worth noting that in communist theory (which you mentioned), the dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate step before communism is fully achieved, it's not the end goal. In practice I'm not sure the proletariat ever held this power (as a class; individuals may have).
- tcmart14 3y ago
  And in communist thoughts, capitalism is sometimes referred to as "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." I've always taken it to mean where power relies and not in the modern sense of what we call a dictatorship.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    It can be interpreted more or less literally, depending. Thing is, while Marx is the originator of that term and concept, the source from which most people are aware of it is actually Lenin/Bolsheviks and their offshoots (Mao etc), and they were very much on the literalist side of that interpretation. But they had to be to do what they wanted - a society run by workers - because they managed to take power in Russia, a country, where 80% of the population were peasants who did not, as a rule, support Bolsheviks (the de facto Russian peasant party was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party). Consequently, when you look at early USSR, it had gems like these in its 1924 Constitution: "ARTICLE 9. The Congress of Soviets of the USSR is composed of representatives of the urban Soviets and of the Soviets of the urban type, on the basis of one deputy per 25,000 electors, and of representatives of the Congresses of Soviets of the rural districts on the basis of one deputy per 125,000 inhabitants." That is, rural (peasant) votes were explicitly diluted ~1:5 wrt urban (worker) votes in the Soviet council system. Needless to say, this has very little to do with democracy, but it is a good example of taking "dictatorship of the proletariat" literally.

Jiro 3y ago

"Under capitalism, man oppresses man. But under socialism, it's the other way around."