this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
176 points (100.0% liked)

196

16490 readers
2486 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chalkman@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hard-core authoritarian communist. The kinda peeps who support Stalin and shit

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Isn't "authoritarian communist" kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn't a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't "authoritarian communist" kind of an oxymoron?

Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren't true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.

[–] CrimsonOnoscopy@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

None of those states ever gave economic or political power to the working classes.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago

Fair point. Though so far, there hasn't really been any system at all that didn't lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?

Yes. Yes, it is. I sometimes call them “pseudocommunists” for this reason.

[–] Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

well socialism has the proletariat as the ruling class, this is true in Marxism & anarchism even if anarchists word it differently

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.

[–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible 'majority' (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus' monopoly of violence.

if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] learning2Draw@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Communism must be enforced somehow, it just ends up being authoritarian because of that

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

The same can be said for capitalism though.

Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.

[–] aMalayali@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stalin

Certain aspects of Stalin? Or in general?

[–] peanuts4life@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These "certain aspects" are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.

A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.

Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called "great men." Excuses after excuses.