I also see how a state which transforms into socialism or communism must be “authoritarian” in that it has to take away factories and land from those that keep it as capital, so that it can be shared.

I think this will never work, or with a very small probability. Power simply corrupts and attracts a nasty kind of people. Personally, I believe that upwards, organic, evolutionary changes are more probable to bring us closer to the ideas of communism, as industrial evolution moved most of the world from feudalism into capitalism in a natural way.

[–] jorp@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think that's a fair take and perhaps indicates you'd lean anarchist-left. Direct action, mutual aid, and forming parallel power structures are the exact political and social activities that are core to that philosophy. Not exclusively so, but anarchists emphasize that kind of thing over activities like voting or, I guess, awaiting revolution.

I have mixed feelings myself, that kind of natural transformation won't just be left alone to evolve, it'll be actively resisted by powerful political and global forces, the United States and its allies would not allow it, for example. So in that sense a powerful political organization manifesting as a new revolutionary state does seem more likely to work to me, similar to how feudalism and monarchy resisted liberalism and had to be resisted through war.

Funny enough a big reason there's animosity between leftists, especially between anarchists and Marxist-Leninists, is because anarchist experiments were sabotaged and anarchists were fought by "Communists" during the Spanish civil war even as they together fought against Fascists. You'd think a "communist vanguard state" with the goal of establishing communism would be supportive of autonomous anarchist collectives, but those leftists weren't under the thumb of the Soviet Union. I think this pretty clearly demonstrated that the USSR wasn't interested in anything but Empire.

[–] 33550336@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I think that’s a fair take and perhaps indicates you’d lean anarchist-left.

I perceive myself as a social democrat, maybe with elements of anarchism, such as decentralization and down-to-up elements of organization.

I have mixed feelings myself, that kind of natural transformation won’t just be left alone to evolve, it’ll be actively resisted by powerful political and global forces, the United States and its allies would not allow it, for example.

This problem is actually a hard one -- otherwise no one wouldn't need to argue about it, and there is no simple choice. If someone thinks that there is an obvious simple solution, then he/her may be just very ignorant. Maybe I will sound controversial here, but in contrast to Marxist-Leninist, I do not blame United States for damping revolution. Revolution will not come simply because we are not in 19th century capitalism anymore. Capitalists adapted, provided more humane conditions to workers to not be swept by workers' revolution, and Antonio Gramsci saw it something like 100 years ago, but Marxist-Leninists still live in 19th century and do not see that low-income class would rather choose far-right options like Trump or AfD. The United States indeed massively interfered with damping of "socialists" republics in South America, but I think we do not need another "red" imperialism country like USSR or Russia's vassal. Humanity needs real communism, not "red" authoritarianism.

I think this pretty clearly demonstrated that the USSR wasn’t interested in anything but Empire.

I think so, and with time this was becoming more and more obvious. Western leftists were surprisingly long (like 1956) under the charm of USSR, maybe with an exception of people like Emma Goldman.