I don’t recall anyone saying anything of the sort actually

10

Anonymous #3 2w

There’s nothing more “authoritarian” than a revolution, it is the forceful imposition of the will of the people at gunpoint

14

Well sure, it’s become a meaningless word people use to describe anyone even vaguely leftist they don’t lile

12

“Libertarian leftist” I love how we just have all sorts of word salad “leftists” these days

8

Libertarian leftist?

0

Depends how you define “authoritarian” lmao

3

Anonymous #1 2w

Does that mean the people must be forced to continue to live under authoritarian conditions well after the revolution is over? I personally don’t think having a government tell me what I can and cannot do in regards to my social and personal life is a good thing, but to each their own I guess

0

Sure, just not effective ones lol

5

Then why not just say anarchist…

2

Anonymous #3 2w

Once again that depends on what you consider “authoritarian”. If repression of racists, fascists, and capitalists is authoritarian then yeah lol

2

Anonymous #1 2w

Well I’m talking about authoritarian in the academic sense, that is state control over all aspects of life from civic to social

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Then no, if you are wondering if communists care about your social life and what harmless follies you can and can’t do the answer is no who cares lol.

4

Anonymous #1 2w

The Soviet Union (tankies’ favorite) begs to differ

0

My parameters are more focused on what’s effective or ineffective

3

Anonymous #3 2w

I mean, does that post-revolutionary system exist in a world where every western global power would like to see it destroyed? To the point of espionage, assassination attempts, and internal coup-stoking efforts by the most powerful countries on earth? You do in fact have to protect the revolution from counterrevolution and sabotage.

10

Anonymous #3 2w

Depends on the time period, but I would also suggest you read more about the history and culture to get a better idea of what life was actually like outside of Hollywood propaganda

6

Sure, and I’d suggest they read Engles “on authority”

11

Anarchists are good people, they’re great to work with on the ground with practical things like mutual aid and stuff, I love my anarchist homies. I’m also gonna criticize their belief system for being a little fantastical. You can’t go Revolution -> Anarchy because you need a revolutionary state to protect you from other states, unless there was somehow a global anarchist revolution and every state fell at the same time. Which would be magical thinking to expect.

10

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 2w

As opposed to the worldwide proletariat revolution Marx proposed?

-1

Anonymous #3 2w

Worldwide revolution does not mean it will somehow occur instantly and simultaneously.

7

Using political compass terms probably has something to do with why Marxist-Leninists will call your ideology unserious lol

5

Anonymous #3 2w

Karl Marx did not think that global revolution would occur simultaneously or quickly

5

Anonymous #1 2w

This is true

10

Get off of political compass reddit and actually crack open some philosophical literature. Marx, Engels, hell, maybe some Kropotkin or Goldman or Proudhon if you really wanna see where you stand

13

I’d suggest reading State and Revolution, it’s an excellent book!

3

This isn’t meant as a diss but it’s just something every leftist needs to do whether they want to or not

11

No problem. I wish someone would have given me the same advice like three years earlier than they did

16

Revolutionary regimes, socialist or otherwise, are prone to repression as a general rule. The liberal revolutions of the 18th century were not bloodless either. Revolutionary repression isn’t a matter of ideology, it is a part of the political science of revolution. Is it always properly aimed? No, states are run by people, and people fuck up.

12

While the holodomor famine isn’t really a good thing to try to excuse, if you read Marxist literature you might understand why state repression is indeed necessary when constructing socialism. To put it simply: doing so would threaten the interests of powerful people and you need something to keep them in check

3

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

This is the same thing with the French bourgeois revolution repressing the aristocracy

10

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

W reading list, add Murray Bookchin

2

Anonymous xi.jinping 2w

Maybe this time we don’t kill all the anarchists after the revolution, and instead we go out for drinks

0

Anonymous #8 2w

Not that kind of tank lmao

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I mean I think it meets the definition

0