• JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years 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.

      • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        The party leaders are not proletarian, but rather become part of a class of privileged bureaucrats.

        • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          there’s a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that’s why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years 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.