I’m sure this has been asked before, so sorry if it was.
But from my very surface level understanding of this, communism is about workers collectively owning the means of production. If a dictator is controlling the means, do the workers really own them? To me it just seems like centralised capitalism.
You must log in or register to comment.
communism is about works collectively owning the means of production.
to be clear: you’re kind of mixing terms up a bit here and this needs to untangled, because otherwise it will cause problems in answering what you’re asking. the correct word for “worker ownership of the means of production” is technically just socialism. communism, at this point in leftist history, consistently refers to a more specific thing: an ideological system that seeks to create a stateless, classless, moneyless society in addition to achieving common ownership of the means of production.[1]
this might sound very pedantic–and, to be clear, it is likely the vast majority of socialists are also communists–but conflating these terms can be genuinely problematic when asking a question like this for the simple reason that they are understood to be two different things in practice. you can have socialism but not communism, in short. (indeed, “socialism but not communism” is the rule among states that have arguably been socialist. even if you play fast and loose with the defining characteristics of communism and think there have been existing socialist states, i’ve never met a person who believes those socialist states achieved anything resembling communism.)
in terms of the actual question you’re asking: most people would probably agree that no, the properties of socialism and communism make “authoritarianism” or a “dictatorial” figure antithetical to either–at least without that desire for “authoritarianism” being shared across the entire working class somehow. this is the reason many leftists consider most or all existing (and former) states that called themselves socialist–your Soviet Unions, your Chinas, etc.–to not be socialist or to have degraded back into capitalism.
leftists adhering to variants of socialism typically characterized as “authoritarian” and “dictatorial” would obviously disagree with this, however. to generalize a bit: they tend to believe that it is an acceptable tradeoff for a vanguard (the most revolutionary and ideologically advanced section of the working class) to steward and speak for the rest of the working class through the revolution, to the establishment of socialism, and toward the creation of a communist state. separately, they tend to consider the political structures of these countries as facilitating worker ownership of the economy, even if it is not direct. many of them had central planning of the economy, and most of them had highly delegated (for example village bodies which elect city bodies which elect country bodies, etc.) or sectoral (for example X, Y, and Z interest groups must obligatorily be represented in decision-making) political systems that meant workers were represented at every level of government and decision-making.
unfortunately, whether this is “really socialism” or “really communism” is not a falsifiable belief–and while there are better arguments for the view that “authoritarianism” is incompatible with either in my mind, it’s not as if there are no arguments for the contrary view. so you’re never going to get a definitive agreement on this.
yes, i know these have been used synonymously at many points by many communists, and that even the distinction between socialism and communism has varied historically. but most people in my experience in leftist spaces do not use socialism and communism to mean the same thing at this point, nor do i. ↩︎
This is a very difficult question which probably needs a thesis to explain but here is my simplistic take.
-
Communism as a theory and communism in practice are two very different things.
-
In an ideal world, workers would take control of means of production and self organize. Coop style.
-
In the real world, factories need to coordinate with one another. Goods need to be transported to other parts of the country. Some kind of planning is needed if people prefer redistribution over free market.
-
Without a powerful central state, it would be nearly impossible to ensure that means of production are indeed not being owned by capitalist for exploitative profit.
-
Realistically, the only way to ensure the “revolution” is complete is through a very powerful forces, in the USSR and China’s cases, that would be the state.
-
Anarchist communism exist in theory but we have not seen anyone implement it in the real world yet. At least not at state level.
-
Socialist democracy is a compromise between market economy and socialism. Currently, this model seems to be more preferable than authoritarian communism, at least for some people.
-
If you look at Chinese history, there is indeed a period of time when the communist are less oppressive and they seem to have found a different path than the Russian. Unfortunately, we cannot redo history to see how things would have played out if the more liberal communists (e.g. Zhao Ziyang) in China were allowed to run things.
“we have not seen anarchism at a [large scale]” this is extremely debatable, historcally speaking large communities have existed in pseudo anarchistic systsms off and on across the world. The general counter is to claim that hierarchal governance, especially the state, are variously metastable governance systems which outcompete anarchistic communities. But this is only historically supported inasmuch as they did “win out”, but that is not actually evidence that it’s the only metastable form of large scale governance.
I may be off base, but adding to that, isn’t the winning out just colonialism coming in with violence in most cases?
I understand your point.
For e.g. rural village in the past might have no contact with the outside and run like an anarchist community.
However, when we talk about modern nation state, I believe we have not seen successful implementation of anarchism yet.
One problem is that even if it works internally, what would happen when a colonial power tries to conquer it? Like how the US is now trying to claim Greenland, the Panama Canal, or even the nation of Canada?
A centralised power has more resources to mobilise and therefore potentially able to hold off foreign assault (see Vietnam, China).
Please note I am not implying that authoritarian communism is ideal. I am just pointing out the difficulties of not having a central authority.
However, when we talk about modern nation state, I believe we have not seen successful implementation of anarchism yet.
well, anarchism is completely antithetical to modern nation states, so if you’re using that as the basis for evaluation you’re obviously going to be misled. it also begs the question of what a “successful implementation” of anarchism–or any form of leftist ideology in governing–actually is, because ask five leftists and they’ll give you six answers to that. nonetheless, and as far as i’m aware, in spite of their massive difficulties (and despite a non-anarchist self-identification in the first case) both EZLN-held Chipas and Rojava are widely held as successful, practically applied examples of anarchist theories of practice and production. likewise, so is Revolutionary Catalonia.
One problem is that even if it works internally, what would happen when a colonial power tries to conquer it?
i would encourage you to look to the Spanish Civil War or the EZLN occupation of Chiapas as examples, because this was simply not a problem for either of them. particularly in the former case, the Spanish anarchists acted very similarly to a “centralized” power in fighting the Francoists (until they were organized into the broader Republican military).[1]
and it should be noted, as an aside: what eventually undermined them and destroyed their power were not the Francoists but purges and aggression conducted by other leftists in the Spanish Popular Front against them. anarchists are, quite legitimately in my opinion, pretty aggrieved at their historical treatment by other leftist ideologies! ↩︎
Thank you for the suggestion. Its good to learn something new everyday.
Going to read up on EZLN and if you have any suggested reading that would be great as well.
on Chiapas:
- Autonomy Is in Our Hearts: Zapatista Autonomous Government Through the Lens of the Tsotsil Language (Dylan Eldredge Fitzwater)
- Zapatista Spring: Anatomy of a Rebel Water Project & the Lessons of International Solidarity (Ramor Ryan)
- Developing Zapatista autonomy : conflict and NGO involvement in rebel Chiapas (Niels Barmeyer)
on Rojava:
- Democratic Autonomy in North Kurdistan (TATORT Kurdistan)
- Revolution and Cooperatives: Thoughts about my time with the economic committee in Rojava (anonymous)
- Make Rojava Green Again (Internationalist Commune of Rojava)
on Revolutionary Catalonia and various aspects of the anarchism there:
- Collectives in the Spanish Revolution (Gaston Leval)
- The Anarchist Collectives (ed. Sam Dolgoff)
- The CNT in the Spanish Revolution (José Peirats Valls)
- Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution (José Peirats Valls)
- To Remember Spain (Murray Bookchin)
- Ready for Revolution (Agustín Guillamón)
most of these should be findable on Anna’s Archive, or by just googling the title. if not, i can track copies down.
to add, the point of Rojavas and “centralized” military forces - this is where syndicalists tend to find their strongest justifications, in having built in systems of military federation that are demonstrably effective without making it super incentivized to do power centralization.
There is a cure for political illiteracy.
?
As an addendum to 4 - state level power is also required to protect aspiring communist societies (socialists) from antagonistic forces with state level resources. If your state is not strong enough, you will be undermined into destruction by external forces, colonial powers that will use this “failure” as both propaganda and a method of appropriating your resources to further colonial projects.
Also, as someone who lives in and was raised in the heart of empire, the amount of propaganda that we have ingested is unfathomable.
It is good practice when you find yourself asking about any topic that may be deemed antithetical to a settler colonial project to thoroughly examine the sources of the information you’re basing your opinion on, and perhaps consider that while you may be a very intelligent and thoughtful individual, expertly crafted and ubiquitous propaganda can shape your opinion as well.
Yes. This is a very important point. The failure of the Paris Commune was very influential. Quoting Marx:
While the Versailles government, as soon as it had recovered some spirit and strength, used the most violent means against the Commune; while it put down the free expression of opinion all over France, even to the forbidding of meetings of delegates from the large towns; while it subjected Versailles and the rest of France to an espionage far surpassing that of the Second Empire; while it burned by its gendarme inquisitors all papers printed at Paris, and sifted all correspondence from and to Paris; while in the National Assembly the most timid attempts to put in a word for Paris were howled down in a manner unknown even to the Chambre introuvable of 1816; with the savage warfare of Versailles outside, and its attempts at corruption and conspiracy inside Paris – would the Commune not have shamefully betrayed its trust by affecting to keep all the decencies and appearances of liberalism as in a time of profound peace? Had the government of the Commune been akin to that of M. Thiers, there would have been no more occasion to suppress Party of Order papers at Paris that there was to suppress Communal papers at Versailles.
So, when Lenin started his revolution, he made sure that the proletariat would not make the same mistake:
But two mistakes destroyed the fruits of the splendid victory. The proletariat stopped half-way: instead of setting about “expropriating the expropriators”, it allowed itself to be led astray by dreams of establishing a higher justice in the country united by a common national task; such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over, and Proudhonist theories about a “just exchange”, etc., still prevailed among the socialists. The second mistake was excessive magnanimity on the part of the proletariat: instead of destroying its enemies it sought to exert moral influence on them; it underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war, and instead of launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May.
While we might look back and say “why centralise power?” At the time of the revolution, the cost of failure is very high and the proletariat understands that their enemies will use every means to try to undermine them.
-
Ones a government structure and the other is an economic structure.
