this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
227 points (97.9% liked)
Asklemmy
48540 readers
1062 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
he did say communist governments are authoritarian, in them the capitalist class would be getting oppressed by the state in service of the working class. this is why it's called the dictatorship of the proletariat - the proletariat should still be getting their interests as a class represented in this arrangement, while bourgious have no special status or access due to their capital.
are there any examples of libertarian states?
In a neoliberal sense, kinda, but those are really just shifting who is oppressing people to capitalists.
I think that still qualifies as a bourgious dictatorship
Sure, but I think you're both missing why I brought up the political compass, to make a distinction between libertarian leftism, and authoritarian leftism.
My point is that there is no genuine divide between "libertarian" and "authoritarian" leftism. There are different types of leftism with different strategies and goals, different views of the state, etc, but there is no continuum between libertarian and authoritarian, period. All systems exist in context and in motion, and depending on the class character of the state will respond differently to heightened contradictions, which sharpen over time.
I understand, the point in response was that non-authoritatian states don't and haven't existed. The compass portrays a field that is equal, but in reality only the top half is anything but idealism, historically speaking.
a classless stateless society is what I would prefer. That's something we can conceive of, but getting there is another issue. Revolutions tend to be pretty authoritarian no matter how you slice it.
I should have used the word society instead of state.
What do you mean by "authoritarian" vs "libertarian," then? In which respect, and for which class of society? Capitalism is authoritarian for the working class, and Socialism is authoritarian for the bourgeoisie, but Capitalism is libertarian for the bourgeoisie and Socialism is libertarian for the working class. That's my point, really, terms like "authoritarian" vs "libertarian" don't really describe anything at a useful level.
For example, when comparing Anarchists with Marxists, Anarchists take the stance that horizontalism is necessary, while Marxists see centralization as a necessity. However, this centralization in Marxist Socialism means each worker has more of a say across society, while workers in Anarchist society have more say over a smaller area. That also is ignoring that Marxists typically break things up into local, regional, national, and international levels. These aren't "libertarian" vs "authoritarian" decisions, but decisions about how power should be structured, not where along a scale they reside.
The Political Compass, really, is just political astrology. People like to be sorted based on quizzes, that's it. There's no real political theory behind it. Whenever I take the test, I land solidly lib and max left, but I'm a Marxist-Leninist and support AES. It will then say those same systems I support are max authleft or somewhere up there. It's all a vibe check made by liberals.
My original point was that leftism isn't linear, and that marxism-leninism and anarchism are quite different.
Sure, that's a point I agree with, but that wasn't how you made that point, which is what I disagreed with.