this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
117 points (89.8% liked)
Memes
55538 readers
531 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess yeah but I am not crypto about my beliefs and if the function isn't inherently "bad then why bring it up? I am a Marxist-Leninist, you can look at my profile.
I'm sure you're not shy about being an ML, but are you shy about openly accepting that it is an authoritarian leftist position?
I think it's a good thing for the working classes to wield the state against fascists, landlords, capitalists, etc. This is called "authoritarian" by non-communists yet it increases personal liberty for the working classes, who no longer have to worry as much about housing, employment, healthcare, education, and more, and can democratically run society.
Calling it an "authoritarian" position makes it seem like this is not the norm, but even anarchists wish to build up structures Marxists would recognize as a state in order to combat the former ruling classes. See what they built in Catalonia, for example.
I understand the frustration of seeing the criticisms of liberals seemingly echoed here, but I assure you that I am a communist, and I call it authoritarian when you wield the power of the state. It is a violent thing, and violence cannot be controlled. It will inevitably harm the working class, even with the best of intentions.
With that said, I would still vastly prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat to the current system we have. I just think there are better alternatives to a transitional state.
This is an Animal Farm fairy tale liberalism tells us, and there's a very good short essay about it: https://redsails.org/the-swerve/
Complete pacifism isn't really compatible with being a communist
There are 2 major points here:
How do you believe it's possible to end the state without ending class struggle? Alternatively, how do you end class struggle globally overnight? One of these two must be possible to even begin speaking of a stateless, immediate communism. Socialist states in real life, as well as attempts at anarchism, have both affirmed the Marxist position thus far.
Why do you believe the working classes controlling the state will inevitably harm the working classes, just because it has the capacity for violence? Experience has shown that this isn't the case, and instead dramatic uplifting of working class life metrics has happened.
I don't really see how you can either speedrun class struggle or believe a class will work against itself when running the state in its own interests.
''We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.''
I do imagine we have different views of what authoritarian means but no I am not shy. The state is a tool of class oppression and is by necessity an authoritarian institution. It is authority wielded by one class over another. I believe that a transitionary proletarian state is required in order to achieve the desired classless, stateless, moneyless society that is communism. In this way I am an "authoritarian" because I do not believe the state can be abolished in its entirety and immediately without the movement being summarily crushed by counterrevolution.
In my view we already live under authoritarian institutions, giving the reigns of those institutions to the working class is far better than leaving them in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
I agree with everything that you wrote, except this:
I do not believe a transitional state is necessary, in fact I believe it is counter-revolutionary, but I understand why you feel the way you do, and I respect your beliefs.
I think the militant revolution approach is entirely wrong to begin with. The revolution needs to be able to defend itself of course, but I believe violence and authoritarian tendencies need to be tools of last resort, not our opening move.
I believe that societies are living things, and the conditions surrounding societies as they are growing up go on to shape what life will be like as that society reaches maturity.
If we want a classless, moneyless, stateless society, we should start the way we intend to go on. I don't think we can impose freedom. It needs to grow naturally in an environment that nurtures it. This is why I advocate for a social revolution.
Violence is, in fact, the last resort. Everything nonviolent has already been tried, many times, and didn't work.
Nonviolence example: Libya: no nukes. Liberals enslaved and murdered them.
Violence example: Korea: has nukes. Korea is still free.
I believe you believe in the dichotomy between democracy vs. authority . While we believe in the dichotomies of democracy for which class (democracy for the proletariat vs. Democracy for the bourgeois) and authority perpetrated by which class.
This seems to be the main ideological point of contention (correct me if I'm wrong)
I don't think that's the issue here, no, at least from what I can understand but I admit I am kinda confused about what you're asking me here.
I believe that the transitional state advocated for by MLs would impose the will of those running the state upon the working class, in a similar way as the ruling class uses the power of the state, except with a different goal: instead of maximizing profit/power/etc., the goal is to transition towards communism. e.g. this would make it authoritarian, but with the justification being, this is how we achieve communism.
I do not believe that a transitional state is required to achieve communism, which is why I'm not an ML, but I'm not even arguing that point, just that MLs are inherently auth-left - heck, it's the archetypical auth-left position.
The liberal (or Western) view often posits a universal, procedural democracy (multi-party elections, civil liberties, etc.) as intrinsically good, and any concentrated state power as intrinsically suspicious( “dichotomy between democracy vs. authority.”) But Marxism-Leninism rejects this as an idealist and ahistorical abstraction. In any class society, the state is not a neutral arbiter; it is a dictatorship of a class an instrument of rule and authority by that class over others.
Liberals see authority itself as the problem. Marxists-Leninists see class-based authority as the problem esspecialy, authority by the exploiting class. We argue that the liberal dichotomy hides the reality: capitalism already has immense, unaccountable authority (over workers, colonized peoples, the unemployed, the indebted). The question is not “democracy or authority” but which class holds democracy for itself and which class wields authority against which other class.
Except their own authority, of course. When they wield authority it's just Common Sense
The state exists because of class struggle, and will exist until class struggle is over. Class struggle cannot erode overnight, so the working classes should run the state, as is what Marxists propose, with which the proletariat will advance their collective class interests in collectivizing production and distribution and subverting attempts by reactionaries to overthrow it.
The anarchists that try to make the point that this phase is unnecessary still end up following through with it in practice, just by different names. The structures present in Catalonia were a form of state-like structures that were adopted by necessity, as sheer ideals alone cannot overturn reality.
Could you define "authoritarian" for me?