For the libs - read 'On Authority' by Engels. Its very short.

On a related note: If you're a lib looking to educate yourself on what exactly communism is read Principles of Communism, also by Engels. It's literally an FAQ describing the very basics, and a much better starting point than the manifesto which is what most people tend to start off with.

Principles of Communism is great, the best introductory text. Incredibly clear and short.
- My boy Freddy really knows how to distill these concepts into an incredibly easy to digest form.
  I might make some posts going through different bits of introductory theory, since I plan to go back and read through the fundamental stuff again and take notes. With federation being a thing now it's a great opportunity to expose other Lemmy users to theory

"It's very short", you say, oh please, how short could it possibly-- oh.

That actually is pretty short.

Huh.

Alright is nobody gonna remark on how much this sounds like an innuendo
Throwback to when Va*sh said of this work "I hate that book"
- Frankly, at no stage in my ideological development have I ever been able to comprehend how anyone can like Vaush.

I kinda had an epiphany today. Liberals use the word "authoritarian" to mean "lack of representation from a plurality of interests, instead all representation is done by a single interest"

That would mean every single socialist country by default, since communist parties represent working class interests and disenfranchise capitalist interests. Since liberals dismiss a Marxist understanding of economic class, they can only see administration by a communist party as needlessly strict and dictatorial, since they literally do not see a difference between capitalist and worker. They can only surmise a communist party takes power for no reason at all except to be evil. Authoritarian might as well just mean "bad." It's when bad things happen.

Yeah, they can't even actually describe what they mean by authoritarian. They name countries, but not describe what it means. It is just bad to them, that's how they're encouraged to use it and understand it by propaganda
- I'm coming to understand what they mean by authoritarian is "unfair." There are unfair circumstances that don't allow liberals to take power through their preferred democratic theater mechanisms. There are restrictions on things like large business interests involving themselves within the political sphere. There's only a single party, meaning a liberal/capitalist party can't gain representation. There are restrictions on media that prevent a liberal viewpoint from dominating. And since they're liberals they can't just say they want to overthrow socialism because it's contrary to their interests. Instead they have to invent this complex mythology about authoritarian abuses of power that would justify the advocacy of overthrowing a foreign country.
They don't undersrand comradery.

But why can't you defeat the ruling class with niceness?

You expect libs to read?

If they can read our dunks, they can read Engles
- if federation has taught me anything, it's that they can't read anything longer than a sentence or two.
- if they could read engles they would not need to read our dunks

fantastic reccomemdation comrade corgi. It may keep some of us from having to repeat "all governments are authoritarian"

I do agree with the argument of the text, but I don't think it is a good introductory read for someone who doesn't already have an understanding of how historical materialism works.

I would recommend this video first since it explains a lot of the same material, along with the general basics of historical materialism, and does so in terms that should be much more familiar to someone with a more mainstream understanding of politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k

no more half measures walter

We're all reactionaries in these notes lol
All socialists in their hearts are anarchists. It's just that you can't defend a society with no organised body of men representing the interest of the ruling class against a society with one
basically the only thing that can stop a bourgeoise with a state is a proletariat with a state

Ah, again the text that willingly conflates authority with self-defence.

on authority is only a counter to anyone who wants to abolish all forms of authority. If an anarchist believed in elected foremans for factories for example then on authority would not apply to what they believe

it's not really a counterargument against anarchism but against the stupidest subsection of anarchism imaginable

Great piece, worth the reread. Thanks comrade.

I'm locking this damn thread.

Text

Narration by Socialism For All (9:40)

Feel free to edit these links into the text of your post if you want to!

So do people really think politics will be over once people's economic needs are met?

Marxists believe in dialectics. In essence, contridictions are inherent and change comes about as the contridictions are resolved.
As the contridictions are resolved, as has happened in past systems, we expect a widening of democracy and better conditions.
Will there be a point where all contridictions are resolved? We don't know for certain, but the path toward that point improves peoples lives and liberates people from their current state of exploitation and oppression
- But I find it less a contradiction and more a complete ignoring of how humans create political structures.
  Even after economic inequality is solved, there will likely also be issues with political inequality and it will require more attention than just trusting the leaders to make an equal system. There may also be a perverse incentive of political leadership to delay economic equality to prevent them having to implement political equality.
One of the biggest historical arguments on the left from all sides is against the idea of Utopianism. There are huge, obvious problems with capitalism that can be fixed, but they’re not the end of it. Where we go from there is almost anyone’s guess.
The immediate problem we have is that the 1% own everything and control everything. And, if they own everything and control everything we don’t really have democracy, do we. That’s what people are saying about contradictions. If we can somehow make it so the people own everything and control everything, we’ll be several steps ahead.
- But why trust a system that says "don't worry, we'll get there eventually" when other systems say the exact same thing?
  Fascists talk of utopia, why not believe them?
The goal isn't to "end politics" but to improve people's lives. If we abolish the existing power structures, new ones will arise to take their place, yes, but those new ones don't need to be the same as our current ones, just as a capitalist liberal government isn't the same as a feudal monarchy.
- I'm just listening to Engels when I say that.
  All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.
Do you have a lot of experience with life in a world where everyone's "economic needs" are met
- No, but I've got a lot of experience with retired people on pensions that like to rule their HOA's with an iron fist. I've also got enough experience with people who don't want people to choose their own pronouns, which isn't an economic decision.
No, but it would look fundamentally different than what it does right now. One of the core premises is that culture & politics are inextricably formed out of property relations & the distribution of economic surpluses.
- It is a premise, but there are cases seen in governments where a people will choose to a act against their absolute economic interests for relative sociopolitical interests. Hell, a major underpinning of fascism or apartheid states is that a part of the social working class will get an elevated social position by allying with an oppressive state as long as they get some privileges for doing so.
keep in mind its 1800s language and vernacular
- I'm not judging it as being bad, just without the political experience of the 20th and 21st centuries.
  It is like George Washington saying that political parties are bad because it wasn't thought of when writing the Constitution even though that was obviously what was going to happen.