The Red Bureaucracy: Authoritarian Socialism vs Libertarian Socialism

introduction in many of my videos I received comments which point towards the failures of authoritarian socialism an attempt to use these as an argument against libertarian socialism by conflating the two in this video I'd like to clear up this misconception firstly I'd like to begin by defining my terms and explaining the divide between authoritarian socialism and libertarian socialism while highlighting its practical significance secondly I'd like to apply an anarchist method of analysis to revolutionary socialism and make the case for why libertarian socialism is preferable in achieving socialist ends with reference to class analysis and historical evidence before I make these arguments I'd like to define what I mean by the terms socialism and the state in order to promote a shared understanding and avoid debates over semantics defining socialism in a broad sense socialism is an ideology which seeks the emancipation of labor from capital and a narrower sense socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the workers rather than privately by bosses it's important to stress here that socialism is not merely being used to refer to government programs or health and safety regulations for employment sorry liberals socialism is being used here to refer to an alternative economic system to capitalism and the means to achieve sad economic system the positions I'd like to discuss in this video are factions within revolutionary socialism that is to say France of socialism which believe that reformist methods are not sufficient in and of themselves and that a revolution must take place in order to establish socialism although there are forms of socialism which do not subscribe to this viewpoint I will be assuming that this is indeed the case and that capitalism cannot be reformed out of existence defining the state in this video of the word state will be used to refer to a combination of three individually necessary and jointly sufficient components firstly a centralized institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence secondly a clearly defined geographical area over which this violence is exercised and thirdly a centralized administrative governing body which lays claim to use of this violence the question of the state plays a central role in the debate between authoritarian source lists and libertarian socialists I shall now explain the distinction between libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism libertarian socialism libertarian socialism has a system in which the workers on uncontrol the means of production that is to say it's socialism as defined before but also libertarian socialists seek to abolish the state and replace it with decentralized free associations with an overall view towards creating a non hierarchical society as well as advocating a non hierarchical and stateless society in which the workers own and control the means of production libertarian socialists reject taking state power as a means to achieving this end that is to say libertarian socialists reject the idea of creating one or more libertarian socialist parties and placing them in control of the administrative component of the state apparatus instead libertarian socialists seek to create non hierarchical institutions which serve to build a new society in the shell of the old tendencies of political thought that could be described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of socialist anarchism such as collectivist anarchism anarcho-communism mutualism individualist anarchism and left-wing market anarchism other tendencies include communalism participation and inclusive democracy certain strains of Marxism can also be described as libertarian socialist such as libertarian Marxism autonomous 'm situationism and council communism authoritarian socialism authoritarian socialism he refers to a form of revolutionary socialism which shares the same ends as libertarian socialism of creating a state in class free society based on worker control of the means of production however authoritarian socialists do not share the same means to achieving this end and this is where the disagreement lies authoritarian socialists advocate taking state power in some way or another as a means to achieving their ends this is because they believe that this strategy can be used to achieve their ends and is necessary to achieve their ends tendencies that can be categorized as forms of authoritarian socialism mainly includes certain forms of Marxism such as Marxism Leninism Trotskyism Stalinism and Maoism this is not to say that Marxism is necessarily authoritarian but merely the tendencies which advocate taking state power as a means of visionary change our this divide between authoritarian socialists and libertarian socialists is practically significant because the two positions advocating radically different means of initiating revolutionary social change and as such they are very likely to have different consequences thus individuals who oppose revolutionary socialism should take care to demonstrate an awareness of this distinction and consider before making a criticism of whether or not it is applicable to both factions revolutionary socialism a libertarian socialist analysis libertarian socialists believe that social hierarchy that is to say a form of organization in which individuals are ranked one of another in degrees of status and authority does not justify itself unless those in a position of hierarchical Authority can provide a justification for their position then it should be dismantled particularly by those over whom it is exercised the social relation should then be reorganized from below and a more egalitarian fashion in this video I'd like to apply this method of analysis to revolutionary socialism and assume that the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to use hierarchical forms of organization in pursuit of socialist ends I will split my analysis up into three stages identification justification and conclusion identification authoritarian socialists wish to take state power which is a hierarchical form of organization this can be understood through class analysis an examination of the state as an institution in itself if we're to define the state in the sense mentioned before individuals and groups within the administrative component of the state apparatus our vested with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence consequently ranking them with greater status and authority than those outside of the state apparatus furthermore these individuals are specialized to carry out a specific form of labor that is to say empowering administrative labor this combination of specialization and exclusion requires a division of labor across society between those who carry out administrative labor and those who do not resulting in a form of hierarchy in which those who monopolize empowering an appealing administrative labor consequently possess far greater status and authority than those who carry out the menial tasks I will hereafter refer to this specialized class as the coordinator class which lies between the capitalist class in the working class to reiterate the state is composed of three individually necessary and jointly sufficient components a centralized institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence an administrative governing body which lays claim to use of this violence and a geographical area over which this violence is exercised if this isn't deep before we mean by state and if it is indeed the case that the state requires the perpetuation of a coordinator class which possesses far greater status and authority over the working class on the grounds of its monopolization of empowering labor then how can we describe the authoritarian socialist position well what follows from this is that the authoritarian socialist position by advocating for one or more socialist or communist parties to take state power supports the creation of a coordinator class which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence as such it technically Falls from this that acts of coercive expropriation of the capitalist class by working-class non-state actors are illegitimate without state approval if it is the case that state actors will the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence it's clear then that the authoritarian socialist position advocates some form of hierarchy as a means to achieving a state and class free society based on workers control over the means of production justification having identified a form of hierarchy in the authoritarian socialist position on that examine whether or not this form of hierarchy advocated by authoritarian socialists can successfully meet its burden of proof it appears that authoritarian socialists believe that this form of hierarchy is justified because the whole a certain set of premises to be true about its strength as a means to achieving their ends in particular they believe that it can be used to achieve their ends and is necessary to achieve their ends I will address each of these premises individually number one the efficacy of state power firstly is it the case that taking state power can be used as a means to achieve workers control over the means of production well if it is the case that coercive expropriation of the capitalist class is monopolized in the hands of the coordinator class and we can also expect the coordinator class to monopolize control over the means of production which have been expropriated from the capitalist class thus constituting a new ruling class in itself this creates a form of state capitalism in which all the previous functions of the capitalist class are instead undertaken by the state rather than the workers having direct control of a production they become hired employees of the government this process can be seen occurring in numerous revolutions and by numerous I mean just about all of them that have adopted authoritarian socialist methods in October 1917 in a draft decree on workers control the leader of the Russian Revolution Vladimir Lenin stated that delegates elected to exercise worker control were to be answerable to the state for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property nice worker control a Lenin noted later in December 1917 that the Supreme Council of national economy that had been created was to replace absorb and supersede the machinery of workers control in 1918 Lenin wrote in the immediate tasks of the Soviet government that unquestioning subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of processes organized on the pattern of large-scale machine industry today the revolution demands in the interests of socialism that the people unquestioningly obey the single well of the leaders of labour the hostility of authoritarian socialism towards worker control in the USSR can be further demonstrated by the behavior of the Soviet government in response to the Petropavlovsk resolution of February 1921 sailors in Kronstadt made a series of 15 demands and number 14 called for the institution of mobile workers control groups this resolution led to a rebellion and the Bolshevik government responded on March the 7th by attacking crunch down with some 60,000 troops official Soviet figures estimate that about a thousand rebels were killed in April 19-21 Lenin admitted the intentional implementation of state capitalism in Russia as the new economic policy in which nationalization was slightly scaled back and some individuals outside of the state were allowed to own small enterprises in November 1922 when an admitted that the new economic policy has change nothing radically in the social system of Soviet Russia Morris Brenton's pamphlet the Bolsheviks and workers control the state and counter-revolution gives a detailed historical timeline of how the Bolshevik government consistently and systematically undermined and destroyed the workers councils and the factory committees this quote from Lenin sums it up if the trade unions nine-tenths of whose members are non party workers appoint the managers of Industry what is the use of the party the hostility of authoritarian socialism towards worker control reproduction can also be observed in other situations for example Fidel Castro's Marxist government following the Cuban Revolution engaged in active suppression of worker control and an eyewitness report anarcho-syndicalist and labor union activist Augustine's uchi described that the National Institute for agrarian reform had destroyed the work and controlled shoe manufacturing collective that had been established in Manzanillo he said this popular initiative of the mantha new shoe workers was students squelched the Manzanillo section of the communist party was against free cooperatives which class with their authoritarian ideas they therefore urged Russian style absorption of the voluntarily collectivized workshops by the I NRA this proposal was enthusiastically endorsed by the I NRA bureaucrats and the cooperative shoe industry was taken over Suchi felt that the system that had been created in the rural collectives in Cuba was far too reminiscent of the hierarchical Soviet model and he argued this in his eyewitness report stating that Cuba is the only Latin American country in which agrarian cooperatives are managed by military personnel the report was published as a pamphlet called testimonies of Cuban Revolution and three days after which he left the Cuban government seized and destroyed as many copies of the pamphlet as possible historical evidence suggests that all Thorat aryan socialist methods in Cuba and Russia have not only failed to produce a state and class free society based on worker control over the means of production but have also engaged in the active suppression of worker control over production as opposed to state capitalist nationalization for further evidence that authoritarian socialist means do not achieve the desired ends of a state in class free society we can look at the history of Marxist Leninist government not only as institutions were subordinate the working class to the coordinator cluster in their room but also as institutions which have historically recapitulated to corporate capitalism authoritarian socialists also defend taking state power on the grounds that doing so is necessary for a transition from capitalism to socialism just as it was necessary for a transition from feudalism to capitalism the problem with this argument is that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was merely a transition from one form of class society to another on the other hand the same cannot be said of socialism which aims at the abolition of class society altogether the problem with this argument is that it underestimates the extent to which the state is bound up with class Society the fundamental error behind the authoritarian socialist position is that it does not see the state as being an institution which is intrinsically oppressive towards the working class but instead made merely sees it as being oppressive within the context of a capitalist economic system for authoritarian socialists the state is instrumentalized at present the catalyst class will be' hammer but as soon as the working class wield the hammer then the state will no longer be an oppressive institution this view stands in conflict with historical evidence and a screams of autonomy of action to the state that it just doesn't have by under estimating the extent to which capitalist economic relations are built into the functioning of the state apparatus most significantly the hierarchical division of labor that inevitably comes with a centralized government the inevitable result of a socialist revolution whose aim is to conquer state power is the monopolization of the means of production in the hands of the coordinator class and hence the creation of state capitalism the possibility of the coordinator class voluntarily just giving up the means of production to the working class during a socialist revolution seems extremely unlikely because it runs contrary to the way the state as an institution functions and a historical record is consistent with this view so is it the case that authoritarian socialist means of taking state power can be used successfully to achieve a state and class free society based on worker control over the means of production with all things considered one must answer this question with an emphatic no it seems to be the case that authoritarian socialist means cannot give rise to worker control over the means of production but rather suppress it indeed rather than achieving control by the workers its achieves control of the workers to quote John Holloway you cannot build a society of non power relations by conquering power once the logic of power is adopted the struggle against power is already lost the notion that a stateless society based on workers control over the means of production can be achieved through centralization of state power and the destruction of worker control over the means of production is on a level with the notion that humanity may achieve a society free from superstition by having everyone unquestioningly submit to the doctrines of the church so if it is the case that taking state power cannot be used as a means to achieve a stateless society based on worker control then consequently the notion that doing so is necessary in virtue of its service to this end simply falls away and little further discussion is necessary however for the sake of argument despite all of the empirical evidence to the contrary I'd like to entertain the notion that somehow the coordinator class would in fact hand over the means of production to the working class in a revolution organized upon authoritarian socialist means and that it is in fact the case that authoritarian socialist means can in fact achieve a state in class free society I will offer this concession for the sake of addressing there are other claims number two the necessity of state power is it necessary to take state power in order to achieve a state in class free society authoritarian socialists argue that yes this is the case and for a number of reasons which I'll address just nine the first is that the state is necessary in order to defend a revolution from internal and external capitalist threats well it is clearly the case that defense of a revolution is necessary it is not necessarily the case that such defense must necessarily take the form of a state in the sense mentioned earlier that is to say it does not necessarily have to be organized in a centralized the monopolistic fashion nor does it require the creation of an administrative governing body furthermore historical examples can be given which demonstrate that the functions which defending a revolution requires can be undertaken without the need for a state for example from 1918 to 1921 the Ukrainian anarchic communist free territory with a population of roughly seven million was defended by the revolutionary insurrectionary army of Ukraine or the black army which had a democratic structure mass Assemblies were held to discuss policy officers in the traditional sense were abolished and all commanders had to be elected and instantly revocable the black army defended the region from the anti-communist white army and sustained itself fairly well with the initial support of the Red Army however the Bolshevik forces later went on to make several surprise attacks against the anarchist militias until eventually a massive military occupation took place suppressing the Magno vests and instituting state control hmm I wonder why they did that maybe they were upset at the fact that they had created the state in class free society it is perhaps ironic for authoritarian socialists to justify their methods on the grounds of defending the revolution when there is a consistent historical record suggesting that they're the ones whom the revolution must be defended from another argument made by authoritarian socialists for the alleged necessity of taking state power to achieve revolutionary ends is the idea that doing so is necessary for the building of class consciousness that is to say in order for the working class to become organized in active pursuit of its own interests rather than merely being a class of people with a common role to play in the capitalist mode of production it is necessary to take state power again this fails to account for historical evidence which suggests that it is in fact possible for members of the working class to organize in active pursuit of their own interests without the need for taking state power we can look towards the Ukrainian revolution creating an anarchist society the Spanish revolution creating an anarchist society the recuperation of factories in Argentina establishing areas of worker control over production the autonomous Zapatista communities in Mexico and the may 1968 events in France and which decentralized wildcat strikes strikes without the authorization of trade union officials general strikes involving around 100 million workers virtually brought the entire advanced capitalist economy of France to its knees furthermore the strategies proposed by authoritarian socialists do not achieve a form of consciousness in which the working class self-organizes in active pursuit of its own interests but rather a form of consciousness in which the working class is sabor to the interests of the party by contrast there are forms of organization which can build up class consciousness without the need for taking state power such as platform ISM which creates organizations uniting their membership along certain set of shared principles and ends and also anarcho-syndicalism creating revolutionary unions which seek to expropriate capital and general strikes etc so again this is not necessary another argument given by authoritarian socialists is the idea that these methods are necessary for the needs of industrialization however historical evidence does not support this view during the Spanish revolution from 1936 to 1939 economic efficiency and production increased despite the fact that prior to the revolution Spain was highly unand us realized production that is to say worker control production during the Revolution was not small-scale either but involved according to fragments calculations based on CNT statistics 1 million eight hundred and thirty eight thousand collectivists in agriculture industry and public services thus we can reject arguments from industrialization the arguments made by authoritarian socialists for the alleged necessity of taking state power are weak authoritarian socialists argue that doing so is necessary in order to carry out certain functions however historical evidence demonstrates that these functions can effectively be carried out without the need for authoritarian socialist means and sort doing so is unnecessary more significantly the central aim of revolutionary socialism that is to see worker control of a production can indeed be achieved without the need for taking state power and as such authoritarian socialist means are totally unnecessary conclusion I will summarize my arguments as follows the aim of revolutionary socialism is to establish a state and class free society in which the workers own and control the means of production there are two factions of revolutionary socialism libertarian socialism and authoritarian socialism these factions are divided over whether or not taking state power should be used as a means to achieving revolutionary socialist ends libertarian socialists opposed taking state power whereas authoritarian socialists support taking state power form of hierarchy can be identified in authoritarian socialist means this is because the centralized administrative governing component of the state apparatus which authoritarian socialists seek to take control of gives rise to a hierarchical division of labor in which the working-class are subordinated to the coordinator class who monopolize empowering labour this form of hierarchy should be questioned unless this form of hierarchy can successfully meet its burden of proof then it should be dismantled historical evidence demonstrates that when authoritarian socialist means are adopted the coordinator class establishes monopolistic control over the means of production leading to state capitalism a state of affairs in which the previous functions of the capitalist class are undertaken by the state states set up by authoritarian socialists have a consistent historical record of systematically undermining worker control none of them have given rise to a state and class free society and the vast majority of them have recapitulated to corporate capitalism as such we can infer beyond a reasonable doubt that authoritarian socialist means do not give rise to revolutionary socialist ends historical evidence suggests that libertarian socialist means can achieve a revolutionary socialist ends doing much greater extent than authoritarian socialist means for example during the Spanish revolution in which the workers abolished capitalism in the state are supposed to combining them and established worker control as opposed to destroying it even if we are charitable to the authoritarian socialist position and we suppose that authoritarian socialist means can in fact achieve revolutionary socialist ends authoritarian sourceless means still lack any intrinsic justification the arguments made by authoritarian socialists for the necessity of a state driven pathway are predicated on carrying out certain functions which are necessary to achieve revolutionary socialist ends such as building class consciousness defending the revolution and industrialization however all of these functions can be undertaken without the need for authoritarian socialist means and as such they are not necessary however given that authoritarian socialist means cannot achieve revolutionary socialist ends whereas libertarian socialist means can we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that if one is to seek the achievement of revolutionary social and one must advocate libertarian socialist means for the authoritarian socialist two pathways are available on the one hand to retain their belief in revolutionary socialist ends they must consequently change their position on the state not as an institution which can serve the interests of anybody but as an institution whose intrinsic purpose is to serve the interests of an elite minority at the expense of the population and consequently they must renounce their belief in authoritarian socialist meanings on the other hand authoritarian socialists can instead advocate the state capitalism of the party bureaucracy as an end in itself joining the ranks of those who support the continuing subordination of the masses to political and economic elite and consequently abandoning any pretense of supporting revolutionary socialist ends you can believe in the social revolution which seeks to abolish class society in the state or you can believe in authority you cannot however believe in both time is running out an authoritarian political and economic institutions are beginning to take their toll on the species and the environment threatening the prospects for decent survival and I can assure you that an irrational belief in the authoritarian principles upon which these institutions are organized will not do anything for you or your fellow human beings but instead act as a direct barrier to your own emancipation the evidence is overwhelming and to directly deny it is to go directly against your own interests

  1. You are right that Libertarian is philosophically and efficiently superior to Authoritarian.
    However, I believe you shouldn't express such a bigoted opinion on those who believe the authoritarian methods : when you emit your hypothesis on how they are actually all hypocrites (in the comment section).
    It is wise to recognize that we are all simply ignorant about the things we believe, and so many will accept that our leaders lead us to failure, because they have no idea about the alternatives and would rather justify the horrors made by tankies as exceptions rather than admit the truly cynical nature of humans possessing disproportionate amounts of power from their efforts to erase the competition rather than from the virtue of their ideas.
    Tankies are not fine, perhaps, but if we continue to be sectarian as we are, our hopes of progress are reduced.
    It is crucial to keep being friendly to one another. Display the imperfections of authoritarian socialism with empathy and understanding.

  2. I think this argument summarizes why I eventually left libertarian socialism/anarcho syndicalism and gassed up a t-34 to join the tankie armored convoy. It’s sort of darkly funny to me that the revisionist ussr’s suppression of a worker uprising instigated in part by bourgeois propaganda of RFE has become the monicker for anti-revisionist socialism

    I’m sure LSR knows these points but for the sake of dialectical engagement I’ll still comment.

    In a testament to the accumulated wisdom of Chinese comrades and their synthesis of mass line, it was as much explaining anarchism to other workers that made me realize some flaws in anarchism as did my own education in cultural anthropology and study of marxism, which I initially got into to see how wrong it was.

    Basically, the State is something that arises out of class relationships. It’s not something separate. The existing of a State is something that can be observed when one class uses coercion to resolve class antagonism to that class’s benefit. So an anarchist militia, the red army, the waffen ss, and the US coast guard are all State organs

    This was pointed out to me by intermediate workers, who didn’t see what was so liberating about seizing their boss’s property from them. By their own internalization of bourgeois thinking, they communicated the class position of the bourgeoisie, in a way I later found out Engels did over a century ago: the revolutionary seizure of power is authoritarian. No matter how many people are liberated, no matter how popular the uprising, it is an act of coercion, and the resolution of class antagonism to the benefits of us and the expense of exploiters.

    This is ultimately how the uncritical embrace of the boogeyman of stalinism and the opportunistic adoption of bourgeois propaganda by a leftist tendency that is itself petit bourgeois in orientation allows for rhetorical coup de grace by liberal apologists for capitalism. To them, and they say this correctly, we are all authoritarians. Not presenting a more realistic (materialistic) explanation for the limits to actually existing socialism has given up vast swaths of rhetorical, historiographical, and conceptual ground to reaction. Conceding to their ideas about Stalinism hasn’t empowered us as a class. It’s lead to the biggest set backs in progressive accomplishments since the rise of fascism. Not even social democracy is maintainable anymore

    Anarchists hemming and hawing about this just costs them credibility in the eyes of workers who are under no obligation to take any radical argument at face value, and who themselves understand what the State is at some instinctive level. I’m from the Deep South, so most people I know are conservatives and embrace the second amendment with a clear political understanding of what it means to be able to project force.

    As Marxists, we believe that descriptions can provide prescriptions and proscriptions, for sure. We rather own up to the existence of transitional socialist state forms of communism than claim we can overnight do away entirely with coercion, which in a society of more than 1 person is impossible, especially with multiple generations present who have internalized much bourgeois thinking—including anarchists, with their utopian and individualist ideas. What do you do when some workers take advantage of the situation to claim more benefits for themselves during the protracted civil war against reaction? This is a question the bolsheviks faced, and it’s an extremely practical one anarchism has no clear answer for, besides trying to negotiation with them. Realistically, revolutions are wages by a minority of the population with a large middle section that can go either way, and trying to get even a simple majority’s support going in isn’t practically reasonable. It’s never happened, in any case.

    Goddamn this is long but alright the differentiation of functions under socialism happens, especially in a huge society covering vast geographic areas with limited mass communication, like the former Czarist empire, again for practical reasons

    In Baton Rouge there’s a chemical plant of 10,000 people, in a city of 250,000, on the banks of a major waterway. I’ve talked to many plant workers, and i work in manufacturing, and one person they resent, despite all their own safety training, is the safety man who tells them to wear their glasses, use the handrails, to use the gangplanks instead of walking over pressurized pipelines. They really don’t like this dude having the authority to prevent them from losing a limb or an eye because they get a little lazy or careless sometimes. Currently there’s enough people not liking being told to get their kids vaccinated it’s compromising herd immunity, who have been taught basic science and can freely learn about the benefits of vaccines.

    These are real issues. These are not going to go away overnight. So what do we do? Let a guy who’s in a bad mood bust his head open tripping over a pipeline because he couldn’t be bothered to walk 20 feet over to the plank? Let kids catch the measles?

    Anarchism has no answer beyond just trying to educate people. It’s just silly.

  3. The ultra-bureaucratic nature of the Soviet Union bred revisionism, but it was still socialist. As libertarian marxist, I feel like I should point out that syndacalism and anarchist praxis as a whole has historically been very reformist, and counter productive. The revolutionary characteristics of syndicalist unions are lost in their pursuit of "fair wages" and "adequate working conditions." Anarchism is far too idealistic to be a practical basis for revolutionary activism. In other words, anarchism is generally incompetent at promoting class conciousness because it cannot organize without utilizing reformism. Anarchism is not really applicable unless under very specific circumstances. I would consider myself a councilist of sorts, but I still think that a vanguard or revolutionary party is an essential component to promoting activism and organizing post revolution. A Confederacy of worker councils that work alongside a revolutionary party to organize things like the military would be far, far more effective than a decentralized, anarchistic military. Frankly, I do not see how anarchism could realistically defend itself from imperialist powers.

    Though anarchists generally do hold very progressive beliefs when it comes to things like trans rights, homosexuality, environmentalism etc. Which I hold nothing but praise for. I am a Marxist feminist. Red fascists as I like to call them, who have the social views of Sargon annoy me beyond no end. I'm pretty sure any leftist has encountered one of these amazing specimen. You know the ones, the "everything that could be seen as somewhat progressive is first world liberalism" crowd. Cause you know, calling transgenderism first world opportunism is the peak of revolutionary activism.

  4. I feel more libertarian socialist but I like Mao and what he did. But tbh Mao was more libertarian than authoritarian

  5. It all simplifies to this: Socialism and Anarchy are based on equality. Capitalism and State are based on inequality. Equality + inequality is a contradiction so State Socialism always fails.

  6. So a democratic government that is actually of the and for the people, good to know!

    So you can’t vote in a leader or ruling class?

  7. Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat. This has to be emphasized as the apparatus of the state has to be taken directly by the workers to use it against the bourgeoisie. This organized power was to defend the revolution and to crush the bourgeoise counter-revolutionary forces. I do criticize the Marxist Leninist States but defining the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as tyranny is misunderstanding the Marxian argument."The dictatorship of the proletariat is the democracy of the masses but depriving the bourgeoisie of the ability to revolt."Anything more than this ideal sophistry and a mere travesty of the Marxian argument. Could you please Elucidate on this fact?

  8. Ah so if the state monopolizes control (any form of state power), and a free market tends to lead to the market creating a state to ensure its own economic goals … then it doesn't make sense to me to support anything besides Libertarian Socialism.

    Am I correct, or off base? (When I took the Political Compass test, it put me in the bottom left most section of Libertarian Socialism.:P)

  9. Autoritarian socialism is a crap : u kill the bourgeois to have a new parasite . Lib.soc. instead IS the only true socialism , based on workers' democracy . I'm not an anarchist but i have many anarchist thoughts .I love all of u my comrades

  10. Both "libertarian" and "authoritarian" socialism are still socialism. What this young man doesn't understand is that collectivism was created by the banksters to expand their power and control over the world. The rest is all mental masturbation designed to confuse the weak.

  11. Good general analysis. One day it will be put in to practice in an anarchistic solution without blood shed and without money.

  12. I thought libertarian socialism didn't want to abolish the state, it just wants a smaller and less powerful state. If it wants to abolish it completely how is it different from anarcho socialism?

  13. This video made me a libertarian socialist.This is exactly why Im not a Marxist. Because you cannot achieve egalitarian ends through authoritarian means. Cameron you should debate or at least debunk Jason Unrhue(Maoist Rebel News) and TheFinnishBolshevik for defending authoritarian socialism. I'm so sick of leftists defending the USSR and Maoist China.

  14. I'm an anarchist, but there's a lot we can learn from certain AuthSoc principles, like Maoist Protracted People's War.

  15. Ah yes.more "state is violence HURR durr" idiocy and how only the state can use violence.I honestly expected better from you.Id expect these from some ancap or libertard.

  16. Authoritarian socialism is replacing one tyrannical authority(the bourgeois) with another tyrannical authority( the state). Where instead of workers controlling the means of production it is the state that controls the means of production.This is my quarrel with Marxism. Historically Marxism has achieved socialist ends through authoritarian means.This is why I'm an anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian socialist and not a Marxist or Maoist or Leninist or Trotskyist,etc.

  17. Finally, a logical and precise rebuttal to all these fucking tankie vids sucking Stalin and Mao cock and accusing striking workers under their regimes as "bourgeois agents"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *