this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
145 points (90.5% liked)
Memes
55871 readers
1526 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
🙄
For those that don't want to sound uneducated like @bearboiblake@pawb.social
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Thank you for sharing!
Do you realize that what you shared doesn't argue that Marxism-Leninism is not authoritarian, but instead just reframes it as necessarily authoritarian?
As in, it implies authoritarianism is necessary to achieve communism. Argue that it is good, necessary, be my guest, but it is authoritarian.
I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing you shared which resonated with me deeply, and highlights essentially the root issue I have with MLs:
You didn't read the text, I can tell.
Duh, because we have a different understanding of authority.
No, the text asks if organisation in the most abstract sense is possible without authority and highlights that with the advent of capitalism labour is a highly socialized process. It argues that authority in a socialist society takes on a different form.
The root issue I have with libs is that they think you can simply vote capitalism away, when it's been demonstrated time and time again that you cant
Ok stay ignorant
Comrade, I think you have confused me for an enemy. MLs have a pretty decent argument that a transitional state is necessary to achieve communism. I understand all of that, and I've read more than my fair share of theory over the years.
Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they are stupid, not reading, ignorant, etc. That is an extremely reactionary approach to criticism which prevents you from ever having to have your viewpoints truly challenged.
I'm willing to be less antagonist in my responses, but yours make it very difficult to do so.
I don't like wasting my energy on confidently wrong libs that misrepresent what is trying to be said in this community. When you misrepresent and think what is being said is:
Then I seriously doubt:
Maybe another comrade is more patient. I'll see myself out
You are relentlessly behaving in a very chauvinistic and reactionary way. I don't need to agree with every word Engels wrote to be a communist. Marx, Engels, et al. aren't prophets sharing mystical secrets from on high. They were intelligent and visionary but ultimately flawed humans capable of mistakes. You should not treat theory as your bible.
No U
No of course you don't have to. At least have the decency to not misrepresent it.
You should not view yourself as the next coming of Christ that is here to be a prophet on how to achieve a state and classless society when you haven't done your homework but still would like to talk to those that have
I've tried my best to be nice and try to communicate with you through the slew of insults you just keep hurling, but I have a limit. At the end of the day, you're acting like nothing but a bully.
Solidarity forever.
Bruh we can all see you were an asshole the whole time lol
No, you're an asshole because you're being smug, rude and passive aggressive.
And the people who I was replying to, doesn't that make them assholes, too? They were more smug, more rude, more aggressive than I was, by far. Does your criticism apply to them, also, or only to the one person you disagree with?
Your first comment in the thread was already smug and passive aggressive. LMAO
I can tell you're not as communist as you like to think because this is how you react to having your uninformed political notions criticized. You would never survive a regular organizing discussion on hexbear.
Yes, politely replying repeatedly while getting called a lib and being told I didn't read some text I clearly read and just being browbeat again and again is truly the pinnacle of political critique and leads to some very insightful debates. Give me a fucking break.
You know other people can read your comments too, right? If this is what you consider polite then you should probably reevaluate.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, but maybe this was exactly their point ? I hope so because, otherwise, it's a pretty narrow sighted argument... Let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyway ^^
I am once again puzzled by this thing that's not Marxist, not anarchist, not social democracy, but is also non- authoritarian and is also communist.
looks inside
It's liberalism