May I propose: China is probably better for many of its citizens compared to the U.S. and is objectively run by more competent people. The western world is built on mountains of anti-communist and anti-Chinese propaganda that makes discerning the truth about the reality of living there hard for the average westerner who hasn’t actually spent time there. At the same time, absolute power corrupts, and any system that concentrates power into centralized structures is at very high risk of that power being co-opted and abused by counter-revolutionary, power-hungry assholes. Regardless of whether that has happened in China (or any other socialist state), the risk is there, and the way to mitigate it is to dismantle the structures that allow it to happen.

Thank you! I will read these.

Side note, I think knowing that you put both the Zapatistas and the CPP in the same category of “authoritarian socialism” is helping me understand your perspective better. I think you’re wrong, but I can at least understand where you’re coming from, so thank you for that.

Challenging and limiting institutional power is not relevant to conversations about avoiding authoritarianism?

Please educate me about how authoritarian socialist countries ensure and maintain accountability to the people (or point me to where I can research myself)! I’d love to be wrong about this

Clearly we’re not getting anywhere. Read some anarchist theory if you want to understand this “word salad” 💕

I think you’re on the right train of thought but missing a key aspect. I’m with MLs that without some sort of organized counter-authority, existing power structures will overrun the revolutionary forces. But that authority needs to be fully accountable to the people it serves, otherwise it will become disembodied and “institutionalized” in the more specific sense, leading to a power structure that justifies its own existence instead of deriving the justification through the people. MLs, to me, are missing this power analysis. They seem to try to argue that an authoritarian communist-party-run government has this accountability to the people by the fact that…they serve the people? That’s not enough. You need to organize your revolution around accountability, around the idea that institutional power must always be justified by the will of the people and not the other way around. The Zapatistas understood this, which is why they built their governance around consensus-building and have since actively removed institutional power as it no longer served the people.

See my other reply

They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it’s truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.

The Zapatista territories in Chiapas come to mind.

The comment I’m responding to is saying authoritarianism isn’t a thing. Whether or not the dictatorship of the proletariat the “right kind” of authoritarianism isn’t relevant to that conversation.

Authoritarianism is a system of institutionalized domination, and yes this includes pretty much every government on earth currently.

Fuck, I’m tired. I was thinking “upper class” but said “bourgeoisie”–you’re totally right on that lol.

Nonetheless, my point still stands, and your second paragraph feels spiritually on the level of a democrat giving an ultimatum about voting for the “lesser of two evils”. You’re taking a really complex problem that has plagued us for thousands of years and claiming that the only solutions are either (a) undo all of civilization, or (b) do what this German guy suggested a century ago. That is a lack of political imagination.

To your point, the state was constructed over the centuries via class (and gender and ethnic and neurotype and ) struggle between the subjugating and the subjugated. It continues to exist because those contradictions still exist. Even after centuries of revolutions of various kinds, all with the goal of leveling inequalities and boosting the position of the subjugated, we still have this same state of affairs–just with a rotating class of subjugators. How’s this one going to be different? Because this time the subjugated are using dialectics? Because we want to eliminate class? I don’t find that convincing. The only way we’re ever going to eliminate class and other categories of subjugation is by eliminating the mechanisms by which they exist. The fact that you can’t think of any way to do this that isn’t reverting to anarcho-primitivism is not a valid reason to reject the premise.

Ok, so this is where I’m lost. I can understand why one would find a monopoly on violence to be strategically necessary to achieve the goals of the revolution (though I disagree). I don’t understand how you can argue class struggle inherently involves a monopoly on violence, unless you are just defining class by who happens to have a monopoly on violence (which would defeat the whole point of class struggle). The entire concept of “a monopoly on violence” is a product of bourgeois society–they are the ones who built the structures that legitimized certain types of violence while restricting and punishing other types. So to negate the existence of the bourgeoisie, we negate the existence of those structures. Which fundamentally means tearing down mechanisms by which anyone can wield a monopoly on violence.

So, it seems like you’re saying two separate things here: (1) class struggle inherently involves a monopoly on violence, and (2) a monopoly on violence is strategically necessary for the proletariat in order to build a classless, stateless society. Can you clarify which one you mean, or if you mean both?

Let me ask you a different question because I feel like we’re talking past each other on this: what do you mean exactly when you talk about “dominating the bourgeoisie”?

Imagine a community of workers who, through ground-up organizing (say, through unions or mutual aid networks), collectively overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production. The bourgeoisie need to be prevented from taking the means of production back while the workers implement communism, so the workers organize a militant force that, through consensus, can be temporarily spun up to defend the revolution–but only for as long as everyone agrees the defense is necessary. Then the reactionaries are kept in check, but the power to perform this subjugation is firmly rooted in the will of the people, without the risk of the power becoming disembodied or consolidated in the hands of the few.

Obviously there are lots of immediate concerns about this (how do you ensure reactionaries don’t throw a wrench into the whole thing, etc.). But this is where I think more imagination is needed. Surely it’s possible to solve these issues without giving up on the idea that power should be fully in the hands of the proletariat and not a disembodied structure?

I understand what you mean I think, and I want to be clear that I’m not some utopian anarchist who thinks we can just magically become communist overnight. As you said, class struggle will continue. My point isn’t that we should try to avoid the contradiction, it’s that a socialist state is not a great way to navigate its resolution and that we should try to imagine other ways of doing so that don’t run the real risk of becoming abusive and/or failing to adhere to the will and needs of the people. It’s hard to write out a concrete idea here because it’s not something we’ve collectively spent a ton of resources trying to imagine. But people are wildly creative, and I think it’d be a disservice to us to not at least try to imagine something better.

To clarify, I’m an anarchist. I don’t think the state should exist, period, and I think it’s self-defeating to try to impose communism via the state.

But more to the point, my original comment was in response to your analysis of OP’s questioning of China’s alleged human rights abuses. I was interested in your dialectical thinking because I hadn’t seen it applied so clearly before and I wanted to use it as a learning opportunity. I’m coming away feeling more educated, which I’m grateful for. But I’m also not convinced your analysis allays worries about potential abuses mentioned in the OP, and I wanted to say as much. So ultimately, I’m not really arguing for anything specific, mainly because I don’t pretend to have concrete answers. If anything, I’m arguing for greater political imagination. Liberal democracy is obviously not the answer, but I’m not convinced an authoritarian socialist state is either. So how could we build on the works of Marx and other communist thinkers to come up with a way to implement communism that avoids the pitfalls you yourself have admitted are potential problems with a communist-party-controlled state?

See my comment above for my thoughts on the first point, and re the second, you’re right- I think I was just confused there lol

Yep, I read the rest. Your comment clarifies some confusion I had about how China is being understood through a dialectical material lens, so thank you for that.

I do feel like you’re missing how a one-party socialist state is still inherently an instance of unjustified power, even if it’s “self-correcting” like China seems to be. Institutional power gives default material, ideological, and epistemological authority to whoever occupies that institution. That authority can be good if it’s truly the will of the proletariat, but the paradox is that because there is default authority given to certain ways of thinking about the world, the peoples’ ability to know whether it is indeed the will of the proletariat is distorted. If, for example, party leadership were to come out and say “accumulation of capital is compatible with socialism, actually”, then even though there would be mechanisms for people to come in and be like “no the fuck it isn’t”, because party leadership occupies a platform of default authority, their statement would be taken as true until challenged otherwise. That is unjustified power.

Epistemologically the only thing we can be sure of with any authoritarian socialist state is that (a) the party occupying the institutional power structure is claiming to represent the will of the proletariat, and (b) there are mechanisms for people to “correct” the institution to better represent the proletariat. Neither of these things are enough to justify the general default authority given to an authoritarian state, imo. Power needs to always be exercised from a place of epistemological humility and with the understanding that you or your organization could very well not be fit to wield it. Institutional power structures are fundamentally just not compatible with this.