The rich aren't a minority group, and the action you're describing is literally the polar opposite of authoritarianism. If you have to redefine words to make an argument, you don't have an argument.

Minority group - any group holding less power than the group exercising the majority of it.
Authoritarian - concentration of power into one or just a few ELITE members.

Wait so "if election, not authoritarian?"

Serious question: If there's no money, what's the incentive to work, other than punishment for not working?

Totally agree but, it would have to be aggressive in our current world. They will not willingly part with their wealth.

I'm assuming all options would be on the table for mitigating this level of greed. Obviously in an effort to get to a better society.

Indeed.

You sound like you think you are much smarter than you actually are, and you didn't understand my point.

Idk what communist movement you think is going to emerge pristine out of this horrific, traumatizing, wasteland of human suffering without being wrong in really terrible ways.

A socialist or anti-imperialist movement does not have to be morally correct for me to back them. Class struggle does not have to be led by good people to succeed, they don't have to have a correct interpretation of Marxism or be Marxist at all, they don't have to not have corruption, and they will almost always carry reactionary baggage. In a lot of situations (almost universally) it's not realistic or possible at all for a resistance to capitalist exploitation, colonialism or imperialism to exist without all of those problems and more, but doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. If they're opposing capitalism, even if they're doing it badly, they deserve support.

Also, yes, MLs shouldn't do apologia for the things the USSR did or other socialisms did, they should state the truth clearly without discomfort. I'm kinda disillusioned with ML spaces on the internet, actually, because they really suck. It's like a game to some people; a game about being right and not caring about fucking anything. It puts me off when I see like uncritical support of past socialisms as if they were perfect, which is impossible, and you'll always end up being disappointed, which is the one of the points of this whole message, but it only serves to make them look like atrocity-denying historical revisionists to other people. Like the Soviets really did deport Tatars in trains, and really didn't work to correct the colonialist past they inherited from the Russian Empire.

However, the dissolution of the USSR and the throwing of its people to the wolves of finance capital was a humanitarian catastrophe for Eastern Europe and created a situation that even now is actually sickening to think about, and I don't know at all how or when things will recover and get better for people there. It put into motion the fucking tragedy that is happening now in Ukraine plus all of the unseen suffering in the poor regions of what was the Eastern Bloc. The ex-Soviet countries are are perfect example of what losing looks like.

Like I'm sure there are lurid, real crimes that Hamas, or Iran, or Ansar Allah committed, but I hope to god they don't lose, because they're fighting against the IDF and the American military and all of the bad things that the resistance has done cannot hold a candle to what the US and Israel have done. That's how I feel about resistance to capital.

Like you've gotta understand historical materialism and a lot more than just that, you have to keep trying to understand things for years to be good communist. I'm not a good communist. If you approach politics with the goal of having the correct hot takes, you'll never want to understand anything. Just stop making hot takes, and look at the world.

First, regarding recommoning the means of production: it's not a single discrete thing, but rather a collection of economic and political policies and approaches.

Look into is Solidarity Economies: this is a term that bundles together worker cooperatives, housing coops, public banks, credit unions, and all the other structures that allow groups of people to cut investors out of the critical institutions on which we rely.

As for the other part: progressive taxation is not authoritarian and does not require authoritarianism.

Progressive taxation would be a bandaid solution in my opinion but, maybe I'm being dramatic. Solidarity economics sound great as a shift in production.

The point I suppose I failed to make. In order to reverse course and affect radical change, you would need to enact taxation policies (FBI style raids on penthouses, IRS investigations into corporations, ICE style black bagging of CEOs etc.) that would be heavy handed. The heavy handedness one would think of when a regular person, like myself, misuses the term "authoritarian".

I think we're so far from that world that this is more a question of abstract philosophy than political theory. But for what it's worth, I think these are the three most common answers to that question:

1. We reach a state of automated post-scarcity in which we don't need people to work;
2. People work for the sake of personal satisfaction or community recognition or some other non-monetary reward;
3. Goods and services are exchanged in a Gift Economy: people still get rewarded commiserate to their labor, but the exchange isn't mediated through currency.

Personally, I don't think it's something that we need to figure out this decades or next.

You are just describing how it is currently. You don't get much from working, but if you don't you can't afford basic necessities and thus are punished for not working.

People tend to be motivated to work if they can see a viable benefit from the things they do for the community around them. This is something that capitalism desperately tries to hide and prevent, so people only see work as a purpose to make money for living

Since you are asking seriously I will answer you: Because we have to.

At the most basic level we have to do work for basic survival. Cooking, cleaning ourselves, cleaning our living space, those are necessary to live and are actual work. This can extend to people we care about, as we are willing to put in work to maintain relationships and make sure they are well.

As for why would anyone work for something other than survival, well that can get a little philosophical. One philosophy is existentialism, where we as humans desire to have meaning in our lives and are willing to put in work to achieve something. Basically, just look back at any hobby you have done.

Now, at the societal level people will not work at the current conditions without being forced to earn a wage to survive. Once you remove money from the equation then that lets people decide for themselves how and when to work. Under those conditions people will still work for society, so long as they see the benefits it brings to that society.

An uncommon but relevant example is at the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine there was a nuclear plant near the border that everyone was worried would have a meltdown either due to bombing or the Ukrainian workers abandoning it. Some of the workers chose to stay all the way until it was captured. Then there was some diplomacy between Ukraine and Russia to figure out what to do about the plant and the workers. Those workers recognized the value of maintaining the plant to protect society, and did it without pay and at the risk of being bombed.

Imagine the reactions you'd get from other people if you said this in real life. Accusing other people of like having a psychosexual fixation with being dominated and that's why they have their political beliefs is such a strange thing to say. You've made it unclear if it's a joke, but I don't really care.

"We should be free of their pathetic attempt to get the parental figure they lacked in their formative years."

Why do you have to degrade people with childhood trauma to make this analogy?

Well, I'll give you some nuance then:

You're right. A revolution is not going to be bloodless. Use of force requires moral compromises, and we probably won't get there with our hands clean.

But: I think there's a big difference between the contradictions we struggle to navigate as we strive to build a world without masters, and the choice to enthusiastically hand unchecked power to "good" masters who we naively expect to treat us well even when we have no means to constrain them or impose accountability.

Put another way, I can tolerate grey areas we're reluctantly forced into if our goals are anti-authoritarian, because I believe that such a project would have a good chance of reigning in those excesses. But if we accept and embrace domination from the start, the outcome is inevitably that we all wind up under a boot. Does that make sense?

Yup.

I bet you'll vote for a Democrat that calls me a "biological man" too.

It is possible. We had socialist consenus not that long ago :/
The only possible way to achieve at least near-socialist system is democratic. If the system does not directly represent views of their citizens, eventually you get oligarchic corpocracy with planned economy, that will crush all the nations beneath their boots.
Furthermore: Bolsheviks were fucking extremists. When post-revolution parliament was established, and parties ran for seats, the majority of votes were Social-Revolutionaries, bolsheviks didnt have nearly as much votes. But then bolsheviks just shut down the parliament because they lost, and put their opponents in jail or even executed. So much for the people's republic ig.

Instead, we need to actually get support in southeen countries, fight US hegemony and get votes in european countries, but this time hwlping global south first would be priority, so the european and us capitalists couldnt move their capital to poorer parts of the world and thus destroy the socialist consensus.

Yep, I agree with all of that.

I'm not sure if you're into this sort of thing, but I'm working with some friends on a tabletop game jam that we're planning to run (online) over a weekend some time early next year about stories set in the midst of a future revolution. You can see the draft document into which we've been occasionally adding ideas here. Let me know if you're interested.

No. But, tell us, what part of the post are you struggling most with comprehending? The "antiauthoritarian" part?

Not according to "tankies" :D They love shiny boots holding a red flag. They just hate brown flags, but love a good boot-liking

What is "socialist consensus?" What are these words? "Oligarchic corpocracy?" "Social Revolutionaries?" Are you talking about the Mensheviks? Is this some kind of social democratic stroke?

I guess I'm not comprehending the "tankie" part. If you're on the left and don't vote for Democrats, you'll smeared with the same brush. It's a meaningless red scare snarl word used by your enemies, you seem to think it won't be applied to you too.

When they start rounding people up, we'll be rounded up together. So what's the point of this?

All governments are authoritarian at some point. Even anarchist communities theoretically will exert force on intruders by mustering up the people where they are, where they live.

I don't think Marx ever condemned the word "authoritarian." Or said anything about a dictatorship of the proletariat becoming more unjust than a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. That doesn't sound like anything he'd say.

Someone agrees with me? That's cool. I thought all of that was going to be for naught.

Thanks for sharing this perspective.

As a baby leftist, I don't want to fall into the traps of others when it comes to heralding the goods of past socialist experiments without criticizing the ills as well.

Nothing is perfect, as you say, and it a materialist socialists' life long project to see the world clearly for all the material conditions that exist, and have existed up until this point. Idealist socialists and idealist communists will capsize their entire movement, and endlessly make things about purity tests.

Did you already get through the whole thing?

If you're impatient, the relevant section is on page 65.

The fact you have no idea who social-revolutionaries are, means you gave a huge rant about your views, meanwhile having no idea how the most important socialist revolution went. Or even such a simple thing like socialist democratic consensus of pre-60s Congratulations you are a fucking tankie. And I dont get paid to explain history to americans. May your extremist pseudosocialist brainrot mythology stay with you

Honestly, I was just letting out my frustration with some folks in another comment section who were proudly insisting that I wasn't a real enough leftist unless I simp for strongmen.

I'll still march alongside you (and them too).

The words "purity tests" sets off my liberal detector, because of accusations of "purity testing" being used to defend Democratic party entryism and terrible DSA candidates from criticism.

That link is broken on my browser.

The Socialist Revolutionary Party, the ones who supported the provisional government originally? And who supported the white army? I didn't think it was possible anyone supported them in 2026.

Agreed. I wouldn't want to help create hierarchy I'm just seek rigid rules around wealth.

Does "simping" even matter? Like, really think about it. If I support China (for example) what effect does that really have? Does that help China? Not really. Will that bring "socialism with Chinese characteristics" to the US? Certainly not!

My personal opinion about China has zero impact on anything. So, who cares?

"Hey gemini, pls tldr history of social-revolutionaries".
Just shut up and dont embarass yourself. Dont try to narrow my original answer and read the wikipedia at least.

With every answer Im more and more convinced you live in american suburb or some.

Enjoying and sharing in the results of your work.

What about now?

Exerting force ≠ authoritarian. These words have completely different meanings. For example, community defence against an authoritarian state can involve the exertion of force, but would be categorically anti-authoritarian.

I thought you were talking about some mythical social democrats or something, based on your language and talking about votes in European countries. My brain turned off after I read the words oligarchic corpocracy. I thought you were a garden variety rad-lib. First person I've known who supports the SRs it didn't even register in my brain.

The words "purity tests" sets off my liberal detector, because of accusations of "purity testing" being used

Outside of any liberal usage, you have to acknowledge the phenomenon of leftist purity testing, especially on Lemmy. It's part of what makes the ML spaces so unsavory.

defend Democratic party entryism and terrible DSA candidates from criticism.

I mean,

A socialist or anti-imperialist movement does not have to be morally correct for me to back them.

Even the terrible DSA candidates are DSA candidates, and so far as socialist movements go they have the absolute advantage of popularity right now. I'm really, really tired of publicly glazing Democrats because the general class consciousness is so low that slowing the bleeding is the best we can get electorally.

I would be absolutely chuffed if terrible DSA candidates displaced terrible DNC candidates, because at the very least it puts "Socialist" in the general public awareness, and lowers the barrier for decent DSA candidates. And the DSA is a better class of lesser evil overall. And the better the lesser evil, the more effective my dual power is going to be.

Which is to say, purity testing is a real problem, and you don't have to be a liberal to recognize that any proper leftist movement is going to need to engage the actual proletariat, and most of those guys are tribalistic dummies.

The DSA cannot at all be compared to the groups I was talking about because they fail at one of the main requirements, to be an anti-imperialist movement, their candidates have like backed out from every meaningful thing. They are not really "democratic socialists" they are closer to social democrats.

If the wealthy were willing to give up their wealth without the very real threat of violence against them, we would simply not be having this conversation and instead be discussing the appropriate levels of wealth with the wealthy. The existence of this debate implies that we have all - in some form or another - accepted that the wealthy need to be parted with their wealth against their will.

To achieve a society where all are free and able to live out their potential, regardless of the labels we put on this freer society, wealth redistribution is necessary. If we say the wealthy keep their wealth then we are describing a society where only the wealthy are free.

What I meant is that bolsheviks were not popular nor they ever represented people of russia.
And you still cant bother to read how the revolution went.
Any totalitarian 'socialist' regime is not socialist, it is purely oligarchic corporcracy. Why corpocracy? Because both USSR and China busted worker unions, had hilarious elections, prevented regular people from becoming politicans or have any say. And ensured only their oligarchic circle could get to power. How is this different from authoritarian capitalist corporacy? Corporations also have planned economy, they also bust their worker union, and they also keep their people in fright of the state machine.

This kind of system is just as far from socialism as a late-stage capitalist state, and serves capitalists and imperialists.

Not really? The official DSA platform includes dissolving the Senate. The movement itself is pretty anti-imperialist, even if individual candidates have to waffle a bit to get elected by the tribalistic dummies.

Still though, a better class of lesser evil than the DNC in any case, that can't be denied. I haven't seen a significant level of "backing out", and certainly not from every meaningful thing. Until class consciousness attains a level to make more direct means practical, I'd rather shill for a lesser evil that sucks a bit less. DSA > DNC, even if both are a far cry from a proper International.

You are conflating force and authority

No, while the term "tankie" is used diversely, and some probably use it as you described, the essence of the term is simply a supporter of old school authoritarian "communism". Think Marxist-Lennist ideologies as experienced under and in the post-Stalin soviets. Tankies love to downplay N Korea's crimes, as if if denouncing both South and North political establishments is impossible.

That sounds rather nihilistic. If it doesn't matter, why bother having an opinion in the first place? You sound trapped in the sports-politics schema, as if politics can only happen in a Bushesque "you are with or against us" manner. I admire what the Chinese regime has achieved in the past few decades, by not only lifting hundred of millions of people out of poverty, but also preparing China, and in a way the world, for a brighter future. However, that doesnt mean I blindly support their management of public discourse, or expansionist tendencies in South China Sea, stealing territories from Vietnam and the Philippines, for example.

Being "cool with communism" for the vibes (that don't even exist, every revolution is authoritarian) vs being "cool with communism" for it's negation of capitalist mode of production

Rosa Luxemburg certainly did but who cares about women in history am I right? /s

For tankies, communism must be authoritarian, and the worst tankies will just prefer even actual fascism to "childish naivety of democracy". Technically tankies are just the leftist version of your right-wing grandpa trying to convince you to finally grow out of leftism, except they're overtly obsessed with "On authority" by Friedrich Engels.