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.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
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.
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
The Zapatistas are an example of “authoritarian” socialism, as you already explained. Democracy in socialism comes in many different forms, usually involving a combination of local voting and consensus gathering.
For China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
For the USSR, it was quite similar. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.
These are just 2 examples, but it extends to other socialist countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, etc, which all have their own unique conditions and systems in place. All use their systems of democracy to keep the working classes on top, while exerting authority to suppress capitalists, sabateurs, fascists, etc.
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.
What does this have to do with anything? None of this word salad even approaches the point we were talking about. The Zapatista movement is “authoritarian” just like every governing body that has been or is (who they serve is irrelevant to being or not being “authoritarian”). Authoritarian is a useless buzzword used mostly by liberals to smear movements and countries they don’t like.
The Zapatista territories in Chiapas come to mind.
They enforce/enforced their authority often violently against the Mexican government, cartels, and the US.
Authoritarian is a useless buzzword for liberals to paint countries/movements they don’t like as immoral.
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.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
On Authority
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means.
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.
How much have you studied Marxist-Leninist democracy? Accountability is core to socialist countries, both in theory and practice.
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
The Zapatistas are an example of “authoritarian” socialism, as you already explained. Democracy in socialism comes in many different forms, usually involving a combination of local voting and consensus gathering.
For China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
For the USSR, it was quite similar. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.
These are just 2 examples, but it extends to other socialist countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, etc, which all have their own unique conditions and systems in place. All use their systems of democracy to keep the working classes on top, while exerting authority to suppress capitalists, sabateurs, fascists, etc.
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.
What does this have to do with anything? None of this word salad even approaches the point we were talking about. The Zapatista movement is “authoritarian” just like every governing body that has been or is (who they serve is irrelevant to being or not being “authoritarian”). Authoritarian is a useless buzzword used mostly by liberals to smear movements and countries they don’t like.
Clearly we’re not getting anywhere. Read some anarchist theory if you want to understand this “word salad” 💕
I understand what you’re saying it’s just not relevant.
Challenging and limiting institutional power is not relevant to conversations about avoiding authoritarianism?
This is both the use of authority, and not dissimilar to what socialist countries often deemed “authoritarian” practice.
What makes them different?
See my other reply