"If communism isn't inherently authoritarian then why are all the existing communist countries so authoritarian?"

Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism:

The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

For the still meme confused: Survivorship bias

(Stolen from @RoseTintedGlasses@matapacos.dog)

36 comments

The country with over 20% of the world's prison population and a highly militarised police force that routinely carries out extrajudicial killings of ethnic minorities is not ever described as "authoritarian". Somehow.
- Somehow.
- At least they managed to become the 24th-least corrupt country..by legalizing all but the most blatantly declared bribes.
- Having military bases all around the world is not authoritharian somehow either.
- The US runs a system of 40+ slave labor camps, and have over 30k ppl in immigrant prison camps most of whom haven't committed a crime, but it's not authoritarian!!!
- Thr apartide government of the USA noted for the human rights abuses and forced labor
- Yeah, that's how bad it is in actual authoritarian countries . . .
- Gotta love the whataboutism that pops up any time communism is questioned.
  
  Whataboutism is itself a thought-terminating cliché.
  From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.

Obligatory Jakartaposting
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:
“Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.

why are people downvoting this?
- Perhaps because they take exception to characterizing all of the Actually Existing Socialisms as “authoritarian” in the first place, and I’d agree with them. It leans into “horseshoe theory” and the anticommunist Western Left’s conceptualization of “totalitarianism.”
  
  Oh yeah I basically just quickly typed it out and posted without really thinking about it that
  
  perhaps they think you can vote imperialism away
- Because they're brats with no ability to self reflect and be realistic
- Downvoting exists now?
  
  Hexbear and lemmy.blahaj.zone are the only two instances I know that don’t have downvoting enabled. People can still downvote from other instances, but those two instances simply just won’t see those votes.

this bit extends to western marxism too

If I were a non-authoritarian leftist movement, I would simply choose not to be overthrown by the forces of reaction.

What is that image?
- See the wiki page I linked to: Survivorship bias
- the TLDR version; in WWII the Americans would look at bombers that returned to base after doing flight missions, and decided based on their damage where to add armour to future bombers. I.E. they looked at surviving planes to decide how to better protect planes, instead of looking at crashed ones.

Two words: Human factor.

36 comments