509
Freedom
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
509 points (97.7% liked)
Socialism
6744 readers
11 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Freedom of press only applies to the wealthy, how do I benefit from it as a worker when all media in my country perpetuates comprador propaganda and I'm too poor to make my own press?
For sure— I'm not saying freedom of press actually exists under capitalism.
My point is that socialism doesn't have freedom of press either. Censorship and surveillance by the vanguard state (see China, Cuba, historical USSR) is routine.
"Dictatorship of the proletariat". Unfortunately, dictatorships do not have a tendency to allow for freedom of press.
Dictatorship of the proletariat means democracy for the proletariat, dictatorship against capitalists.
Those words don't mean anything when they are used to censor. The introduction of censorship allows censors to censor anything, regardless of whether or not it is "capitalist" or not.
There is no way of knowing whether only "capitalist" content is censored or if criticisms that are staunchly and directly against the state (which absolutely deserves its place in any state that doesn't want to be an echo chamber) are also being censored under the veneer of "capitalism".
Every government and even every culture practices some degree of control over how we speak and how we exist. Language itself has an impact on this. Despite this fact, it's possible to recognize proletarian control vs capitalist control.
"Everyone does it!" is literally a logical fallacy.
It's not even just "some", you're minimizing the extent of control here. You cannot have a state held accountable if it systematically suppresses criticism against it.
No it's an accurate representation of class society and what it necessitates
I'm recognizing the class nature of the state and society. I'm not trying to morally justify anything, but instead point out why it exists, both necessarily and temporarily.
It does come off as you defending it when you don't consider it bad or criticize the idea, and instead assert for it.
We can do better. Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean we can't do better.
Classes can be destroyed and we can build class-less societies without hierarchy in lieu of anarchism.
The whole point of socialism is transitioning to that stage. To get there you need to supress the reactionary classes (bourgeoisie) just like how for them to stay in power they suppress the proletariat. Then they can with time be expropriated and proletarianised until their is only one class the proletariat and class antagonisms cease to be. Pressing the magic communism worldwide class destruction 9000 button isn't an option no matter how much you wish for it.
Class society can only be ended through socialism, which means we need the state and all that comes with it until we achieve communism. Even in communism, hierarchy will still exist, as administration plays a necessary role in production and distribution.
You can't be class-less and hierarchial at the same time, so I'm not sure how you concluded that class society can only be ended by socialism.
Furthermore, you are conflating organization and structure with hierarchy. You do not need hierarchy for administration.
You absolutely can be classless while still having hierarchy. A manager is not a different class from those under them unless they have a difference in ownership of the means of production and distribution. Secondly, I am not conflating organization and structure with hierarchy, you need all 3. A nuclear power plant without hierarchy is a disaster waiting to happen. Without hierarchy, you cannot coordinate the global logistics to create a smartphone. Horizontalism has regional limitations that run counter to communism and humanity's march towards collectivization.
On hierarchy:
What stops groups from sending delegates to councils of other groups' delegates? Forming councils and representative bodies is possible without hierarchy. These models can be used for federation and coordination.
In certain contexts such as time-critical crises, you may choose to follow orders from one person, such as the lead firefighter. Any power over others is limited to people giving over that power.
Horizontal infrastructure under anarchism can scale by building interconnected networks of smaller communities kept to a size that operate on direct consensus and human trust by federating those nodes.
We already maintain digital ecosystems in this way, with Linux, Git and the Fediverse being built and maintained by massive amounts of people without vertical command. Coordination with delegates sent to a council allow local syndicates to coordinate on large projects.
While scale requires structure, communication and logistics, it does not require the executive domination and subjugation that is conflated with structure.
At scale, mass production does require administration and coordination from the top-down. This administration can be more democratically accountable than modern capitalism, but nevertheless having managers in most cases will either make production more efficient, meaning fewer working hours for all, or will be absolutely critical in order for production to even be possible.
Some examples include nuclear power, PCB fabrication, the production of medicine, etc. Simply having more nodesdoesn't solve the problem of horizontally managing a clean room, for example. Administration is not the problem, class is. I have no problems with being managed as a worker, I take issue with my labor being exploited and used for profit, rather than to make a better society for everyone.
I used to be an anarchist, so I'm familiar with the arguments, it's just that at scale communism makes far more sense and socialism has actually been established for long periods of time. I work with anarchist comrades and support them, but I can't agree with them when it comes to which direction society will go in.
You assert that it requires vertical command but don't actually substantiate that claim.
My explanation covered more than merely having more nodes, but you didn't engage with it.
I take issue with hierarchy, as it is almost always inherently exploitative.
PCB fabrication requires managing large factories to produce mining equipment, shipbuilding to build ships to transport the mined components, processing facilities, the industries refining raw materials to create these facilities and their outputs, logistics chains of supertankers to transport raw materials, highly advanced semiconductor facilities with clean rooms that need to be produced to incredibly detailed specs and with no outside contamination, and all of this to be done safely, on expected timelines.
In this entire process, much of these facilities are too large for a node, too time-critical to not have some degree of management and a common plan, too safety critical to leave decentrally organized, or a combination of all of these. With a communalized society, production of PCBs becomes impossible without Star Trek replicators.
Management is not exploitation, it's the coordination of labor. Exploitation in its economic sense refers to stealing surplus value, managers do not do this but instead perform necessary labor for speeding up or even enabling production to be possible. Not all structures that have been formed over time have been made "evil," many of these structures exist because they are necessary.
Even anarchists in Catalonia recognized the necessity of hierarchy and adapted their tactics to their existing conditions at wartime, and became more effective for it. It was their reluctance to do so at first that partially contributed to their loss in the Spanish Civil War.
You don't need hierarchy to have a common plan, but I'll get back on the bits relating to management and time-critical aspects mentioned here later.
Not convinced on hierarchies not being exploitative. The higher up you go in the corporate ladder, the more room the person has to exploit those beneath him. You say managers do not steal surplus value, which I'm not sure is the case. Additionally, I wasn't solely referring to economic exploitation. Workplace conditions are often highly toxic and higher-ups are routinely able to get away with their abuse of those under them because of hierarchy. Hierarchy not only enables, it attracts power-hungry people who abuse it. Patriarchy is another good example of hierarchy directly causing abuse.
If you ask me, these are evil.
Regarding the necessity of hierarchy for a common plan, you do need it at the scale I am referring to, to coordinate all of these moving parts. Horizontal communication works best for when 2 parts of the supply chain interact, but having a plan on top of them coordinating even the disconnected links is necessary in many cases, and helpful in nearly all.
You're turning your fear of potential for abuse into a reason to abandon an incredibly useful and necessary tool. Do you also argue against fire, because it can spread if we aren't careful and wary? Is fire "evil?" Hierarchy does not attract "power-hungry people" either, people typically work to better their own conditions.
As for patriarchy, it isn't something that exists in a vacuum, it's directly related to class society and its problems. Marxists have studied the origin of the form of the family and the role of women since Marx and Engels, and some of the founding Bolsheviks were women, such as Alexandra Kollontai.
It's not merely "potential" or a "fear" thereof, it's a historically established pattern. If I were to describe it the way you do from historical perspectives, I'd frame it as "the necessary and natural outcome".
Apples to oranges analogy with fire. Fire doesn't subjugate people, fire doesn't put people in positions where they can belittle, abuse, or otherwise coerce others beneath them.
Again, you're not engaging with the reasoning I gave for this.
Patriarchy would not exist without hierarchy. Female Marxists existing doesn't change that.
So yeah, hierarchy is "evil". I just used that phrasing for brevity, it can be explained scientifically.
I do believe hierarchy attracts power hungry people.
Coercive domination and subjugation requires hierarchy, but I'm not sure if that is a concern for you.
The fire analogy absolutely applies, you're turning your fear of abuse into the belief that abuse is omnipresent. The fear that fire could spread does not mean we cannot overcome this and account for it, same with administration and management.
Patriarchy does not exist because of nebulous "hierarchy," it exists as an established part of how class society evolved over time, relegating women to unpaid domestic labor to maximize returns on paying a single male laborer, and this arrangement too is gradually shattered by capitalism as women are simultaneously proletarianized while also expected to keep up with their feudal and early capitalist roles.
Coercive domination and subjugation doesn't require management and administration either. Abuse can happen between peers who share the same societal position. Management can absolutely abuse its position, but just like fire, it does not mean that this has to happen, or that it cannot be safeguarded against.
What matters to me is that we build a better world, where we collectively produce and distribute to satisfy the needs and wants of all, along a scientific plan. Ideologies that are ultimately unworkable go against the progress towards this goal, and I believe anarchism falls into this. Anarchists are certainly better than liberals, in that we both share capitalism as an enemy, but anarchists do ultimately take a position I believe weakens the movement.
A good example is what happened to anarchists in Russia. Anarchism is not an exclusively proletarian ideology like communism is, in fact many bourgeois and many, many petite bourgeois anarchists exist. In Russia, after the revolution, the proletarian and peasant anarchists overwhelmingly joined the communists, while the petite bourgeois and bourgeois anarchists rebelled against the socialist state. The reason for this is that proletarian and peasant power was uplifted by socialism while the position of the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie were weakened and oppressed.
For more on that last bit, see Gramsci's An Address to Anarchists, describing this process.
You're still not engaging with my reasoning. I gave you reasons as to why fire is nothing like it.
Patriarchy is literally a type of hierarchy, if all hierarchy was abolished, patriarchy would too by nature of it being a type of hierarchy.
Just because coercive domination and subjugation can occur outside of hierarchy, doesn't mean hierarchy isn't the primary cause of it. As stated earlier, this is historically well-established and is a necessary outcome of hierarchy.
I engaged with your reasoning, I just disagree and explained why. Fire is alike in all the ways that matter for my points: a potentially dangerous but also immensely useful tool that we can learn and study to more effectively and more safely use. Just like we can create procedures and fire-resistant equipment, we can organize administration in such a fashion that corruption and abuse are nearly non-existent and directly accountable. They are not literally the same, but for the purpose of comparison serve a similar role.
Patriarchy is indeed a form of hierarchy, but you don't get rid of patriarchy by eliminating some nebulous concept of hierarchy in general. This is an idealist argument, not a materialist one. You abolish patriarchy by eliminating the material basis of patriarchy in particular, and the social basis of patriarchy in the modern era is in capitalism and class society. Management and administration existing does not imply patriarchy, even if present administration is male-dominated. In all socialist societies, the role of women in administration and women's rights in general have exploded.
Hierarchy is not the cause of abuse. Hierarchy can help facilitate abuse if we are not careful, but just like wildfire, fire and management are not the cause.
The proletariat is the majority in most if not all societies, arguing the dictatorship of the proletariat is undemocratic merely because the word "dictatorship" doesn't make sense. Democracy is [ideally, not what it is in practice] is a dictatorship of the majority, and the proletariat are the majority, surely you see how saying democracy is undemocratic makes no sense.
States are instruments of oppression weilded by classes, they are all "dictatorships" in the sense that a class oppresses the other; the question in state is, is it the capitalists oppressing the working class, or the other way around
Except in practice it's not proletarians doing these things, it's bureaucrats who end up forming their own class and class interests in the name of the proletariat. The average proletariat isn't actually the one who makes these rules or checks or applies censorships. See China, USSR, Cuba.
There shouldn't be classes to begin with. Eliminating hierarchies in lieu of anarchism deals with the issue without it being "another dictatorship"
That's not how class works, it's not like starting a new club. Class is defined by your relationship to production, not some nebulous title like "beauraucrats"
Genuinely, what is your suggested approach to rectifying this and what real world data is it based on? How do you expect to abolish class without a clear understanding of what creates it? How would a scientist expect to cure a disease without understanding what it is?
That's the socialist definition of class, that is not how I understand class.
I didn't say it's like "starting a new club".
Calling bureaucracy "nebulous" doesn't invalidate any of the reasoning I provided.
Suggested approach: anarchism.
I didn't disregard the importance of understanding class, merely that I disagreed with the reductive socialist definition of class.
I can decide to understand gravity as a color if I want to, but it doesn't make me right.
I'm calling the term you're using (beauraucrats) nebulous, because it is, because you haven't defined it. You haven't provided any "reasoning", you've just said "I think this happens" with nothing at all to back it up.
That's cool, but some of us feel like living in a society that doesn't get rolled over by a capitalist military whenever they feel like it. Some of us enjoy functional supply chains, too.
Yeah I'm not saying you don't think it's important, I'm saying you don't understand it. Please tell me what you think is reductive about the definition of class used by the people who have radically transformed multiple feudal societies into world powers, because your own track record does not make a compelling case for abandoning it.