Authoritarianism and authority

[Dimentio]

This is not a learning thread, I just wondered how you are defining the terms authoritarianism and authority.

I would personally say that I think that authoritive decision-making is probably needed, but not authoritarian decision-making.

[Uncle Rob]

The working class organized as the decision making authoritarian? Not necessary? Wha? :confused:

[al8]

I am in agreement with Marcus Winter in his article The Myth of “Totalitarianism”;

http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/the-myth-of-totalitarianism/


One doesn’t need to search for long to discover that words like “totalitarian,” “fascist” and “political extremist” are all the rage nowadays. Most often they serve as little more than personal attacks, rather than accurate descriptions of the forces at play. To call an opponent a “fascist” is one of the most groan-inducing clichés of the modern times. While much can be said about each of these words, and what they actually mean, it is worth noting that while “fascist” has a very particular political and historical meaning, and the phrase “political extremism” is extremely relative, the word “totalitarian” literally has no meaning at all. One could say that, like “fascist,” it has become a meaningless buzzword, but that would be wrong, since it was always a meaningless buzzword meant to smear any system that doesn’t follow the liberal capitalist viewpoint, as we shall see below.
http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/the-myth-of-totalitarianism/

I am also rather unsure how authoritative instead of -rian is supposed to make things any more clear.

[Dimentio]

I am in agreement with Marcus Winter in his article The Myth of “Totalitarianism”;

http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/the-myth-of-totalitarianism/
http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/the-myth-of-totalitarianism/

I am also rather unsure how authoritative instead of -rian is supposed to make things any more clear.

Authorative is that the decisions which are made must be followed (goals must be kept), while authoritarian means that someone is making the decisions above the heads of the majority of the people.

[al8]

Authorative is that the decisions which are made must be followed (goals must be kept), while authoritarian means that someone is making the decisions above the heads of the majority of the people.

Then I am in favor of both authoritative and authoritarian measures depending on context in line with the the principles and views that make up participatory economics. I take authoritarian decisions as to whether I put on blue or gray socks in the morning. And I take authoritative collective decisions in my atheist club as to what logo the club should have.

One kind of decision making should not be elevated into an abstraction - much less a label for how a whole society functions.

[Dimentio]

Authoritarian decisions means that one individual or a group of individuals are in control of another group of individuals and are making decisions for them.

[al8]

Like as with parents and children?
(edit: or maybe perhaps investors > managers > employees. aren't we then living in a authoritarian system? Wouldn't we be no matter what, since authoritarian decision making takes place in so many contexts?)

[Die Rote Fahne]

Authoritarianism is an evil which must be prevented from being allowed inside the communist movement.

[Post-Something]

I always thought that the reason for the word authority was a distinction of a type of power. Mainly the ability to make people do/agree to things, with a certain persuasion involved. The oppressed usually see it as a legitimate form of dominance.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Authoritarianism is an evil which must be prevented from being allowed inside the communist movement.
It's about 92 years too late for that.

I don't think socialism without authoritarianism is possible, for one class to impose its will on another, is extremely authoritarian, the vanguard party is an authoritarian concept, but if the interests of the working class are played out, who cares?

[The Red Next Door]

It's about 92 years too late for that.

I don't think socialism without authoritarianism is possible, for one class to impose its will on another, is extremely authoritarian, the vanguard party is an authoritarian concept, but if the interests of the working class are played out, who cares?
Guess what, the interest of the working class is never gonna to be played out if we move into an authoritarian direction, in order for their interest to be played out is that they must have a voice and a say in what is going on. like people say socialism without freedom is slavery. you are not a true communist if you believe that having a soviet Stalinist style leadership is going to support the working class. that would be betraying the very people we are fighting for because we would let allow them to have the say, as matter fact let allow those support our cause but have a lot of cash have a say too, because we are going to support free health care, education etc without money?

[The Red Next Door]

No. It is not. As Marxists, we do not analyze ideologies based on metaphysical concepts as "good" and "evil". Instead a materialist analysis based on class would be more in line with the Marxist method.
Engels on Authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)
yes it is. old fucks celebrating themselves and the people we fight for not having a say in what goes on isn't socialism.

[Calmwinds]

No. It is not. As Marxists, we do not analyze ideologies based on metaphysical concepts as "good" and "evil". Instead a materialist analysis based on class would be more in line with the Marxist method.
Engels on Authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)

How is talking about 'good' and 'evil' make this talk about metaphysics? I mean most do not argue about good and evil as if they are concepts objective to the human race, like say gravity is. I do not think anyone is saying this at all, they are just replying with a meta-ethical relativistic argument.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH4.html#sech47 I have always found this a decent response to your quote.

I have always used the concepts of authority as with anyone who uses his authority as his main reasoning or evidence in debate, instead of reasoning or evidence itself. Of course sometimes we have to trust the expert most of the times, but the authoritarian when asked with the question "Why should I do so?" would reply with "Because I said so".

[CommunistWaffle]

Doesn't authoritarian mean being a dictatorship?

[Comrade Anarchist]

The only authority should be that of the individual over themselves.

[9]

The only authority should be that of the individual over themselves.

What about a working class revolution? Surely you must accept that a component of such a revolution would be the working class exerting various forms of authority over the capitalists, no? Is authority in that instance not perfectly justified?

I think there is a tendency to use abstract words like "freedom" and "authority" and present them as a sort of dichotomy between "good" and "evil" without actually applying any sort of concrete meaning to them.

[Zanthorus]

What about a working class revolution? Surely you must accept that a component of such a revolution would be the working class exerting various forms of authority over the capitalists, no? Is authority in that instance not perfectly justified?

It's more of a liberation from unjust authority than the imposition of new authority though.

[Comrade Anarchist]

What about a working class revolution? Surely you must accept that a component of such a revolution would be the working class exerting various forms of authority over the capitalists, no? Is authority in that instance not perfectly justified?

I think there is a tendency to use abstract words like "freedom" and "authority" and present them as a sort of dichotomy between "good" and "evil" without actually applying any sort of concrete meaning to them.

No the working class shouldn't exert authority onto the capitalist class but must destroy it and accept the capitalists into their rank. The workers should not rule the capitalists or else they would become the oppressors.

What i meant and what i think the original meaning of the this thread is that after a revolution what role will authority play and my answer is none at all except for the authority of the individual over himself forcing himself to join the commune, forcing himself to be altruist, and the forcing of himself to live and join in on a revolution for the working class.

[al8]

No the working class shouldn't exert authority onto the capitalist class but must destroy it and accept the capitalists into their rank. The workers should not rule the capitalists or else they would become the oppressors.

What i meant and what i think the original meaning of the this thread is that after a revolution what role will authority play and my answer is none at all except for the authority of the individual over himself forcing himself to join the commune, forcing himself to be altruist, and the forcing of himself to live and join in on a revolution for the working class.

Ugh! You're being terribly unclear here. Destroy them how? By de-propertying capitalists right?* But you do know that the capitalists right to property is secured by the authority of the security state with its vested and well established police, army, secret services and prison complex along with a host of other civil institutions (educational, judicial, mass media, etc.) that guard against systems change. You know, the most hardened and organized monopoly of violence and authority there is in our time period.
Do you really think you can sweet talk these people away or merely hope they self-disband on account of their own individual and personal authority?
Even if in the unprobable event most do, there will always be remnants of the hardened security state and the privileged (even possibly supported by their class brethren abroad) that will challenge our new society with no mere word but organized violence. And this must be countered head on and with more and better organized use of force by the revolutionaries. In other words - you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Or even better; you don't bring hope of self-disbandment to a secret service, prison complex, police, army and systems change battle.

*[then they would stop being (objectively) capitalists - but may still be capitalism supporters (subjectively capitalists)]

[syndicat]

To control the society and empower itself, the working class needs to establish its collective control in the industries and also over social affairs, through a new form of popular power, replacing the hierarchical state. These collective organs of self-managing power of the masses would indeed have authority to make decisions. They would have authority to reconfigure society, make the basic rules, and enforce them. For example, they would need to have a people's militia directly accountable to the masses (not some so-called "workers party"). Prevening people from acting as bosses, exploiting people as wage slaves, is exercizing authority.

But the new social order also needs to not be an authoritarian regime. An authoritarian regime is a top-down type of power over the people, not direct rule by the people themselves.

When we speak of a viewpoint being "authoriative", this means we take it this person knows what they are talking about, their viewpoint is well defended, has good evidence behind it. or conforms to the consensus view among experts on that subject. A viewpoint could be authoriitative without anyone exercizing power in an authoritarian manner.

When people have decision-making authority, this means they have the recognized right and power to make decisions. If this authority is concentrated into the hands of a few, you have a top-down hierarchy. Liberation of the working class from subordination to dominating and exploiting classes presupposes that decision-making authority in industry and society not be concentrated into a hierarchical, bureaucratic control apparatus.

On the other hand, decision-making authority might be collective, as when a workers assembly makes a decision about the running of a workplace.