Anti-authoritarianism as a misnomer

[Fawkes]

Given that the majority of anarchists (excepting individualists) advocate for and envision a class based revolution as being the only means by which capitalism can be overthrown, isn't it somewhat of a misnomer to classify anarchists as anti-authoritarian given that a revolution is an enormous exertion of authority?

[meow]

how it is authority for me to go to my work place and take control of what i am using every day? it is authoritarian for the boss to come and try to take what i produce without enough compensation. but for me to ignore the boss until the boss attacks me...

how is it authoritarian for me to ignore the "right" of a shop to the food on there shelf? i take what i need to survive. it is authoritarian for shop to call police and have them stop me and lock me up and beat me.

revolution is only taking back what is rightfully mine. my freedom. my life. what i produced. it is authoritarian for anyone to stop me.

[Aesop]

I think that the OP, has raised a considerable point. Surely the fact that most anarchist call 'trots' authoritarian is false as well, considering we seek to liberate ourselves via the most historically effectively way, ie the set up of a party structure.
Just a thought.

[JazzRemington]

Given that the majority of anarchists (excepting individualists) advocate for and envision a class based revolution as being the only means by which capitalism can be overthrown, isn't it somewhat of a misnomer to classify anarchists as anti-authoritarian given that a revolution is an enormous exertion of authority?

Most anarchists don't consider it authoritarian to destroy authority (except for the individualists, as you've pointed out). The ones that do are completely naive.

[Invincible Summer]

I believe anti-authoritarianism refers to being against illegitimate forms of authority. Of course, this is subjective, and obviously biased in favour of the political persuasion of the group

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well this is basically the old line: there is nothing more authoritarian than a revolution. I think we all tend to get caught-up in short-hand terminology from time to time. I also find it funny when people say they are against "leaders" - but in order to promote that idea and spread it, you are, in fact, "leading".

To me the important thing is to get beyond the word and talk about the nature of authority and "leadership". There's the authority of an autocrat and then there's the authority of democratic or other forms of collective decision making. There's the leadership of a top-down hierarchy of appointees and then there's the organic leadership of people or ideas who have gained the trust of people or leadership which is elected and subject to the will of the people who have given them that position.

[Commiechu]

I think Engels explained this pretty well -

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

[JazzRemington]

I think Engels explained this pretty well -

This only shows Engels doesn't understand how anarchists view revolution. It's not that they are using revolution to impose their will over people, but rather that they are using revolution to destroy someone else's authority over them. If anything, the only will their imposing is their will not to be subjected to someone else's authority - which I don't think involves any imposing. That's why most anarchists don't see destroying authority as being authoritarian. Most anarchists view a revolution as a popular one, where either the majority of people or the working class willingly overthrows the authority of the State and the bourgeoisie, and would have no problem with preventing them from regaining it. How this prevention is carried out is where most Marxists and anarchists digress.

[meow]

I think that the OP, has raised a considerable point. Surely the fact that most anarchist call 'trots' authoritarian is false as well, considering we seek to liberate ourselves via the most historically effectively way, ie the set up of a party structure.
Just a thought.
hardly. if it so effectively then where is my communist place? anarchists use authoritarian not just for aim (liberate ourselfs) but how. party structure is authoritarian because it subjects members to itself.

[Commiechu]

This only shows Engels doesn't understand how anarchists view revolution. It's not that they are using revolution to impose their will over people, but rather that they are using revolution to destroy someone else's authority over them. If anything, the only will their imposing is their will not to be subjected to someone else's authority - which I don't think involves any imposing. That's why most anarchists don't see destroying authority as being authoritarian. Most anarchists view a revolution as a popular one, where either the majority of people or the working class willingly overthrows the authority of the State and the bourgeoisie, and would have no problem with preventing them from regaining it. How this prevention is carried out is where most Marxists and anarchists digress.

Even if the majority are carrying out a revolution they are still forcing their will upon the minority, in my view this is very much an authoritarian process.

[ZeroNowhere]

Even if the majority are carrying out a revolution they are still forcing their will upon the minority, in my view this is very much an authoritarian process.
All that this shows is that you use the word 'authoritarian' in a rather obscure and idiosyncratic manner.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Most anarchists view a revolution as a popular one, where either the majority of people or the working class willingly overthrows the authority of the State and the bourgeoisie.Yes, but the point is that this is still popular democratic authority over the illegitimate, forced authority of the current ruling class. How is that an obscure use of the word? There is no such thing as authority in the abstract, it has to be considered based on things like how authority is granted, who's authority, why the authority and so on.


anarchists use authoritarian not just for aim (liberate ourselfs) but how. party structure is authoritarian because it subjects members to itself. So unions (including IWW branches) are authoritarian? I mean if your union votes to go on strike, it's it authoritarian for them to demand that you do the same?

[JazzRemington]

Yes, but the point is that this is still popular democratic authority over the illegitimate, forced authority of the current ruling class. How is that an obscure use of the word? There is no such thing as authority in the abstract, it has to be considered based on things like how authority is granted, who's authority, why the authority and so on.

This still doesn't change the fact that most anarchists have absolutely no problem with preventing the State or the bourgeoisie from reasserting itself. It's a matter of self-defense, which normally isn't considered authoritarian in any sense of the word. Claiming it is, is based on a rather idiosyncratic view (as referenced above). Even if we take the distinction between illegitimate and legitimate authority, it still doesn't change the fact that it has more to do with self-defense. That's how anarchists view defending a revolution and the freedom of the working class. It's self-defense, not an exercise in authority. Anarchists tend to differentiate "authority" more or less along the lines you've discussed, but even then it doesn't change anything.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Right, I understand how anarchist see the use of the word, but the point is that there is actually very little real difference between working-class "authoritarians" and "anti-authoritarians" who argue for revolution. Everything you describe above I agree with, but also say is a form of authority IMO - democratic worker's power and self-defense of that power is a kind of authority, a good kind verses the top-down forced authority of capitalism or feudalism or the USSR.

People fetishise this word "authoritarian" in general while some people use it as a smear to try and paint a whole group of political thought as being autocratic: insinuating support so-called "socialist" dictatorships regardless of actual political positions.

To be consistent in this use of "authoritarian" then the IWW and all unions and any group that has democratic decision making are "authoritarian". The Paris Commune and Makhno's army were authoritarian too. But that is not how it is used which leads me to believe it's a useless term at best, just a slur at worst. It's a term that muddies things rather than clarifying either the political similarities or differences among anarchists and marxists.

[JazzRemington]

That still doesn't it make it any less idiosyncratic.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

I never refer to my political perspective as "anti-authoritarian", but then again I am less of an egalitarian/democratic anarchist and more of a Blanquist-Bakuninist-Bordigist douchebag who has wet dreams about the proletarian dictatorship.

[nuisance]

Given that the majority of anarchists (excepting individualists) advocate for and envision a class based revolution as being the only means by which capitalism can be overthrown, isn't it somewhat of a misnomer to classify anarchists as anti-authoritarian given that a revolution is an enormous exertion of authority?
Anarchists oppose illegimate authority which manifests in hierarchical relations and intend that these relationships be replaced with egalitarian ('anti-authoritian') ones.

[AnthArmo]

The term "Authority" and "Authoritarian" is a very vague and subjective term. Often, when Anarchists are referring to Authority, they are referring to Hierarchial Authority . It would be absurd to discount, say, the authority of a scientist over a field of knowledge.

Hierarchial Authority is a very specific form of authority. It is the sort of authority that rules over and above a large group of people, at the head of a pyramid shaped command-structure. This definition derives directly from the greek roots of the word for Anarchism (Without Rulers, or Without Sovereign)

As such, a mass of people at the bottom of a hierarchy, overthrowing their rulers, isn't authoritarian in this sense of the word. It's probably authoritarian in the sense that it is a violent and coercive act (Although I'd argue that the anarcho-syndicalist vision of a mass general strike is more of an act of non-compliance than coercion). However, it isn't an example of Hierarchial Authority

[Aesop]

hardly. if it so effectively then where is my communist place?

Unless if you read history with one eye close, the russian revolution is one in which the revolution was sucessful.However, can't think of any successful revolutions using the methods of anarchists.


anarchists use authoritarian not just for aim (liberate ourselfs) but how. party structure is authoritarian because it subjects members to itself.

No.
The Party structure does not subjugates members, no one is forcing a member to stay in the party against his/her will. Also in the reality some decisions have to be made in a instant and not always seen years ahead, hence the need of a revolutionary party which contains some of the most experienced people in workers struggles and rank and file members . In addition i think your forgerting about the democratic part in democratic centralism.

[revolution inaction]

Unless if you read history with one eye close, the russian revolution is one in which the revolution was sucessful.However, can't think of any successful revolutions using the methods of anarchists.


so we have communism now? awesome! excuse me while i get some free beer to celebrate.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The term "Authority" and "Authoritarian" is a very vague and subjective term. Often, when Anarchists are referring to Authority, they are referring to Hierarchial Authority . It would be absurd to discount, say, the authority of a scientist over a field of knowledge.

Hierarchial Authority is a very specific form of authority. It is the sort of authority that rules over and above a large group of people, at the head of a pyramid shaped command-structure. This definition derives directly from the greek roots of the word for Anarchism (Without Rulers, or Without Sovereign)

As such, a mass of people at the bottom of a hierarchy, overthrowing their rulers, isn't authoritarian in this sense of the word. It's probably authoritarian in the sense that it is a violent and coercive act (Although I'd argue that the anarcho-syndicalist vision of a mass general strike is more of an act of non-compliance than coercion). However, it isn't an example of Hierarchial Authority

Anarcho-syndicalists use a hierarchy - an inverted one. Any democratic vote or anything where there are delegates is "authoritarian" by this definition. A mass or general strike would have to use some kind of delegation or hierarchical form.

So "authoritarian" is a useless word since it can describe any left group from top-down Stalinist CPs dictating orders to workers, to a democratically organized trotskyist party, to a mass electoral party, to an IWW branch, to a reformist trade-union.

[syndicat]

Anarcho-syndicalists use a hierarchy - an inverted one. Any democratic vote or anything where there are delegates is "authoritarian" by this definition. A mass or general strike would have to use some kind of delegation or hierarchical form.



No, this is incorrect. Anarcho-syndicalism is based on the idea of workers self-managing struggles and their unions or shop organization. This is based on the direct democracy of assemblies. They also elect delegates to coordinate activities, such as a shop steward, a shop committee, a union branch committee, or on a large scale, a congress of a labor federation.

We organize this way to ensure worker control over the movement and to prevent bureaucratization, as you have in the bureaucratic business unions...including the various social dem and Communist unions in Europe.

Thus the anarcho-syndicalist program for worker self-organization is to prevent a hierarchical apparatus from consolidating its hold over the labor movement. Electing delegates to go to a congress is not a hierarchy as we understand "hierarchy". Hierarchy presupposes the concentration of decision-making authority and expertise into the hands of a few. In the bureaucratic unions this happens through the role of the full time officials and full-time staff, concentrating decision-making control, and converting unions to "service agencies."

"Authoritarian" as used by libertarian socialists refers to some kind of institutional structure that concentrates power at the top, such as the state or the corporations, or a centralized bureaucratic apparatus that controls a union top down (as in UAW for example). The less the avenues for ordinary people to affect how an organization or institution works, the more authoritarian it is. Thus a military dictatorship is more authoritarian than "representative democracy".

A revolutionary process, if it is under control of democratic mass organizations, would not be "authoritarian" precisely insofar as the masses are in the drivers' seat.

Historically libertarian socialists referred to the "authoritarian left" because the latter advocated a bureaucratic statist regime and/or supported buraucratic, top-down union and party structures.

Thus it is incorrect to say that libertarian socialists are "against all authority" or even "against all coercive authority." If a union makes a collective decision about how it is conducting a strike and, for example, that the pickets will try to prevent scabs from entering the workplace, they thus have "collective authority" to so act....even if this is coercive.

Authority is inevitable in the life of society in a wide variety of forms. But from a libertarian Left perspective it depends on how that authority is to be organized and exercized. If authority over social production is organized in such a way that workers are subordinated, this then expresses a class system.

In regard to "leader", this is a slippery word that has several different meanings. It can refer to concentration of decision-making in the hands of someone, as when Jimmy Hoffa Jr is said to be the "leader" of the Teamsters union. libertarian socialists are against that form of "leadership". in any sort of movement or organization there are some people who, at a given point in time, are particularly active, are coming up with ideas, are doing organizing, have some developed skills helpful to the movement such as public speaking, or because of various kinds of skills of this sort are able to exercize a certain influence within the movement. these things are examples of exercizing leadership, but leadership as influence. This is an informal relationship, and is not an institutionalized, top-down form of control, like that of Hoffa over IBT. In order to work towards a movement of equals, it's necessary to work in a concerted fashion to encourage as many rank and file people to develop "leadership abilities"...knowledge, active involvement, organizing skills, and so on. Trainings for how to be a rank and file organizer are helpful here, but these skills are also developed through practice, and thus a movement that workers on the basis of rank and file control helps develop these skills also.

A third meaning of "leadership" can refer to a situation where a person takes on a responsibility for doing some work, such as someone elected as a shop steward or a treasurer. In this case what we want is democratic accountability. we don't want this to develop into the unaccountable or bureaucratic hierarchy.

[revolution inaction]

Anarcho-syndicalists use a hierarchy - an inverted one. Any democratic vote or anything where there are delegates is "authoritarian" by this definition. A mass or general strike would have to use some kind of delegation or hierarchical form.

So "authoritarian" is a useless word since it can describe any left group from top-down Stalinist CPs dictating orders to workers, to a democratically organized trotskyist party, to a mass electoral party, to an IWW branch, to a reformist trade-union.

its only a usless word when you define it in the ridiculously broad way that you do.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Historically libertarian socialists referred to the "authoritarian left" because the latter advocated a bureaucratic statist regime and/or supported buraucratic, top-down union and party structures.And those of us who don't are still called "authoritarian".

There was a coalition I was involved in and the loose clique of anarchists pulled out calling it authoritarian because a majority vote process won out over consensus. They said this is authoritarianism. To me this kind of thing (and this is just an anecdote, I'm not saying that everyone who uses this terminology uses it like this or that this is an "anarchist problem" or anything like that) is useless and as politically helpful when, for example, a hardcore Stalinist calls all Trots and anarchists "liberals".


Thus it is incorrect to say that libertarian socialists are "against all authority" or even "against all coercive authority." If a union makes a collective decision about how it is conducting a strike and, for example, that the pickets will try to prevent scabs from entering the workplace, they thus have "collective authority" to so act....even if this is coercive.Yes I agree with this and I don't think anarcho-syndicalists or democratic voting are hierarchy or authoritarian.

That's my point, the word is used as a slur and used selectively against socialists regardless of weather they believe in a top-down hierarchy or bottom up democracy with delegates or whatnot.


Authority is inevitable in the life of society in a wide variety of forms. But from a libertarian Left perspective it depends on how that authority is to be organized and exercized. If authority over social production is organized in such a way that workers are subordinated, this then expresses a class system.I fully agree with what you are saying about leadership and legitimate authority - to me it's idealist for some people on the left to be against organization or leadership in the abstract, the real point historically for marxists and anarchists is how leadership or organization are organized. A CP declaring itself the vanguard and issuing directives is bad organization and illegitimate leadership IMO (for various reasons that I can go into if people want my take on it) whereas a coalition or vanguard party or union with elected delegates and "leadership" that is subject to decisions from below is more effective and responsive "good" leadership and organization.

So this language of "authoritarian" and "anti-authoritarian" is not helpful and not an accurate way to describe different approaches on the left. I think "from above" and "from below" is a much better distinction because frankly a so-called"anti-authoritarian" group can be totally elitist, undemocratic, and issuing directives to the "masses" just as much as a Stalinist CP. Whereas other "anti-authoritarians" like the IWW are bottom up and democratic in approach.

[syndicat]

There was a coalition I was involved in and the loose clique of anarchists pulled out calling it authoritarian because a majority vote process won out over consensus.

that's implicitly an individualist position. that's because anarchists who take that view are saying the individual ego can't ever be subordinate to the collectivity. they mistakenly suppose one is oppressed simply by losing a vote. but oppression is of groups by various structures...class, race, gender, state...

but "from below" is too vague. what if there is an uprising from below but they decide to put some vanguard group in power in a hierarchical state? (as happened in the Russian revoluition)

this is why self-management is key concept from a libertarian socialist point of view.

[Jimmie Higgins]

but "from below" is too vague. what if there is an uprising from below but they decide to put some vanguard group in power in a hierarchical state? (as happened in the Russian revoluition)If a party is arguing for power from radicals ruling over society, then they are not supporting socialism from below, they are advocating a top-down version of socialism.

If they are advocating rule from below by councils and accountable delegates or some other kind of way of organizing the same sort of thing, then they want socialism from below or self-managemet.

I think this is a more useful way of thinking of the radical ideologies than authoritarian and anti-authoritarian because it groups social-democracy and Stalinist together as well as insurrectionist anarchist and socialist groups and tactics. On the other side it groups together syndicalists, class-focused anarchists as well as non-Stalinist radical socialists.

Really, the issue of these terms is not that big of a deal so i feel kind of silly perusing it, but it's also an interesting discussion.


its only a usless word when you define it in the ridiculously broad way that you do.

Maybe it would help too if people who do use these terms to define who would and would not be authoritarian and anti-authoritarian. Usually I only hear it in terms of people describing themselves as "anti-authoritarian" and occasionally I hear "authoritarian" as an insult directed at me:lol:. So what examples are there? For example, are all unions authoritarian or just business-unions; are mass-parties authoritarian; why do you never hear NGOs described as authoritarian; is it only used to describe left-wing groups?

[syndicat]

Anarchists generally consider Leninism to be an authoritarian ideology for a number of reasons. First, the idea of concentrating control over the organization in a central committee, rather than a horizontal discipline of member to member.

Second, at the time of the formation of the Communist International, the CI and Trotsky and others advocated that unions had to be basically transmission belts of the party, not autonomous in their own right. This was why a majority of the revolutionary syndicalist unions, many of which initially affiliated to the CI (such as the Spanish CNT), quit the CI and formed the International Workers Association (tho a few such as American IWW remained independent, after having defeated the CP's attempt to "capture" it). There is also a history of Leninist groups trying to manipulate mass orgs or create steering committees to concentrate control. In the fight over control of the IWW for example, the CP got control of the national committee of the Marine Transport Workers Union and expelled its largest local in Philly because the CP had no support there. Or there is the example in 1969-72 of PLP's manipulation of SDS aftere they "captured" it.

Third, there is the fact that Leninism is based on a strategy of a party capturing control of a state and then implementing its program top-down thru the hierarchies of the state. At least, this is what the Bolshevik party certainly did in the Russian revolution.

[meow]

So unions (including IWW branches) are authoritarian? I mean if your union votes to go on strike, it's it authoritarian for them to demand that you do the same?
can iww central committee expel members for not toe party (sorry union) line? can the union central committee expel someone for not join strike?

in party i know where i live they have "democracy". so call because multiple level of hierarchy. mass membership elect middle level. middle level elect executive central committee. this executive can then expel whoever for almost any reason. this is authoritarian.

can iww cc expel someone for not selling newspaper?

[meow]

Unless if you read history with one eye close, the russian revolution is one in which the revolution was sucessful.However, can't think of any successful revolutions using the methods of anarchists.


so we have communism now? awesome! excuse me while i get some free beer to celebrate.

can i come join you comrade!

aesop successful revolution means communism! i read history. i know about russian revolution. that was not successful. if it was we would have communism.


No.
The Party structure does not subjugates members, no one is forcing a member to stay in the party against his/her will. Also in the reality some decisions have to be made in a instant and not always seen years ahead, hence the need of a revolutionary party which contains some of the most experienced people in workers struggles and rank and file members . In addition i think your forgerting about the democratic part in democratic centralism.
democratic in that i elect person b who elect person c who is on central committee? right...
the party does subjagate members. yes people are not forced to stay in party. but that does not make party less authoritarian.

authoritarian party is that few can force mass to do thing. whether that is at threat of expulsion or fire squad. it still force.

[Jimmie Higgins]

can the union central committee expel someone for not join strike? I hope that people who violate the strike vote can be kicked out by other members.

So then now it's not the type of society argued for that makes someone authoritarian, it's the kind of organization they have? So people also regularly call NGOs and trade-unions and electoral parties "authoritarian"?


Anarchists generally consider Leninism to be an authoritarian ideology for a number of reasons. First, the idea of concentrating control over the organization in a central committee, rather than a horizontal discipline of member to member. Granted, but I hardly see how an elected committee of a completely voluntary group is really all that "authoritarian". I'd consider this bad and "authoritarian" for running society and since many of the groups following the failure of the Russian Revolution viewed that internal counter-revolution as the model for "socialism" and advocated party rule over the society, I can see why people would think that.


Second, at the time of the formation of the Communist International, the CI and Trotsky and others advocated that unions had to be basically transmission belts of the party, not autonomous in their own right. This was why a majority of the revolutionary syndicalist unions, many of which initially affiliated to the CI (such as the Spanish CNT), quit the CI and formed the International Workers Association (tho a few such as American IWW remained independent, after having defeated the CP's attempt to "capture" it). There is also a history of Leninist groups trying to manipulate mass orgs or create steering committees to concentrate control. In the fight over control of the IWW for example, the CP got control of the national committee of the Marine Transport Workers Union and expelled its largest local in Philly because the CP had no support there. Or there is the example in 1969-72 of PLP's manipulation of SDS aftere they "captured" it.Well I understand the reasoning for trying to coordinate revolutionary actions in europe right after the russian revolution, but yes ultimately the comintern was turned into something to control the movements for the interest of Russia - as the CPs in general became organizations for that purpose. Had the revolution in Russia not been pushed back internally, had there been other revolutions in Europe, then I don't think any of us would even question weather trying to organize a international network of communists was a good idea or not.

But yes these other kinds of tactics are very top-down and dishonest and ultimately sectarian and bad for the movement.

Also it's authoritarian when a group of anarchists at UC Berkeley tried to force the students into a building occupation by attempting to chain the doors to a building closed. That's essentially the same thing - a group with no democratic accountability trying to dictate the form of the student actions without consulting or getting the confidence of people involved.

I'd say that those individuals are authoritarian, but not all of anarchism by any stretch, just as the CPs and some trotskyist groups were top-down
but doesn't mean this is inevitable or that all groups are like that.


Third, there is the fact that Leninism is based on a strategy of a party capturing control of a state and then implementing its program top-down thru the hierarchies of the state. At least, this is what the Bolshevik party certainly did in the Russian revolution. But not what they advocated or fought for - just as Makhno did not intend to forcibly conscript people but ended up doing this.

Besides, I don't advocate this and I am still called authoritarian. So, it seems like the only real criteria for "authoritarian" is if someone has any connection to the Leninist tradition regardless of how democratic or undemocratic, top-down or bottom up they are.

[meow]

I hope that people who violate the strike vote can be kicked out by other members.

So then now it's not the type of society argued for that makes someone authoritarian, it's the kind of organization they have? So people also regularly call NGOs and trade-unions and electoral parties "authoritarian"?

there is difference between the mass of membership deciding to kick out members and some small group (possibily not even elected directly by mass of membership) making that decision.

yes (most) unions and political parties are authoritarian. ngos depends on specifics.

but i think you dont see that there is more then just black and white. there is gray in all this as well.



Granted, but I hardly see how an elected committee of a completely voluntary group is really all that "authoritarian". I'd consider this bad and "authoritarian" for running society and since many of the groups following the failure of the Russian Revolution viewed that internal counter-revolution as the model for "socialism" and advocated party rule over the society, I can see why people would think that.

do you think the elected government of your country (where you dont have to live) is not authoritarian? bad example because it is much harder to leave a country then a party. but the committee is just as much elected as government. sometimes it is not direct by membership as ive said. (membership elect group a. group a elect committee)


Besides, I don't advocate this and I am still called authoritarian. So, it seems like the only real criteria for "authoritarian" is if someone has any connection to the Leninist tradition regardless of how democratic or undemocratic, top-down or bottom up they are.
sucks to be you.

i tend to say someone is authoritarian if they support authoritarian methods of running society (including claiming it is needed to get to some non authoritarian society). you can also have authoritarian power structures within groups. in westminster system prime minister can have complete control over who gets to be ministers. in many socialist party the central committee dictates policy and makes 98% decision.

and you can have authoritarian actions by people who normally arent. such as you gave example of.

[Sexy Red]

Anarchy isn't clear enough in what it wants to do after abolishing the state. In my mind, I've always got the idea of them wandering around in a forest in a daze. But that was just a dream I had once:lol:

But someone is going to take control in an Anarchy sooner or later and they may not be so nice.

[Aesop]

so we have communism now? awesome! excuse me while i get some free beer to celebrate.

I never stated that we have the workers have achieved communism.
I am merely stating the fact due to a workers organisation(party) the russian revolution was successful. Do you disagree?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Anarchy isn't clear enough in what it wants to do after abolishing the state. In my mind, I've always got the idea of them wandering around in a forest in a daze. But that was just a dream I had once:lol:

But someone is going to take control in an Anarchy sooner or later and they may not be so nice.

:rolleyes:

Care to explain why?

[revolution inaction]

I never stated that we have the workers have achieved communism.
I am merely stating the fact due to a workers organisation(party) the russian revolution was successful. Do you disagree?

to me a revolution is the process of transforming society to communism, so a successful revolution is one which ends with world communism.