"Authoritarian" and "Statist" as useless terms.

[Broletariat]

These terms, to me, seem quite useless in describing any sort of ideology as I've seen done before.

I mean really, Authoritarian? Who's being Authoritarian? The working class? Awesome. The bourgeoisie? Well shit. State? Who's State? Working class state? fuck yea. Capitalist state? No good.

I guess I made this topic because I'm not very eloquent on this issue because I don't fully understand why they are useless terms, so I'd like some people to clarify.

[Paulappaul]

Just because it is the working class, doesn't grant any mystical power which justifies Authoritarianism. Nor does a Workers' State.

[GPDP]

Just because it is the working class, doesn't grant any mystical power which justifies Authoritarianism. Nor does a Workers' State.

But what does "authoritarianism" mean in the context of a society where the working class is in power?

[The Douche]

How is the forced removal of private property not authoritarian?

[Savage]

If you advocate a society wherein a state exists then you are a statist, I think 'Authoritarian' is a relative label, obviously people advocating a transitional state that administers forced labor, show trials, executions etc are more authoritarian than people who advocate a transitional society predicated on workers councils' and/or other similar organs of class power.

[mikelepore]

The concept of "forced" is also useless. Everything that occurs in society is forced, because all people don't unanimously agree. No matter what the issue, some groups outvotes another group, and then the first group forces the second group. Class rule means that 5 percent of the people force 95 percent of the people, and the revolution that will abolish class rule will mean that 95 percent will force 5 percent. Therefore the element of "force" is like water to a fish - it's too universal to be worth mentioning at all.

[syndicat]

structures of decision-making are authoritarian when they are based on the denial of self-management, that is, control over the decisions that affect you, as in a managerial hierarchy's control over the workforce. the control exercizes this hierarchy over workers is autocratic, a dictatorship, in that workers are denied control over, appropriate say in, the decisions that have an important affect on them.

"statist" is one who advocates for state solutions, state control, who defends the existence of states, etc. thus those who advocate state ownership and control of the economy are perforce statists.

a state is a hierarchical apparatus, apart from real control by the mass of the population, which serves the interests of dominating, exploiting classes. "workers state" is a contradiction in terms.

[Broletariat]

structures of decision-making are authoritarian when they are based on the denial of self-management, that is, control over the decisions that affect you

This seems like it would require a ridiculous amount of elaboration to work. "decisions that affect you" Pretty much any decision anyone on the planet makes effects me in some way or another through the butterfly effect.

[The Douche]

structures of decision-making are authoritarian when they are based on the denial of self-management, that is, control over the decisions that affect you, as in a managerial hierarchy's control over the workforce.

So when the anarchist workers deny the boss the ability to decide what to do with his property they are being authoritarian.

[OhYesIdid]

"workers state" is a contradiction in terms.

Whoa there. So you're saying that, say, the USSR was a mistake? How, then, is the working class to organize and, pardon the term, capitalize on their revolutionary achievements if not through the use of a transitional state? Isn't the main idea behind it all than one day control over the state will be so universal it will become, as someone else has said, like water to a fish?

[Savage]

This seems like it would require a ridiculous amount of elaboration to work. "decisions that affect you" Pretty much any decision anyone on the planet makes effects me in some way or another through the butterfly effect.
Anarchists like Syndicat don't advocate societies devoid of cooperative decision making, just ones devoid of hierarchical management.


So when the anarchist workers deny the boss the ability to decide what to do with his property they are being authoritarian.
The act of expropriation does not exercise hierarchical authority.


Whoa there. So you're saying that, say, the USSR was a mistake?
He/She obviously implied that the USSR was not an organ of class power.


How, then, is the working class to organize and, pardon the term, capitalize on their revolutionary achievements if not through the use of a transitional state? Isn't the main idea behind it all than one day control over the state will be so universal it will become, as someone else has said, like water to a fish?
As Anarchists understand the state as a hierarchical institution of power, they do not advocate a 'transitional state', as working class organization via councils, assemblies etc does not equate the existence of the state to them. Marxists who have politics largely similar to Anarchists still consider the existance of the state to be inherent in the transitional society, as a Marxian analysis considers the existence of class to warrant the existence of the state.

[Jose Gracchus]

The USSR was not a workers' state, if such a thing can even be said to be coherent or possible.

Direct participatory control of the producing class, through their own institutions, at the point of production and in their communities - taking control of the circumstances of their lives, and managing society thoroughly through these institutions could hardly be called a "state" in the sense of either modern Western-style capitalist states, or the Soviet-bloc states, or even Lenin's confused writings in State and Revolution. It is, at best, the withering of the state as participatory democracy of the working class supersedes alienated official structures, with professional politicians, order-givers, bureaucrats, and an insulating ruling formation in any sense of the word.

Syndicat is an anarcho-syndicalist, and he thinks [rightfully, in my book], that most mainstream, at least, revolutionary Marxist accounts of this 'transitional state' are more trouble than they are worth. They are hopelessly vague and a constant source of legalistic arguments for how repressive police states might be "workers' states" merely since there are no official individual owners of enterprises.

Marxists tend to define the state legalistically in the sense of "any mode of cooperative decision-making based on the fundamental power of a particular class". I would argue this is exceptionally misleading since a society by and for the direct producers, the majority class, will be a fundamentally different organ from all hitherto minoritarian class dictatorship states. It has less in common with the known pantheon of states than it differs.

[Red_Struggle]

I don't really buy into the whole dictatorship/authoritarianism vs. freedom/democracy dichotomy. Every state is authoritarian in the sense that it represents the will of one class while suppressing the others through their respective state organs. The bourgeoisie protects their property interests through state power, the police, lobbying, etc..
In a workers' state, the councils, the militias, the police (although heavily reformed to prevent police brutality) use their state to protect their property rights, just as the bourgeoisie did before them. The question should be who is holding the gun and at whom is it aimed?

A government based on people's councils (soviets) and socialist production relations can bring a great deal of freedom to the workers of town and country while actively working to suppress remaining bourgeoise elements and individuals in society.

[Savage]

Syndicat is an anarcho-syndicalist, and he thinks [rightfully, in my book], that most mainstream, at least, revolutionary Marxist accounts of this 'transitional state' are more trouble than they are worth. They are hopelessly vague and a constant source of legalistic arguments for how repressive police states might be "workers' states" merely since there are no official individual owners of enterprises.

Marxists tend to define the state legalistically in the sense of "any mode of cooperative decision-making based on the fundamental power of a particular class". I would argue this is exceptionally misleading since a society by and for the direct producers, the majority class, will be a fundamentally different organ from all hitherto minoritarian class dictatorship states. It has less in common with the known pantheon of states than it differs.

This is a completely valid critique of the position held by the majority of Marxists, I think non-Marxist communists should however take into account those Marxists who do not advocate a workers' state. My understanding of the transitional society is fairly similar to that of the ICC, this position of course being a very much marginalized one,

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2733

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_problems_mc.htm

[GPDP]

Marxists: We want a workers' state.
Anarchists: Hell no, a state is oppressive and authoritarian
Marxists: A workers' state would be thoroughly democratic and run explicitly by the working class majority.
Anarchists: Then that's not a state.

That's all I'm getting from this thread. Nothing more than semantics.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I agree that "authoritarian" is more-or-less useless as a descriptive term. The conduct of "class struggle anarchists" when contrasted w/ their rhetoric & writings in regards to "authoritarianism" is one of the stange paradoxes in the history of political philosophy.

"Statist" on the other hand is more of a valid term (and not just in regards to left-wing thought). It all comes down to what is defined as a "state", though, and this is where the debates get bogged down and the term really does become meaningless. I mean, if by "state" you mean something that looks anything like the rotten, brutish system that I currently live in, then I'm absolutely opposed to it, but if the state is organized in such a way that the functionaries are subject to


1) not only election, but recall at any time; 2) payment no higher than that of ordinary workers; 3) immediate introduction of control and superintendence by all, so that all shall become "bureaucrats" for a time and so that, therefore, no one can become a "bureaucrat"

...then I have less of a problem with it. (Although the theories & the realities of Marxian state planning are two very different things.)

[Paulappaul]

Marxists: We want a workers' state.

I am a Marxist. I do not want a Workers' State.

[syndicat]

This seems like it would require a ridiculous amount of elaboration to work. "decisions that affect you" Pretty much any decision anyone on the planet makes effects me in some way or another through the butterfly effect.

if we look at a workplace, for example, there are certain decisions that affect mainly the workers there. there are other decisions that may equally affect others such as possible pollution effects on the surrounding neighborhood or region.

so self-management requires we split the decisions. there is an organization run by the workers that controls the workplace, the work process, their own activity.

but they must also be accountable to the larger society because some of the decisions equally affect others, such as those who use the product or are affected by pollution. for these other decisions there are other bodies. so, the community as a whole has decision-making bodies, such as neighborhood assemblies or city congresses. these can decide to restrict pollution because this is a decision that doesn't affect just the workers but in an equal manner the whole community.

thus self-management needs to be understood as a layered structure where groups who are mainly affected by certain decisions have orrganizations that they control through which those decisions are made.

if the working class doesn't have its own organizations to control its work and workplaces, it won't be free, but will continue to be an exploited and dominated class.

[syndicat]

me:
structures of decision-making are authoritarian when they are based on the denial of self-management, that is, control over the decisions that affect you, as in a managerial hierarchy's control over the workforce.

cmoney:
So when the anarchist workers deny the boss the ability to decide what to do with his property they are being authoritarian.

this is like saying that if you steal my coat and I take it back, i'm engaged in theft. you're playing word games.

I think i made it clear that "authoritarian" is property a description of institutions, decision-making structures. you've not described an institution but a situation or event.

[Savage]

(Although the theories & the realities of Marxian state planning are two very different things.)

Well of course 'Marxian' refers to the positions of Marx himself, which, on the subject of the transitional society, are not reflected without revision in Lenin's work. My position is basically that the state is separate to Proletarian power in the transitional society, so I don't speak of the DOTP as something that administers 'state planning', but it should be remembered that Marx did not attempt to layout precise instructions for a revolutionary society, and whether events such as the Russian Revolution are examples of what Marx would have considered to be even the early stages of Proletarian rule are debatable.

[syndicat]

Whoa there. So you're saying that, say, the USSR was a mistake? How, then, is the working class to organize and, pardon the term, capitalize on their revolutionary achievements if not through the use of a transitional state? Isn't the main idea behind it all than one day control over the state will be so universal it will become, as someone else has said, like water to a fish?

workers were certainly not in control of the "USSR". a bureaucratic ruling class was in control, and the immediate producers continued to dominated and exploited.

the liberation of the working class can only happen through their own mass organizations and their own efforts, from below. Not by some condescending saviors called a "vanguard party" substituting itself for the direct democracy of the masses.

the working class in a revolutionar situation needs to seize the means of production, establish its own organizations to run the workplaces and industries, and create congresses or delegate bodies controlled by it through which coordination can take place, and through which the workers can control their own workers militia.

the hierarchical state apparatus set in motion thru a series of changes pushed by the Bolsheviks led to the consolidation of an administrative layer apart from any effective control by the masses. the Bolsheviks took advantage of a temporary majority in the Congress of Workers & Soldiers (representing a minority of the population) to set up a cabinet that began to rule top down...set up a party political police, hired thousands of ex-tsarist officers and gave them privileged positions in a "Red Army", set up a statist central planning body top down, began beating the drum for "one-man managers" to control workers in production, and so on. that is certainly a state, and it also quite certainly an instrument of a "ruling class"...namely a coalescing bureaucratic class, ruling over the immediate producers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

the Bolsheviks took advantage of a temporary majority in the Congress of Workers & Soldiers (representing a minority of the population) to set up a cabinet that began to rule top down

The real problem was that the CEC didn't model itself upon the imperial Council of Ministers, with the addition of a collegium / board for every ministry. Had this happened, there would have been no need for Sovnarkom.

[Jose Gracchus]

Let's be more concrete. A lot of "really existing" Marxists think they can convincingly argue that the "'really existing' socialist states" are legitimate examples of the transitional society that was described and articulated by Marx. Therefore, I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that Marxian positions on the state and transition are not robust enough if they could be retrofitted as a justificatory ideology for repression of the working class.

[Savage]

Well I really wouldn't blame the degeneration of what constitutes the mainstream of Marxism on the weakness of Marxian concepts, as Chomsky said, after 70 years of propaganda from both the USSR and the USA, it's hardly surprising that Stalinism epitomizes socialism in most peoples minds. I wouldn't say that Marxian concepts have been retrofitted, because the arguments of the people that consider Soviet style regimes to be the product of Marxian concepts are, well, shit.

[Q]

Let's be more concrete. A lot of "really existing" Marxists think they can convincingly argue that the "'really existing' socialist states" are legitimate examples of the transitional society that was described and articulated by Marx. Therefore, I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that Marxian positions on the state and transition are not robust enough if they could be retrofitted as a justificatory ideology for repression of the working class.

Counterrevolutions rarely announce themselves as such. Much more common is for them to use the banner of the revolution. So, the theoretical foundation of Stalin's regime became "Marxism-Leninism", which had little to do with the positions of Marx and Lenin.

[Savage]

^ Good point. I don't think that we need reminding that as far as propagation goes, the sword is indeed mightier than the pen. Trotsky, Bukharin and Zionviev (amongst many other thousands) were hardly silenced by Stalin's intellectual prowess.

[mikelepore]

Marxists: We want a workers' state.
Anarchists: Hell no, a state is oppressive and authoritarian
Marxists: A workers' state would be thoroughly democratic and run explicitly by the working class majority.
Anarchists: Then that's not a state.

That's all I'm getting from this thread. Nothing more than semantics.

That's exactly what it is. The people on this site go around in circles with the semantics. Sometimes they say that the state is the name given to government when a class dominates it, but then the statement that a classless society will be stateless becomes true only by definition and adds no information. Then they say that it's a state if its coercive, but if you remind them that society will always be coercive, assuming that people won't want rape and murder to be permitted by society, they will back up and say of course there will always be laws but its the structure that makes something a state, the fact that that the people elected a council of lawmakers. Then if you remind that that elected delegations are considered useful even by anarchists and syndicalists, they back up and say that it's different when its class-ruled. Then branch back to step one and repeat. No branch out of the loop.

[Le Socialiste]

These terms, to me, seem quite useless in describing any sort of ideology as I've seen done before.

I mean really, Authoritarian? Who's being Authoritarian? The working class? Awesome. The bourgeoisie? Well shit. State? Who's State? Working class state? fuck yea. Capitalist state? No good.

I guess I made this topic because I'm not very eloquent on this issue because I don't fully understand why they are useless terms, so I'd like some people to clarify.


Well, let’s take a look at these terms, shall we? Firstly, let’s be clear that “authoritarianism” and “statism” must here be looked at through socialistic lens. Otherwise, we end up dealing with an entire spectrum of socioeconomic/political theories that can (and do) include the two words, thus devolving the entire thread into what constitutes and/or qualifies as “authoritarian” or “statist”. We want our focus on the two within the general socialist movement. Now, authoritarianism: the very word evokes strong images of authority, and rightly so. Essentially, it can be defined as the belief and complete submission to a rigid set of rules and regulations. A person who adheres to this specific line of thought upholds authority at the expense of individual liberties. Many countries that self-identified themselves as socialist (by which I mean, for now, to include communism, Marxism, etc. etc.) relied on the coercive authority of the state in order to establish their vision of what a socialistic state would look like. We can debate whether or not such countries were ever truly socialist at a later time; the point here is to illustrate that many fledgling “socialist” states identified the will of the state as a force able enough to carry the people through what they perceived to be the ‘initial trials of a socialistic society’.

But here a problem presents itself: socialism is, at its heart, a movement for the emancipation and rejuvenation of the proletariat, the worker. It proclaims the strength of the people, that the masses must rule over their economic, financial, and political destinies—free of the predatory nature of Capitalism and all its ills. None here would hope to dispute this (I would hope!). Here our unity as a movement for total emancipation ends, however, for people disagree as to the means through which a successful revolutionary socialism can and may be implemented. I have heard arguments made for a “dictatorship of the proletariat”; but the methods and organization of such a dictatorship means different things for different people. Who is to lead this dictatorship, and by what means? Is it to be the people themselves, freed of the restraints that accompany Party and governmental loyalty? An elected body? A small vanguard of revolutionary intellectuals? Here, in the case of the Party vanguard, history has heard the call: “Make us your leaders, your voices. We are well-acquainted with the theories and practices of revolution. Allow us to carry out your vision; we will make things right!” But what happens? The reestablishment of authority, the return of the coercive state and government apparatus; a new class of privilege, in the form of Party cards and status. In this sort of dictatorship, there is no proletariat—the workers aren’t represented. Rather, they are recast into roles all too familiar: that of the laboring class, the reappearance of the old world, this time with new slogans. This adequately sums up the authoritarian spirit of the state: a governmental body, led not by the workers but by their oppressors. Revolutionary socialism means nothing unless it is known and practiced by every individual, every worker within society. A small cadre of leaders does not satisfy this requirement—nor can it!

You mention the working-class state. This should not be the ideal or eventual goal of any revolution. It does not prepare the worker for a free and stateless society, one liberated from such ugly distinctions as class or privilege. Instead it binds him/her to it, tells every worker that it works for them, so far as the worker works for it (new voice, old face). No socialist state is possible unless said state is willing to work towards its dissolution—this is a difficult thing to believe. The state urges the proletariat to wait, to wait just a little longer! And what happens? Nothing, but the tightening of a noose ‘round the worker’s neck. Authority, invested in the will of the state, is a dangerous thing. We see what it is capable of under capitalism, and we have also seen it unfold under self-proclaimed socialist nations. A strong state is oppressive, no matter the ideology it claims to uphold. Statists commonly argue that the workers’ state is a necessary aspect of any revolutionary movement; I would argue that it’s not. The people don’t need the state. After all, if the masses are revolutionized, what need is there for the revolutionary state? The workers, through their own collective will, power, and solidarity, hold the ability to craft a socialistic society.

Authoritarianism and statism, while different, are too similar in their actions for my liking. If we vest our trust in the authority of the state, we essentially admit that the people aren’t capable of carrying out the revolution. Revolutions don’t have to recognize Party heads; they don’t require the coercive will of a government, or the state it protects. True class action, true emancipatory politics, don’t come from the top—they begin at the bottom. And at the bottom it must stay, if we are to ever see a successful society built upon a foundation of unity, militancy, consciousness/awareness, and solidarity.

[The Douche]

me:

cmoney:

this is like saying that if you steal my coat and I take it back, i'm engaged in theft. you're playing word games.

I think i made it clear that "authoritarian" is property a description of institutions, decision-making structures. you've not described an institution but a situation or event.

You know, full well, that the workers are the ones "stealing the coat" from the bosses in the even of revolution.

Revolution is an inherently authoritarian act, lots of anarchists don't like to admit that. But the fact is, "anti-authoritarianism" really just means "anti-leninism".

[Zav]

Authoritarianism applies to any system in which authority is administered in a top-down fashion. Statism describes a system in which the State, as in a government led by professional politicians, is held in regard above the People. The terms are not useless. A "Workers' State" and a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" are as bad as the Bourgeois system.

[The Douche]

Authoritarianism applies to any system in which authority is administered in a top-down fashion. Statism describes a system in which the State, as in a government led by professional politicians, is held in regard above the People. The terms are not useless. A "Workers' State" and a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" are as bad as the Bourgeois system.

Anarchists seek to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Are you saying that if you vote to exercise authority, and the majority approves it, that its not some how authoritarian? Taking somebody's property from the by force is somehow not an authoritarian act?

[syndicat]

You know, full well, that the workers are the ones "stealing the coat" from the bosses in the even of revolution.

Revolution is an inherently authoritarian act, lots of anarchists don't like to admit that. But the fact is, "anti-authoritarianism" really just means "anti-leninism".

you simply repeat yourself. repetition doesn't make your case stronger.

"Authoritarian", as I said, refers to institutional structures based on top-down organization of authority, which trample, deny self-management.

The capitalist regime in production is "authoritarian" in that sense. And thus taking the property from the capitalist to establish workers self-management is liberation.

[syndicat]

lepore:
The people on this site go around in circles with the semantics. Sometimes they say that the state is the name given to government when a class dominates it, but then the statement that a classless society will be stateless becomes true only by definition and adds no information.

well, if you want to reply to me, you need to avoid shoddy misstatements that enable you to run strawman arguments. A state, as I point out, is a hierarchical structure of power, separate from effective control by the mass of the population, and so organized because this makes it fit to serve the interests of dominating, exploiting classes.

And the hierarchical, bureaucratic state apparatus is not reducible to


that that the people elected a council of lawmakers.

[Jose Gracchus]

You know, full well, that the workers are the ones "stealing the coat" from the bosses in the even of revolution.

Revolution is an inherently authoritarian act, lots of anarchists don't like to admit that. But the fact is, "anti-authoritarianism" really just means "anti-leninism".

The bosses' act of ownership and exploitation is an authoritarian act against his workers. The laborers, the creators of value asserting their right and power to control the value they produce, is not an authoritarian act. Authoritarian does not mean "assertive" or "change of business" or "someone walks home sad".

[Le Socialiste]

Revolution is an inherently authoritarian act, lots of anarchists don't like to admit that.

No, it's not. Revolutions are not inherently authoritarian, they are - essentially - a fundamental break with the old established order. Therefore, revolution retains the option of being authoritarian, but it isn't inherently so. Authoritarianism is the complete submission to the law/rule of the law/rule-maker(s), to the detriment of the masses.



But the fact is, "anti-authoritarianism" really just means "anti-leninism".


Lenin was authoritarian; his actions helped break up the original soviets, councils, and committees of the proletariat, and reorganized them as little more than hollow, meaningless institutions. They basically became the mouthpieces of the Soviet bourgieosie. However, to say anti-authoritarianism equals anti-Leninism is not only false - it narrows the belief/attitude to only one facet of authoritarian behavior. So no, it doesn't.

[Paulappaul]

A "Workers' State" and a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" are as bad as the Bourgeois system.

Why is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as bad as Capitalism?

[The Douche]

Cool a dozen posts where people say "if the majority wants it its not authoritarian" and "if its good for the working class its not authoritarian".

Yeah, if you take something from someone by force, you are exercising some sort of authority over them. When you take up arms and use force to ensure that they do not exercise their will over you, you are being authoritarian.

The authority of the working class is liberating. Most anarchists want to make a semantic divide cause they don't like the word.

[Jose Gracchus]

Ugh, well I suppose if you reach down the puerile depths of Misean "non-aggression principle" nonsense, or egoist individualism, maybe that stance might mean anything. I don't think "authority" should be defined as "influencing anyone along any lines for any reason by any means other than they would have done anyways". That's just watering the concept down to utter meaninglessness. Its like defining "liberty" the way right-wing 'libertarians' do, to mean unrestrained personal license.

[The Douche]

If I come and take, with force, what is yours (even if for the better of the majority) I am being authoritarian. How can that even be argued?

Revolution means enacting the authority of the working class to run the world, and it means the use of force against the bourgeoisie. Anti-statism is not "anti-authoritarianism".

When anarchists use the term "anti-authoritarian" they really mean "anti-leninism" or in some less educated cases "anti-marxism".

[Jose Gracchus]

If I come and take, with force, what is yours (even if for the better of the majority) I am being authoritarian. How can that even be argued?

I don't know, how is a factory which is "someone's" [more like some legal institution] who does not work there and is probably absentee and represented only by paid agents who extract value from you on pain of deprivation, authentically theirs. Thank you for making my point that philosophically, you are really accepting what amounts to Austrian ideology. It is not theirs.


Revolution means enacting the authority of the working class to run the world, and it means the use of force against the bourgeoisie. Anti-statism is not "anti-authoritarianism".

The word authority does not mean that, nor has it ever meant that, except in the most informal and casual of contexts.

Originally from the the Latin auctoritas, authority in the political sense necessarily implies the accumulation of personal and hierarchical coercive power, and a capacity to be able to force obedience to a single or collective will. It is in the essence of what people mean when they distinguish "top-down" or "from above" with "bottom-up" or "from below". Individual bourgeois who actively resist workers' power might find themselves in a remote sense subject to an 'authority' but this in practice is quite different from the authority bourgeois police, gendarms, and troops enjoy in the capitalist state, and command from the atomized mass of the population. The socialist democracy transcends the old form of the state and thoroughly reconstructs lines of power and accountability from the bottom up, dissolving the alienation between society on one hand and decision-making officialdom on the other.

Authority or authoritarianism is a quite appropriate counterpart to contrast with the anarchist [and authentically socialist, for that matter] norm of workers' self-management.


When anarchists use the term "anti-authoritarian" they really mean "anti-leninism" or in some less educated cases "anti-marxism".

No. When other people use "authoritarianism" they are apparently unwittingly legitimizing Misean nonsense and methodological [or worse, ontological] individualism.

[The Douche]

I don't know, how is a factory which is "someone's" [more like some legal institution] who does not work there and is probably absentee and represented only by paid agents who extract value from you on pain of deprivation, authentically theirs. Thank you for making my point that philosophically, you are really accepting what amounts to Austrian ideology. It is not theirs.


How out of touch with the real world are you? It is theirs because the law says it is, because society says it is, because the current (bourgeois) mentality/morality says it is. And even we, as radicals, who reject this law, these social mores, and bourgeois morality, need to understand that those are the rules, that is the way things work and we need to approach it realistically. Go talk to any reasonable person, and they will of course conclude that even with a democratic majority, siezing property thats not yours by force is an authoritarian act.


Originally from the the Latin auctoritas, authority in the political sense necessarily implies the accumulation of personal and hierarchical coercive power, and a capacity to be able to force obedience to a single or collective will. It is in the essence of what people mean when they distinguish "top-down" or "from above" with "bottom-up" or "from below". Individual bourgeois who actively resist workers' power might find themselves in a remote sense subject to an 'authority' but this in practice is quite different from the authority bourgeois police, gendarms, and troops enjoy in the capitalist state, and command from the atomized mass of the population. The socialist democracy transcends the old form of the state and thoroughly reconstructs lines of power and accountability from the bottom up, dissolving the alienation between society on one hand and decision-making officialdom on the other.


Way to prove that anarchists aren't obsessed with semantics.:lol:


Authority or authoritarianism is a quite appropriate counterpart to contrast with the anarchist [and authentically socialist, for that matter] norm of workers' self-management.


But of course socialism is not opposed to the authority of the working class. Socialism is not about opposition to authority, it is about exercising (working class) authority.


No. When other people use "authoritarianism" they are apparently unwittingly legitimizing Misean nonsense and methodological [or worse, ontological] individualism.

LOL if you subscribe to a reasonable and realistic definition of authority and systems based around it, then you subscribe to one of the most obscure and irrelevant economic schools of all time.



Obviously some people around revleft have been stuck in anarchist ghettos a little to long.

[Jose Gracchus]

Okay, well I suppose if you make authority mean "doing anything people don't like," than yes, you're right. We routinely use concepts which would be rubbished by the vast majority [such as exploitation], so your crude appeals to popularity are supposed to prove, what, exactly? Syndicat captured it perfectly. When anarchists oppose "authoritarian" politics, they mean politics which are antithetical and antagonistic to workers' self-management. What is so difficult about that?

This IS just like the "state" debate. Anarchists say, we don't want the state, and mean, everything ever called a state. And some Marxists show up, and are like, well, we mean a magic never-before-seen unicorn "state" that exhibits virtually none of the qualities of the state, unless we go by Engels' arcane mechanistic definition of the state. That is obviously semantic whoring on the anarchists' part. You're right, I'm sorry.

[black magick hustla]

anarchists have been some of the most enthusiastic supporters of class terror idk about "anti authoritarianism"

[black magick hustla]

*shoots priest in the head* *burns down churches* *extra judicial killings in the back of a building* *judicial "anti authoritarian" killings*

who gives a fuck about what are the roots of the word, in every day parlance if you ask someone whether putting a bullet in the head of someone is authoritarian or anti authoritarian they will probably say the former

[Savage]

And some Marxists show up, and are like, well, we mean a magic never-before-seen unicorn "state" that exhibits virtually none of the qualities of the state
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your point in this argument and I would probably agree that Marxists tend to be more interested in semantics than Anarchists (at least on this forum), but I feel the need to defend my understanding of the state. Going by the understanding that the existence of class warrants the existence of the state, the state is certainly not something never-before-seen (and nor is it a unicorn :lol:). I think you'll have a hard time proving that the existence of class is not a quality that has always been exhibited by the state (under any popular definition of the state).

[The Douche]

who gives a fuck about what are the roots of the word, in every day parlance if you ask someone whether putting a bullet in the head of someone is authoritarian or anti authoritarian they will probably say the former

For fucks sake, if you don't understand this, where do you live, who who you spend your time with?


When anarchists oppose "authoritarian" politics, they mean politics which are antithetical and antagonistic to workers' self-management. What is so difficult about that?



Sorry, the definition of "authoritarian" is not "anything that is against socialism".

[Jose Gracchus]

*shoots priest in the head* *burns down churches* *extra judicial killings in the back of a building* *judicial "anti authoritarian" killings*

who gives a fuck about what are the roots of the word, in every day parlance if you ask someone whether putting a bullet in the head of someone is authoritarian or anti authoritarian they will probably say the former

Most of the open reprisals were hauled before people's tribunals by the CNT and many of the vigilantes were tried and executed or imprisoned themselves.

And I repeat, okay, if you insist, we will use authoritarian in such a manner that only ultra-individualists of the Misean or egoist varieties could plausibly be anti-authoritarian. What politics is anti-authoritarian now, pacifism? If we are to make the word identical to pacifism, why bother having pacifism? What is anti-authoritarian in your guys' books? There's a reason I claimed you'd basically wandered into Miseanism, because you're basically espousing the "non-aggression principle" as a gold standard. Well you yourself have redefined "authoritarianism" into practical irrelevancy.

And once again, why am I supposed to quiver in my boots over what "the average person" thinks a word means? What does the average person think 'communism', 'exploitation', 'class struggle', and 'revolution' mean, when you put them on the spot?

[black magick hustla]

i think "exploitation", "class struggle" are technical terms that mean very specific things. I think the talk of "anti-authoritarianism" is mostly rhetorical and the word itself is more an act of dishonest propaganda than any real use the word actually could have.

[Broletariat]

i think "exploitation", "class struggle" are technical terms that mean very specific things. I think the talk of "anti-authoritarianism" is mostly rhetorical and the word itself is more an act of dishonest propaganda than any real use the word actually could have.

you should respond to my PM imo

[The Douche]

And once again, why am I supposed to quiver in my boots over what "the average person" thinks a word means?

Cool contempt for the working class, bro.

[Jose Gracchus]

Cool contempt for the working class, bro.

I don't appeal to lame populism when I'm lagging in an argument. I certainly don't do so inconsistently because I'd rather keep spouting. I suppose that's a great service and respect for the working class. You lean on the appeal to popularity when you think it will play to the crowd and then spit on it when it doesn't suit your preconcieved conclusions. I don't casually blur the lines between regimes and politics which in their essence apologize for vicious violence toward and among the working class, while to you it is academic if the people getting shot are in fact armed enforcers for a factory owner who initiated violence against workers, upon being expropriated by militant but peaceful action [what in fact the substance of socialization/collectivization in both Russia in 1917-1918 and Spain 1936 actually was], or workers being mowed down by the "workers' state" when they committed the crime of voting for the wrong soviet candidate slates. Who's anti-working class?

Don't like anarchism, find, don't buy it. But don't pretend there's nothing but word games in the significance between distinguishing between different forms of politics. All Left politics and theory is polemic in character. Maybe if you can't handle the heat you should get out of the kitchen.

[The Douche]

I really wanted to reply to your post, but there is nothing in it to reply to.

You have some aloof, specialized version of what "authoritarianism" is, and version so unrealistic that only anarchists accept it, and in fact, not even all anarchists.

I can say 1+1=3 all day, and even get some people to agree, but it doesn't make it true.

And don't talk to me like I don't understand anarchism as a theory or movement. Its dumb, there are plenty of posters on here who know that I have been active in the anarchist movement for a considerable ammount of time.

[Jose Gracchus]

I never said you weren't active in the movement, nor did I imply it. I didn't know you considered yourself an anarchist, and your attack is similar to many who bash anarchist politics. I just don't think your 'say-so' and appeal to popularity is any more meaningful a reason to dismiss a political position others find useful. Don't cherry-pick lines to imply I mean to condescend to working people.

[The Douche]

I don't particularly identify as an anarchist anymore, and haven't for some time, though even when I didn't call myself an anarchist I was still working with anarchist/autonomist organizations.

I am not bashing anarchist politics, I am bashing anarchist semantics. Such as anarchists who "oppose" the dictatorship of the proletariat, or who calim to be "anti-authoritarian". Because really, anarchists do not oppose proletarian dictatorship or the authority of the working class.

[Jose Gracchus]

That seems fair enough. I do think that various species of left communist and class-struggle anarchist need to bury the old semantics and traditional hatred among rival clans, and deal more with their practical commonalities.