Authoritarian Tendencies

[High School Marxist]

What are the major tendencies that are authoritarian, and how authoritarian are they?

[Positivist]

The authoritarian libertarian dichotomy is false from a class perspective. What actions are authoritarian, or involve the exercise of authority over the proletariat without proper consent, is quite liberating to the bourgiose. The same is true in reverse. Henceforth all ideologies have been liberating to one class and authoritative to another, and have existed as such when applied.

[High School Marxist]

Stalin appeared quite Authoritarian to me even to the proletariat.

[The Jay]

The authoritarian libertarian dichotomy is false from a class perspective. What actions are authoritarian, or involve the exercise of authority over the proletariat without proper consent, is quite liberating to the bourgiose. The same is true in reverse. Henceforth all ideologies have been liberating to one class and authoritative to another, and have existed as such when applied.


Come on now, you know that the question is referring to intra-proletariat relations.

Anyway, High School Marxist basically anything along the Marxist-Leninist-X-Y-Z kind of thing generally is a promotion of a type of authoritarian structure despite the fact that you can choose your rulers (sound familiar?). I don't mean that as a flame but it was very relevant to the question.

[High School Marxist]

What about Trotskyism? I've heard some people here call it Authoritarian, but most of those posts seem to go unanswered. And indeed it was very relevant.

[Positivist]

Come on now, you know that the question is referring to intra-proletariat relations.

Anyway, High School Marxist basically anything along the Marxist-Leninist-X-Y-Z kind of thing generally is a promotion of a type of authoritarian structure despite the fact that you can choose your rulers (sound familiar?). I don't mean that as a flame but it was very relevant to the question.

"Intra-proletariat relations" can not be authoritarian-libertarian assuming the proletarians remain that; proletarian. Proletarian denotes an objective relation to production, if a group of individuals, whether of proletarian descent or not, seize power and administer production to their individual benefit than they cease to be proletarians and become bourgiose. Thus I refer you to my previous assessment.

[The Jay]

"Intra-proletariat relations" can not be authoritarian-libertarian assuming the proletarians remain that; proletarian. Proletarian denotes an objective relation to production, if a group of individuals, whether of proletarian descent or not, seize power and administer production to their individual benefit than they cease to be proletarians and become bourgiose. Thus I refer you to my previous assessment.


I know that but I was using the common parlance, which may not be correct specifically but was approximately correct in order to answer the question without going into a dissertation on class. So there :thumbup:

[Positivist]

I know that but I was using the common parlance, which may not be correct specifically but was approximately correct in order to answer the question without going into a dissertation on class. So there :thumbup:

But by mentioning class without clearly defining it punctures the legitimacy of the enitre argument comrade. If I were to go on debating your position without establishing semantics, than it would have decayed into a shouting match.

Furthermore, at the degree that the productive forces are developed, there can be no decision that is proceeded with without some group refusing consent. Something else to think about.

[jookyle]

Anything that isn't anarchism, and maybe council communism, could easily be called authoritarian by those who do understand what Comrade Positivist has pointed out.

[Ostrinski]

What does authoritarian mean to you?

[Positivist]

But seriously if you look at a graph of the political spectrum, you'll find most if not all Marxist/Communist tendencies are on the left-authoritarian side.

The graph this refers to is highly inaccurate, and is a very poor indicator of political alignment.

[High School Marxist]

What does authoritarian mean to you?

Basically to me it is a system where strict obedience to the state is required at the extent of some personal freedoms- but not to the a totalitarian extreme.


Also- what is 'council communism'? I've never heard that term used before.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Basically to me it is a system where strict obedience to the state is required at the extent of some personal freedoms- but not to the a totalitarian extreme.


Also- what is 'council communism'? I've never heard that term used before.
What's the point of that? Restrictions on weed and alcohol might be a good example - most communists (even Stalinists) are socially libertarian on these issues. It's alright to be socially libertarian on things like that. I'm as socially libertarian as one can get on issues like this.

But as Marxists, we recognize the existence of class dictatorship as inherently authoritarian. We recognize revolution (one class usurping another, at gunpoint) as authoritarian. We recognize suppression of bourgeois reactionaries by means of terror as authoritarian - and this is why it's silly to turn anti-authoritarianism into some universal principle.

In other words - it is correct to support terror as a means of maintaing the dictatorship of the proletariat against bourgeois reaction. Let's hear it from my boy Engels.

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?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists is the only communist tendency I know of that has a philosophical critique of "authoritarianism" in the abstract.

There are some communists who emphasize the supposedly libertarian nature of Marxism, though. Daniel Guerin might be a good example.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Engels.

That's one of those boilerplate statements that always gets posted in these discussions (like in discussions of "revolutionary terrorism", when someone always posts that one piece that Trotsky wrote on the subject). Ultimately, though, it still gets bogged down in a stupid debate over semantics, despite it's famous author. It makes the Bakuninists sound like hippies who wanted revolution but without all the icky blood, when in reality that wasn't true at all. Bakunin himself was a fanatic who wanted revolution to be brought about "from a sea of blood and fire". That's why I no longer get involved in these dumb ideological debates over authoritarianism. Even ignoring the propaganda from all sides and simply studying the organizational history of political organizations & their means of effecting change as defined by their real world activity doesn't really help all that much, as even something totally non-violent such as peer pressure or social shunning could be considered "authoritarian". In practice, anarchist history is filled with authoritarianism, despite having a philosophical objection to the concept.

So needless to say I think it's a really dumb and predictable debate.

[Ostrinski]

I agree that the debate is spent. So long as we all want the workers in the saddle then it shouldn't matter, right? Discussion should be more about strategy rather than this yawn-worthy topic.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

That's one of those boilerplate statements that always gets posted in these discussions [...]
So needless to say I think it's a really dumb and predictable debate.

I actually totally agree. It'd probably at this point go to the "we don't have any problem with the authority of the proletariat, just the authority of another ruling class over it" argument, which then misrepresents the views of the authoritarians.

I'd like to think the fact that I'm writing this post expresses some degree of consciousness among this thread that will prevent it from degrading into a silly semantic argument.

[jookyle]

Also, I think it should be pointed out that as socialism develops, the "authoritarian" element differs; espeically if you consider authoritarianism to go hand in hand with state power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is going to be slightly more authoritative then the lower stages of communism since an entire class needs to be repressed. The higher stages of communism would be less authoritative as the state would cease to exist.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Also, I think it should be pointed out that as socialism develops, the "authoritarian" element differs; espeically if you consider authoritarianism to go hand in hand with state power. The dictatorship of the proletariat is going to be slightly more authoritative then the lower stages of communism since an entire class needs to be repressed. The higher stages of communism would be less authoritative as the state would cease to exist.
The lower stage of communism itself is a classless society and would not require terror as a means of sustaining itself. The dictatorship of the proletariat, however, being a state, exists as an authoritarian class dictatorship to suppress the bourgeoisie.

Naturally, then, authoritarianism, in the sense of suppressing bourgeois reaction, would have faded away under socialism, seeing as there is no bourgeoisie to suppress.

[Geiseric]

Metaphysics and semantics are what make Anarchists talk about "Anti Authority." Makhno was an authoritarian, as were the anarcho syndicallists. Those are really the most successful "Anarchist," movements to date. But the Anarcho Syndicallists formed a government with bourgeois parties, and Makhno was against industrialization.

There has never been an anti authoritarian workers movement. If you defy capitalism it is necessary universally to use some kind of authority to tear it down, regardless of what rhetoric you may use.

Anarchists also talk about "No heirarchy," but Bakunin was at the center with an iron fist of the first anarchist movements. Anarchists today are always cliques that you are excluded from if you disagree, which always fail to include any other "tendencies," from any actions they do. Modern "Anarchism," is completely petit bourgeois in nature. It excludes the actual working class from any activities it does, universally, and anarchists fight for their own, not the class's demands.

[Manic Impressive]

The necessity of bourgeois state apparatus not being dissolved is from the mistake of thinking that a conscious minority can lead an unconscious majority.

In other words, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Metaphysics and semantics are what make Anarchists talk about "Anti Authority." Makhno was an authoritarian, as were the anarcho syndicallists. Those are really the most successful "Anarchist," movements to date. But the Anarcho Syndicallists formed a government with bourgeois parties, and Makhno was against industrialization.

Do you actually have any proof that Makhno was "against industrialization"? Based on what I know of Nestor Makhno's (and his sidekick Peter Arshinov) politics, that doesn't sound like an accurate statement to me.

In regards to Spain: yes, some revolutionary syndicalists were involved with the republican government in Spain (a black mark in anarchist history, IMO), but many were in opposition, too, one notable example being the Friends of Durruti group. Making such sweeping statements without any nuance at all isn't good.


Anarchists also talk about "No heirarchy," but Bakunin was at the center with an iron fist of the first anarchist movements.

Bakunin did not rule anarchist groups "with an iron fist". That is completely ridiculous. Even the thing that Marxists sometimes crudely use to discredit Bakunin and hint at his "creeping authoritarianism" and "conspiratorialism", "the Alliance of Social Democracy", was really nothing more than the sum of Bakunin's personal correspondence with various people around Europe. In fact when it effectively became the Swiss section of the First International, it argued it's political case as openly as any other side of the argument.

So no, Bakunin did not attempt to dominate anarchism as a political movement, although he was an enthusiastic participant in debates of the day regarding revolution, revolutionary strategy etc. It's been argued by some (including myself) that certain things Bakunin wrote hint at a support for "vanguardism" on his part, but that's a hell of a long way from being "at the center with an iron fist".


Modern "Anarchism," is completely petit bourgeois in nature. It excludes the actual working class from any activities it does, universally, and anarchists fight for their own, not the class's demands.

*yawn* Do you think by stringing together enough jingoism and gross generalizations, that you'll come anywhere near to a true statement?

[ComradeOm]

Do you actually have any proof that Makhno was "against industrialization"? Based on what I know of Nestor Makhno's (and his sidekick Peter Arshinov) politics, that doesn't sound like an accurate statement to meReally? While I probably wouldn't use the phrase "against industrialisation" myself, there's little question that Makhno 'didn't get industrialisation/urbanisation'. Which is unsurprising given the peasant nature of his army. This is from Avrich's The Russian Anarchists:


During October and November [1919], Makhno occupied Ekaterinoslav and Aleksandrovsk for several weeks, and thus obtained his first chance to apply the concepts of anarchism to city life. Makhno's first act on entering a large town (after throwing open the prisons) was to dispel any impression that he had come to introduce a new form of political rule. Announcements were posted informing the townspeople that henceforth they were free to organize their lives as they saw fit, that the Insurgent Army would not "dictate to them or order them to do anything." Free speech, press, and assembly were proclaimed, and in Ekaterinoslav half a dozen newspapers, representing a wide range of political opinion, sprang up overnight. While encouraging freedom of expression, however, Makhno would not countenance any political organizations which sought to impose their authority on the people. He therefore dissolved the Bolshevik "revolutionary committees" (revkomy) in Ekaterinoslav and Aleksandrovsk, instructing their members to "take up some honest trade"

Makhno's aim was to throw off domination of every type and to encourage economic and social self-determination. "It is up to the workers and peasants," said one of his proclamations in 1919, "to organize themselves and reach mutual understandings in all areas of their lives and in whatever manner they think right." In October 1919, an SR speaker who called for effective leadership at a Congress of Workers and Peasants in Aleksandrovsk was greeted with shouts of protest from the Makhnovtsy: "We have had enough of your leaders. Always leaders and more leaders. Let us try to do without them for once." When the railroad workers of Aleksandrovsk complained that they had not been paid for many weeks, Makhno advised them to take control of the railway lines and charge the passengers and freight shippers what seemed a fair price for their services.

Makhno's utopian projects, however, failed to win over more than a small minority of workingmen, for, unlike the farmers and artisans of the village, who were independent producers accustomed to managing their own affairs, factory workers and miners operated as interdependent parts of a complicated industrial machine, and were lost without the guidance of supervisors and technical specialists. Furthermore, the peasants and artisans could barter the products of their labor, whereas the urban workers depended on regular wages for their survival. Makhno, moreover, compounded the confusion when he recognized all paper money issued by his predecessors-Ukrainian nationalists, Whites, and Bolsheviks alike. He never understood the complexities of an urban economy, nor did he care to understand them. He detested the "poison" of the cities and cherished the natural simplicity of the peasant environment into which he had been born.

[black magick hustla]

i am sure the spanish priests didn't found the rifle barrels stuck to their faces as antiauthoritarian

[black magick hustla]

i dont understand how can there be anything antiauthoritarian about violence. whether it is conspirational terrorism or mob revengism i can't stomach the philosophical mental gymnastics on how wasting your enemies is not an act of authoritarianism

[The Douche]

Revolution is an act of authority, the majority of honest and revolutionary anarchists acknowledge this.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Really? While I probably wouldn't use the phrase "against industrialisation" myself, there's little question that Makhno 'didn't get industrialisation/urbanisation'. Which is unsurprising given the peasant nature of his army. This is from Avrich's The Russian Anarchists:

That quote seems to me to indicate that Makhno was perhaps guilty of being naive and not understanding (and not particularly being interested in learning about) the complexities of industrialized urban society, not that he was actually in opposition to industrialization. Nabat's and the RIAU's propaganda frequently addressed the topic of "the working class", which is definitely an industrial category..."Peasants, workers, insurgents!" etc etc

[Jimmie Higgins]

Basically to me it is a system where strict obedience to the state is required at the extent of some personal freedoms- but not to the a totalitarian extreme.

Also- what is 'council communism'? I've never heard that term used before.

I agree with what some other people have said that it's important to know what is meant by "authoritarianism".

Ultimately both revolutionary anarchists and marxists want no state whatsoever, so the "authoritarian" charge is about how do you see this being accomplished. (There are tendencies within the broader umbrella of both tendencies which I think have moved qualitiativly away from this, but that's sort of a side-issue for this discussion).

According to many anarchists there should be no state whatsoever after a working class revolution and so in this sense an authoritarian is anyone who wants any kind of state organization from (what I would call) faux-Socialist regimes ruling OVER workers on the one hand as well as to worker-run systems of Worker Councils to decide democratically on the course to transitioning society from capitalism to socialism.

My ideas are largely from the Trotskyist tradition and might be considered "authoritarian" because I think that after a revolution workers should run a democratic state organized from the bottom up through worker and neighborhood councils. This would be necessary in my view so that people could collectively figure out how to even out the inequalities in structural things (like access to schools and hospitals and decent housing), how to prioritize production, how to re-shape society to run in truly democratic ways. I think the restrictions passed by workers would probably not include personal behaviors, but might restrict the ability of racists/sexists/fascists to organize counter-revolution. But over time as these sort of broad inequalities are gone as people have grown up in a democratically administered economy and society, these initial structures would be less and less necessary. A militia wouldn't be needed once any counter-revolutionary army is not threatening people; bodies of elected people to prioritize what production to do would be less needed when we have organized ourselves an already have hospitals and schools and good housing and food available - deciding on new hospitals could just be done by population density rates (rather than deciding where to build based on where the need is greatest) and so elected reps wouldn't be needed to battle eachother making a case for site A or site B because only one could be built at the time, we could just build it when it's needed as it's needed without having to make hard collective decisions over who gets what when. Also since basically everyone would be a worker/producer in society after the system has normalized itself, we'd all get an equal vote and say in how things are run and so there wouldn't be class differences that would cause some to want irreconcilably opposed ways of doing things in society. This means that even controls maintaining specifically a worker-run society would not be needed. So this is what Marxists might consider to be "the withering away of the (worker-run socialist) state".

While this might be technically authoritarian in the sense that philosophical anarchists see it, in practice I don't see this at all to be authoritarian in the common sense of the word - I think worker's power necessitates a vastly more democratic system where the power comes from below - this is the best way IMO for a majority class in society to administer it's class rule.

The tendencies which do in a way fit the common non-philosophical sense of "authoritarian" tend to be the ideas developed after the failure of the Russian Revolution. Some of these groups were really socialist in name only and might have been revolutionary, but their interest was not in worker's power, but an alternative to US influence and dominance, the USSR. But the revolutionaries who did fight for communism on some level also developed authoritarian tendencies and might argue things like that after the revolution, only the party can administer the transition from capitalism to communism or that only the party itself understands the revolutionary process etc. I would consider this to be authoritarian in the common sense - or at least leading to "authoritarian" outcomes that are contrary to worker's power, if put into practice.

[ComradeOm]

That quote seems to me to indicate that Makhno was perhaps guilty of being naive and not understanding (and not particularly being interested in learning about) the complexities of industrialized urban society, not that he was actually in opposition to industrializationYou must have skipped over the third paragraph then; particularly the line "[Makhno] detested the "poison" of the cities and cherished the natural simplicity of the peasant environment". This is not an uncommon attitude throughout history: contrasting the 'corruption' of urban industry against the 'purity' of the rustic peasant

While we'll never know for sure the degree of Makhno's anti-industrialisation, it's safe to say that his deep distaste of urban living precludes any enthusiasm for industrialisation. Can anyone really see him advocating industrial expansion when his knowledge of the industrial economy was clearly so limited? When his distaste of urban settlement so marked? This shouldn't surprise anyone. What else would we expect a peasant movement?


Nabat's and the RIAU's propaganda frequently addressed the topic of "the working class", which is definitely an industrial category..."Peasants, workers, insurgents!" etc etcAnd I wouldn't credit that as anything other than empty propaganda and phrase-mongering. The Makhnovists could use whatever formulae they wished but the reality is that they made almost no inroads amongst the Ukraine's working class population. Major industrial/mining centres remained Soviet strongholds while even the Nationalists fared better in urban areas

Again, this shouldn't be surprising: Bolshevism was as urban an ideology as Makhnovism was rural. Ultimately this was why Makhno's brief occupation of urban settlements never worked

[The Douche]

If one acknowledges Makhno to be an anarchist, then the term "anti-authoritarian" is truly meaningless. That motherfucker was notorious for dealing with people he didn't like the old fashioned way, i.e. pulling out a pistol and shooting them in head.

I oppose the state, and I oppose other's abilities/attempts to coerce me. But I am not against "authority" as an abstract concept. But I also do not really consider myself an anarchist, it is generally a title put on me by others.

[officer nugz]

There are some communists who emphasize the supposedly libertarian nature of Marxism, though. Daniel Guerin might be a good example.he is the only one who ever has...

[The Douche]

he is the only one who ever has...

Aside from, yknow, Marx, and a shitload of others.

[ed miliband]

Aside from, yknow, Marx, and a shitload of others.

guerin probably isn't even the best example:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm

[The Douche]

guerin probably isn't even the best example:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm

Never seen this before, to my knowledge. Thanks.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You must have skipped over the third paragraph then; particularly the line "[Makhno] detested the "poison" of the cities and cherished the natural simplicity of the peasant environment". This is not an uncommon attitude throughout history: contrasting the 'corruption' of urban industry against the 'purity' of the rustic peasant

That's one word, though, can you give me something else from Makhno about how much he despised industrialization?

And yeah, I'm familiar with the suspicion vis-a-vis cities, urban environments etc. Just off the top of my head, Thomas Jefferson was another one of these folks. I'm not sure how that personal suspicion on Makhno's part would've translated into actual policy. Unless Nestor Makhno was going to turn into Nestor "Stalin" Makhno once he actually gained some power.


And I wouldn't credit that as anything other than empty propaganda and phrase-mongering. The Makhnovists could use whatever formulae they wished but the reality is that they made almost no inroads amongst the Ukraine's working class population. Major industrial/mining centres remained Soviet strongholds while even the Nationalists fared better in urban areas

Again, this shouldn't be surprising: Bolshevism was as urban an ideology as Makhnovism was rural. Ultimately this was why Makhno's brief occupation of urban settlements never worked

That wasn't my point, though. It's obviously propaganda and I'm well aware that the Makhnovist movement was predominantly rural, by far. But the very fact that the propaganda was out there indicates that, if not to an audience that was already under sway of the Ukrainian Makhnovists, there was certainly a realization that such people were a part of the revolutionary subject and (at least in theory) needed to be recruited. Was there any effort to get industrial workers to return to the countryside, as there was in, say, Indian Maoism?

[ComradeOm]

That's one word, though, can you give me something else from Makhno about how much he despised industrialization?You have some reason to question Avrich's interpretation or have evidence of a successful?

But then how about Bookchin: "Notoriously, Makhno disliked cities. When urban workers came to him for advice on how to organise, he was unable to offer them coherent suggestions"

Or what of Richard Stites on Makhno's "anti-urbanism":

In late December 1918.. the peasant army entered the city of Ekaterinoslav. In addition to emptying the prisons... they destroyed archives, records and libraries... The shops and bazaars were put to the flame and Makhno himself mounted a three-inch cannon in the middle of the street and fired point blank into the tallest and most beautiful buildings. This was an expression of city-hatred on the party of a peasant army investing an "immortal" city... Makhno was in the tradition of rebels of an earlier day who had often sacked as well as looted when they occupied towns


I'm not sure how that personal suspicion on Makhno's part would've translated into actual policy. Unless Nestor Makhno was going to turn into Nestor "Stalin" Makhno once he actually gained some power.Except that he did gain power, he did apply his policies to an urban environment and they didn't work. I'm not sure why you're talking in hypotheticals here...

And obviously this isn't just about Makhno (even if they were called Makhnovists for a reason) but the reality of applying the model that worked in small rural villages to urban/industrial centres. Amazingly a rural movement struggled to impose its governance and economic model on the cities


That wasn't my point, though. It's obviously propaganda and I'm well aware that the Makhnovist movement was predominantly rural, by far. But the very fact that the propaganda was out there indicates that, if not to an audience that was already under sway of the Ukrainian Makhnovists, there was certainly a realization that such people were a part of the revolutionary subject and (at least in theory) needed to be recruitedOr else they were simply mouthing the slogans of the day. Or wanted to co-opt the proletariat but simply didn't understand it. There are many reasons that to why the Makhnovists may have said one thing but failed to effect it

The Bolsheviks spoke of peasants' soviets yet completely failed to even understand the peasantry and their interests. Surprise, an urban party entirely misinterprets an alien rural environment. Why should applying policies that benefited Ukrainian peasants be any more successful when applied to an industrial economy?