Authoritarian?

[Comrada J]

What exactly defines an Authoritarian? Personally I believe in having a polis and military force, so would that make me a Authoritarian? :huh:

[Lamanov]

Police and military are characteristics of an up-down centralist authority system.

If you advocate the up-down system then there's a 99% chance that you are against direct workers' democracy and the councilist system.

If this tautology is correct, then yes, you are an authoritarian.


Of course...

...there's always that 1% chance where you're not so sure yourslef.

[Morpheus]

An authoritarian is someone who advocates relationships of command and obediance; that some should give orders and others should follow those orders. This differs from an anti-authoritarian, who wants a non-hierarchical society without order givers & takers. Forms of authoritarianism can be quite different, and authoritarians usually identify with the specific version of authoritarianism they advocate (like Marxist-Leninism, Fascism, social democracy, liberalism, conservatism, etc.) rather just calling themselves "authoritarian." Since you believe in police and military forces you are probably an authoritarian, since they usually involve some people bossing other people around.

[Faceless]

You have probably come to the wrong place to find that out. Left communists and anarchists, who for better or for worse dominate these forums, are likely to brand you as authoritarian. However, whilst you may be authoritarian in their eyes, your ideas may be truly libertarian in the eyes of certain fascists.

Of course, there are different forms of authority.

There are some who will childishly say that they are against all authority, but in a functioning society, a layperson should probably bend to the intellectual authority of an expert in certain fields. For instance, if you do not know how to work a machine, you ought to submit your activity to the person who knows how to operate it. This does not of course preclude you from becoming profficient in its use.

Other forms of authority include the parent over the child.

Indeed, some necessary forms of authority are also political, and seem contrary therefore to so-called "anti-authoritarian" principles. The "dictatorship of the proletariat", by whatever mechanism it operates, suggests the intervention of the proletariat in an act of authority over the bourgeoisie and landlords.

In short, what you call yourself doesn't matter. Some words are very ideologically charged on these boards. That one is not the least of them. What is of primary importance is that you understand how best the interests of the proletariat and world poor are served and by what form of intervention.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:45 AM
whilst you may be authoritarian in their eyes, your ideas may be truly libertarian in the eyes of certain fascists.
Just because your'e less authoritarian than others, doesn't mean you aren't authoritarian.


There are some who will childishly say that they are against all authority, but in a functioning society, a layperson should probably bend to the intellectual authority of an expert in certain fields. For instance, if you do not know how to work a machine, you ought to submit your activity to the person who knows how to operate it.

There's a difference between taking advice from an expert and taking orders from an expert. Listening to an expert's advice is often a good idea, but that expert should not have the power to force others to obey him/her. Otherwise, power will have its inevitable influences and experts will be using their authority for far more than just teaching people to use machines. We'll end up with a separate class of experts ruling over the working class, creating a technocratic class system.

[Storming Heaven]

An authoritarian is someone who believes order must be enforced by means of a 'command and obey' relationship. If you agree with this statement then you are an authoritarian.

A police force is clearly an authoritarian structure. It exists (amoungst other functions) to force people to obey the command of laws. Sometimes the police even issue their own commands (for example, commanding protesters to withdraw from a particular location, or to desist, etc.).

An army is more complicated. Clearly I may defend (but not extend) my interests using force without necessarily being an authoritarian. If someone attempts to kill me, I am not being authoritarian in asserting my right to live by defending myself. If an army were formed by a group of people to defend some interest of theirs, and it were not organised internally along the lines of 'command and obey', but rather as an organisation of individuals freely acting on expert advice, it would not be authoritarian. This, however, is seldom the case, and most armies are used in an authoritarian manner to further the interests of their commanders. (The Anarchist militias in the Spanaish Civil War and perhaps the Makhnovist insurgents in the Russian Revolution being notable exceptions).