why revolution is not authoritarian

[abbielives!]

an authoritarian action is something that violates others rights
if you are violating someones rights you must be stopped
revolution is not an authoritarian exersise unless you belive the capitalists have a right to their wealth/power



maybe one of you will actually answer this time

[KC]

This is an argument based on false pretenses. "Rights" are imposed by society and aren't objective. With the change of power comes the change of "rights". Authoritarianism isn't based on rights; it's based on authority.

And of course capitalists have a right to their wealth; that is a bourgeois right granted by bourgeois society.

[Whitten]

an authoritarian action is something that violates others rights

No its not, an authoritarian action is one which exerts (significant) authority.

[BobKKKindle$]

revolution is not an authoritarian exersise unless you belive the capitalists have a right to their wealth/power

This statement does, in itself, suggest that the concept of what is a 'right' is subjective and depends on one's class position and interests. Your emphasis on the importance of 'rights' suggests that you do not appreciate the origin of the abilities that are often termed 'rights' - As Zampao said, rights are social constructs - more specifically, they are part of the superstructure which arises from the Capitalist mode of production and exist to support the structure of Capitalist society.

The only other justification(s) provided for the existence of rights are often based on historical idealism and mysticism - for example, it may be suggested that rights are 'natural' and form part of 'natural law', or/and that rights derive from judeo-christian theology.

Why, may I ask, are you determined to show that Revolution is not an authoritarian act? Authority is the exercise of power by one group - in this context, a class - over another. Authority is only 'bad' when it entails the rule of an un-elected minority.

[Lark]

I dont believe that rights arent objective, that's a lot of crap, you can argue they dont count for as much as status or power or wealth, or that only negative rights are really respected but that's a different matter to saying they dont exist or are some sort of ideological caprice.

Like I said before the greater the violence the weaker the revolution, simple as, the more authoritarian the weaker the revolution.

If you all look at how capitalism developed contra feudalism, proper sociology, instead of believing that scheming and plotting is going to change the world.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:57 pm
I dont believe that rights arent objective, that's a lot of crap, you can argue they dont count for as much as status or power or wealth, or that only negative rights are really respected but that's a different matter to saying they dont exist or are some sort of ideological caprice.

Like I said before the greater the violence the weaker the revolution, simple as, the more authoritarian the weaker the revolution.


So you are a reformist isn't it ?



If you all look at how capitalism developed contra feudalism, proper sociology, instead of believing that scheming and plotting is going to change the world.

And Capitalists system did come through a revolution.

[BobKKKindle$]

If you all look at how capitalism developed contra feudalism, proper sociology, instead of believing that scheming and plotting is going to change the world.

Actually Marxists do not 'scheme and plot' - we recognize that for a revolution to occur certain objective conditions have to exist - the tendency of the Capitalist system to enter periods of crisis and economic depression creates the material hardship and insecurity that encourages the proletariat to challenge and confront the existing system and class structure. Without this, agitation and political development - subjective factors that depend on revolutionary organisations, or what you might refer to as 'scheming and plotting'- is not effective.

[Enragé]

If you all look at how capitalism developed contra feudalism, proper sociology, instead of believing that scheming and plotting is going to change the world.

as if the bourgeoisie didnt scheme and plot to get rid of the nobility :lol:

[bezdomni]

maybe one of you will actually answer this time
Others have been kind enough to answer your inane question, how about you actually answer something this time?

[Demogorgon]

I don't consider revolutions to be authoritarian unless something goes wrong. The current system is by its nature authoritarian. Replacing it with something less authoritarian, even by potentially forceful methods is by definition anti-authoritarian.

Remember if we have to force change, it is because the authoritarians tried to prevent the change, not because we are authoritarians

[temp918273]

The violent seizure of the means of production and political power from one class by another is an authoritarian process.

[Lamanov]

I always though this would be pure and simple. :rolleyes: I guess I was wrong.

Revolution is "authoritarian" because one class (proletariat) excercises its will and subjective power upon other classes, destroying all existing relations.

Revolution is "libertarian" because by destroying old relations this class (proletariat) builds new relations that liberate its creative potentials, and abolish it as a class.

"Authoriatians" are those who believe that revolution needs a vanguard to "lead" all others because of their inability to lead themselves.

"Libertarians" believe old relations can be destroyed only if such separation is negated to begin with; only if proletariat leads itself.

[KC]

"Authoriatians" are those who believe that revolution needs a vanguard to "lead" all others because of their inability to lead themselves.

False.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:27 am
I dont believe that rights arent objective, that's a lot of crap, you can argue they dont count for as much as status or power or wealth, or that only negative rights are really respected but that's a different matter to saying they dont exist or are some sort of ideological caprice.

Like I said before the greater the violence the weaker the revolution, simple as, the more authoritarian the weaker the revolution.

If you all look at how capitalism developed contra feudalism, proper sociology, instead of believing that scheming and plotting is going to change the world.
Capitalism came through by revolutions. The French Revolution, American revolution and others were burgeouis revolutions. The capitalist class of these revolutions DID plan and scheme in order to get rid of the nobility. This just didnt happen because every1 rallied to get rid of the nobility.

(In response to the first question)
Every revolution will be authoritarian in nature because it will be the proletariat class exerting authority over the old burgoeuis class, to try and say revolutions are not authoritarian is just useless and idiotic. Also, "rights" are something that is conceived by the old order and are not set in stone. Rights are subjective and will change with your position.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Yours truily+--> (Yours truily)"Authoriatians" are those who believe that revolution needs a vanguard to "lead" all others because of their inability to lead themselves.[/b]


Zampanò
False.

Oh? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm)

[rouchambeau]

Abbielives, as much as I want to defend you and your position, I can't. Your argument sucks. It's simplistic and pedantic.

[Sacrificed]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 29, 2007 05:31 am
This is an argument based on false pretenses. "Rights" are imposed by society and aren't objective. With the change of power comes the change of "rights". Authoritarianism isn't based on rights; it's based on authority.

And of course capitalists have a right to their wealth; that is a bourgeois right granted by bourgeois society.
/\ What he said.

The traditional understanding of 'human rights' relies on a concept of 'human essence' that simply doesn't exist outside of bourgeois philosophy. How can a thing that isn't the same from one day to the next have a static essence? Even consciousness, that which Locke grounded his theory of rights upon, is never the same.

[Lark]

So you are a reformist isn't it ?


define reformist, I believe in organic development, all the most sustainable and enduring institutions, like the family, have grown up organically, plus capitalism wasnt introduced by reforms but by myriad organic developments, like marketplaces and the increased use of money.


And Capitalists system did come through a revolution.


Explain because that's totally contra Marx.

Marx said that people who rejected his theories should look at the theories of the capitalist historians themselves, like Guizots description of the organic changes in his book about European civilisation.

In France the revolution was essentially against the attempts of the Church and Monarchies to reverse development, that and a hundred thousand promises to the peasants and urban poor of every sort of thing.

In England there wasnt any revolution, the monarchy and establishment were able to reconcile themselves to development no problem, similarly so in the US, the new political establishment the same.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:05 am

If you all look at how capitalism developed contra feudalism, proper sociology, instead of believing that scheming and plotting is going to change the world.

Actually Marxists do not 'scheme and plot' - we recognize that for a revolution to occur certain objective conditions have to exist - the tendency of the Capitalist system to enter periods of crisis and economic depression creates the material hardship and insecurity that encourages the proletariat to challenge and confront the existing system and class structure. Without this, agitation and political development - subjective factors that depend on revolutionary organisations, or what you might refer to as 'scheming and plotting'- is not effective.
Well, I dont disagree with that, pretty much but I think its more likely that either a restored or adapted capitalism or fascism or empire will take the place of capitalisms on a national or global level, alternatives are not as popular and too much time is spent in homage to dead guys and past times.

[Lark]

as if the bourgeoisie didnt scheme and plot to get rid of the nobility


Others have been kind enough to answer your inane question, how about you actually answer something this time?



Abbielives, as much as I want to defend you and your position, I can't. Your argument sucks. It's simplistic and pedantic.


How are these anything other than signs of immaturity?

How does it add anything what so ever to a debate or dialogue?

[Lark]

Originally posted by Sacrificed+May 30, 2007 03:53 pm--> (Sacrificed @ May 30, 2007 03:53 pm)
Zampanò@May 29, 2007 05:31 am
This is an argument based on false pretenses. "Rights" are imposed by society and aren't objective. With the change of power comes the change of "rights". Authoritarianism isn't based on rights; it's based on authority.

And of course capitalists have a right to their wealth; that is a bourgeois right granted by bourgeois society.
/\ What he said.

The traditional understanding of 'human rights' relies on a concept of 'human essence' that simply doesn't exist outside of bourgeois philosophy. How can a thing that isn't the same from one day to the next have a static essence? Even consciousness, that which Locke grounded his theory of rights upon, is never the same. [/b]
What does arguing that human rights are subjective nonsense achieve? Its contential bullshiting a la Neitschea (spelling).

Human rights do exist, they are objective and I've no idea how or why so many of you are in agreement with the neo-cons, fascists and other right wingers that they are subjective nonsense.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:38 pm
In France the revolution was essentially against the attempts of the Church and Monarchies to reverse development, that and a hundred thousand promises to the peasants and urban poor of every sort of thing.
The royalists (including the church) were fighting against through gradually growing power of the bourgeois, that triggers more violent measures from the capitalists and so on until a full revolution broke out.


In England there wasnt any revolution, the monarchy and establishment were able to reconcile themselves to development no problem, similarly so in the US, the new political establishment the same.

There was a non-violent revolution, as the people who were members of the feudal and land lord classes became bourgeois during the early industrial revolution in England. One class (the "bourgeois") still overthrough another, even if they were largely the same people.

[Enragé]

How are these anything other than signs of immaturity?

How does it add anything what so ever to a debate or dialogue?

how is what i said immature? The bourgeoisie DID plot to overhtrow the nobility, as do we to overhtrow the bourgeoisie.

The only one immature is you here because you never actually address any of the points made or even consider the possibility you might be wrong (and dont go telling me we dont because I have at least at numerous times adjusted my position, i wasnt born a "revolutionary")


Explain because that's totally contra Marx.

no its not.
Marx said (more or less) that changes come from material circumstance, more specifically from class struggle.
We are part of those material circumstances, we shape it, as do we shape class struggle.

[KC]

Oh?

Yep. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:26 am

it may be suggested that rights are 'natural' and form part of 'natural law'



yeah thats pretty much where i was coming from.

[KC]

yeah thats pretty much where i was coming from.

There's no such thing as natural right.

[Enragé]

meh

one could argue that freedom is a natural right, since we have conscious will, i.e we decide things based on reason, based on arguments, or based on some urge we feel.. that is natural to human beings. To go against that would be going against the nature of humanity.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Zampanò@June 02, 2007 05:07 am

yeah thats pretty much where i was coming from.

There's no such thing as natural right.

How do you come to that conclusion?

[BobKKKindle$]

How do you come to that conclusion?

If you think natural rights exist, then you have the burden of proof to put forward the case. However, as I stated earlier on in this thread, the concept of a 'natural right' particuarly the 'right' to property is a concept that exists simply to provide a justification for the current socio-economic system and this is a social construct. The idea that rights are 'natural' is idealist.

Many political philsophers including Locke and Hobbes support such a concept on the basis that rights are derived from human nature, but as Leftists we do not believe in any concept of an unchangeable 'human nature' but do instead contend that we are shaped by our environment.

That does not mean, however, that things like freedom of speech are not important - but we - or at least I - value them on a utilitarian basis, not because I think they are 'rights'.

[KC]

How do you come to that conclusion?

Because rights aren't objective?

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:12 am


If you think natural rights exist, then you have the burden of proof to put forward the case. However, as I stated earlier on in this thread, the concept of a 'natural right' particuarly the 'right' to property is a concept that exists simply to provide a justification for the current socio-economic system and this is a social construct. The idea that rights are 'natural' is idealist.

Many political philsophers including Locke and Hobbes support such a concept on the basis that rights are derived from human nature, but as Leftists we do not believe in any concept of an unchangeable 'human nature' but do instead contend that we are shaped by our environment.

That does not mean, however, that things like freedom of speech are not important - but we - or at least I - value them on a utilitarian basis, not because I think they are 'rights'.
suppose that natural rights don't exist.
how about using this to determine rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
also how do you determine people are being exploited if they have no rights?


orthodox marxists don't belive in human nature, not leftists. we have genttic and biological difference that are hardwired in. take a monkey, are you different from the monkey? a fish? a dog? a pigeon? you have human nature and you have pigeon nature. its what makes us different?

[Hiero]

also how do you determine people are being exploited if they have no rights?

That's based on economics, not on any pre-determined human right.

Check this out http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...abour/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm)

[ComradeR]

orthodox marxists don't belive in human nature, not leftists. we have genttic and biological difference that are hardwired in. take a monkey, are you different from the monkey? a fish? a dog? a pigeon? you have human nature and you have pigeon nature. its what makes us different?
It is true that we have biological and genetic behaviors hardwired into us, as do all animals. But thanks to our higher intelligence, we have a much more powerful driving force which is created by the environment in which we grow up in, along with the interactions with society around us. I like the way Einstein describes it in his article Why Socialism?,

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
So no, "human nature" does not exist, If you were to remove the "cultural constitution" from human kind we would be no different then monkeys or any other kind of animal.

[BobKKKindle$]

also how do you determine people are being exploited if they have no rights?

Like Hiero suggested, for Marxists exploitation is not an emotional and subjective term. According to Marxist economic analysis, exploitation simply refers to paying workers less than the value of their labour, which enables the Capitalist to make a profit. Leftists may refer to certain aspects of Capitalist production and exchange as 'exploitative' or 'inhumane' as part of rhetoric and criticism, but this would not be considered an objective Marxist analysis.


how about using this to determine rights:

Maslow puts forward an interesting and valuable analysis of the different needs that humans have, but from this analysis and evaluation you cannot objectively conclude that all humans have a 'right' to have certain needs met as, as has already been stated, simply asserting this does not provide a justification and explanation for the existence of rights.

I personally do not advocate Socialism because I think everyone has a 'right' to be free from suffering and hardship - I think that a Socialist society is the 'best' on a utilitarian basis which is the only rational form of morality and ethical evaluation, and seeks to establish which action or system achieves the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

[abbielives!]

so if exploitation is a is just paying workers less than the value of their labour, why would a marxist want to change it? or is it the whole dialectical materialism thing?
and doesnt value have a subjective part to it(use value)



ComradeR, from your quote

"Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species."

i think that the natural urges mention would qualify as human nature

[Rawthentic]

so if exploitation is a is just paying workers less than the value of their labour, why would a marxist want to change it?
Maybe because we want end to this exploitation?


i think that the natural urges mention would qualify as human nature
I dont think that fits; human nature is formed through your interaction with your surroundings and environment.

[KC]

i think that the natural urges mention would qualify as human nature

This certainly doesn't include any sense of "morality" or any "natural ideology".

Could you please tell me how morality is objective?

[syndicat]

b.k.:
Many political philsophers including Locke and Hobbes support such a concept on the basis that rights are derived from human nature, but as Leftists we do not believe in any concept of an unchangeable 'human nature' but do instead contend that we are shaped by our environment.

Part of our nature is due to evolution, and this evolution occurred tens of thousands of years ago and hasn't changed since then. This includes things like the conditions of health that people study in medical school, the homeopathic systems that maintain your existence like a constant body temperature, the color vision system (our color vision system is totally identical to the vision system of all Eurasian and African primates), our ability to produce sentences and communicate with each, and also our capacity and need for self-management. Self-management is the thinking up and evaluation of alternative courses of action in advance, including such things as conceptions of things we might make and tools we might develop, as well as our ability to control our own labor, and cooperate with others in make decisions that affect groups of us. In fact self-management is what freedom is in the positive sense. Human flourishing and personal development depends upon conditions that encourage and help develop our capacity for self-management. Structures that deny or trample upon our self-management are oppressive. Denial of self-management in social production is "alienated labor", to use Marx's term.

Thus there is a basis for a naturalistic ethics favoring human self-management and coperation, based on an understanding of what is needed for human self-development and flourishing.


Like Hiero suggested, for Marxists exploitation is not an emotional and subjective term. According to Marxist economic analysis, exploitation simply refers to paying workers less than the value of their labour, which enables the Capitalist to make a profit. Leftists may refer to certain aspects of Capitalist production and exchange as 'exploitative' or 'inhumane' as part of rhetoric and criticism, but this would not be considered an objective Marxist analysis.

The idea that "exploitation" merely refers to people getting less than the value of what they produce is absurd. The word "exploitation" means "take advantage of" in English and obviously has moral connotations. Moreover, the capitalists, or any other dominating class, would not be able to gain wealth or economic benefit from the labor of the immediate producers without a structure of control over them and over their ability to survive. The capitalist structure is such that workers are forced to sell their ability to work for employers and must put themselves under the thumb of authoritarian production hierarchies. This is oppression because it is the denial of our self-management and without this our exploitation wouldn't be possible.



I personally do not advocate Socialism because I think everyone has a 'right' to be free from suffering and hardship - I think that a Socialist society is the 'best' on a utilitarian basis which is the only rational form of morality and ethical evaluation, and seeks to establish which action or system achieves the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Now, you see your position is shown to be arbitrary. That's because utilitarianism is an abtract moral position, first developed by certain bourgeois thinkers like Bentham. Arguments you've used against the notion of "rights" thus could be used against your utilititarianism.

Moreover, utilitarianism suffers from the notorious problem that it could be used to sacrifice some people for the "greater good" of society and could thus be used to rationalize oppression or the denial of freedoms. Self-management, as a human need, is prior to the value of total social benefit in the sense that even if some greater benefit could be acheived through oppressing some people, that doesn't justify it.

[PeteJ]

The idea that "exploitation" merely refers to people getting less than the value of what they produce is absurd. The word "exploitation" means "take advantage of" in English and obviously has moral connotations. ... The capitalist structure is such that workers are forced to sell their ability to work for employers and must put themselves under the thumb of authoritarian production hierarchies. This is oppression because it is the denial of our self-management and without this our exploitation wouldn't be possible.

We really have to differentiate the sence in which we are using words. Marx's use of the word 'exploitation' was in a purely economic sense, and was very clear and precise. In any scientific analysis certain words take on precise meanings and we have to be clear is we are using them in a precise sense, or in general conversation. The general use of 'exploitation' used in the above quote is pretty similar to the use of 'oppression' in the Monty Python film 'The Life of Bryan'.

It is quite possible that 'self-management' is compatible with capitalist exploitation - just look at some of the new management concepts of 'self-managing teams' etc.

[syndicat]

We really have to differentiate the sence in which we are using words. Marx's use of the word 'exploitation' was in a purely economic sense, and was very clear and precise. In any scientific analysis certain words take on precise meanings and we have to be clear is we are using them in a precise sense, or in general conversation. The general use of 'exploitation' used in the above quote is pretty similar to the use of 'oppression' in the Monty Python film 'The Life of Bryan'.

Why was the term "exploitation" used? Why not call it something else? The idea that it has no connection with the ordinary sense is absurd. Moreover, a problem with Marx's bipolar labor/capital schema is that it leaves out the relative monopolization over conditions of power in the control of social production other than ownership, and thus leaves out the class of top professionals and managers, who also participate in the exploitation of the proletarian class. Moreover, even looking only at the accumulation of wealth by capitalists, you can't explain WHY the capitalists "appropriate" the surplus, or what "appropriation" means, without looking at the conditions of subjugation the working class. The proletarian class couldn't be exploited, in Marx's sense, if they weren't subjugated. De-skilling and speed up and management by strees all presuppose the denial of self-management, that the working class is subject to the "real domination" of capital.


It is quite possible that 'self-management' is compatible with capitalist exploitation - just look at some of the new management concepts of 'self-managing teams' etc.

And "socialism" was used by the Nazi party. so what? You talk about "precise meanings of words" and then fail to take seriously the explication i gave of "self-management." "Alienated labor" is the denial of self-management of the labor process. Would you also try to claim that non-alienated labor is perfectly consistent with capitalism?

[JohnTheKid]

Originally posted by abbielives!@May 29, 2007 05:14 am
an authoritarian action is something that violates others rights
if you are violating someones rights you must be stopped
revolution is not an authoritarian exersise unless you belive the capitalists have a right to their wealth/power



maybe one of you will actually answer this time
We don't need rights, rights are given to us by people higher up on the heirarchical scale than us. We need freedom, and it cannot be given like rights, it has to be taken.

So to me, revolution has nothing to do with recieving or excercising or violating rights, it has to be about seizing your freedom and helping the people around you seize their freedom.

[abbielives!]

define authoritarian

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/authoritarian

Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

[KC]

exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others

[syndicat]

i think it&#39;s better to define an authoritarian structure as one that denies self-management. self-management means that the people affected by decisions get to control those decisions. capitalism denies self-management of work and life to the working class, and the same is true of a coordinatorist mode of production in which power over the economy, over the production process, is concentrated into the hands of an elite of professionals and managers. in this case workers are also turned into mere instruments for the aims of others, to do work that others decide, for the power and privileges of a dominating class. labor is thus "alienated" in that it is not yours to shape and determine the goals and priorities, the planning nor to control the work.

a state is a hierarchical structure that is designed to separate the political functions from effective control by the mass of ordinary producers. thus it denies political self-management, self-management of public affairs and governance by the mass of the people.

self-management is necessary for freedom because to be self-managing is to be self-determining, it is freedom in the positive sense. the denial of self-management is thus oppression.

so, if a revolution does not create a state but creates new institutions of popular self-management, then the fact that the old elite were forced off the scene doesn&#39;t make the revolution authoritarian. this is why Engels was wrong when he said a revolution is authoritarian. it may or may not be, depending on how it is controlled and who ends up in control. if it ends up building self-management, building actual working class power, then it is liberatory, not authoritarian.

denying the will of the old elite does not mean that the structure is authoritarian. when you have democratic decision-making, as in a decision about how a workplace is run through an assembly vote, the fact that there is a minority who is outvoted, so what is decided is against their will, doesn&#39;t make the direct democracy of the assembly "authoritarian". that would be an individualist definition of "authoritarian". but social anarchism isn&#39;t individualist. that&#39;s an old Marxist strawman.

[mario_buda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:54 am
"No its not, an authoritarian action is one which exerts (significant) authority."


Maybe an authoritarian action should be one which seeks to perpetuate authority.

Could any action taken freely be an action that exerts authority over the world because then it becomes meaningless?

[KC]

Maybe an authoritarian action should be one which seeks to perpetuate authority.

It doesn&#39;t matter what it "should be". What it is is already defined.


Could any action taken freely be an action that exerts authority over the world because then it becomes meaningless?

Meaningless abstraction.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Zampanò@June 19, 2007 12:27 am
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others
but you are not controling their will you are limiting their actions

[abbielives!]

revolution certainly isn&#39;t
favoring blind submission to authority
or
favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
it isn&#39;t "exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others"
because your will is under your control, your actions however are limited by external factors


maybe we should distingush between authority and authoritarian


What is oppression?
if it is a matter of will, than gravity can be considered authoritarian

i think authoritarian should be characteriezed by the fact that it is unjust, which is of course subjective

so the question then becomes by what critera do we measure whether or not something is just/fair?

[Rawthentic]

but you are not controling their will you are limiting their actions
Its how the proletariat control the expropriated bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, thats authoritarian, sorry if you are not comfortable with that.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by abbielives&#33;+June 20, 2007 12:03 pm--> (abbielives&#33; @ June 20, 2007 12:03 pm)
Zampanò@June 19, 2007 12:27 am
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others
but you are not controling their will you are limiting their actions [/b]
Well if I wasn&#39;t being pedantic, I&#39;d blatantly see that Zampano means that by preventing the bourgeoisie from putting their will into practice, you are controlling them and their will. It&#39;s common sense really.

You can have revolutions that don&#39;t overthrow classes but may overthrow one stratum for another stratum of the same class but regardless, it involves the physical and political suppression of their ability to organise, resist or reinstall the former rulers. In the case of socialist revolution, it also involves economic suppression also. I would see that as quite authoritarian because you&#39;re subjecting your will onto a section of society by force.

As for exploitation in an emotional sense or an economic sense, Marx did speak of exploitation in a purely economic sense, whether that was the correct word to use or not. Does that mean that he wasn&#39;t also disgusted at exploitation in an emotional sense? Absolutely not. The very nature of human beings, as sociall, emotional beings means that we do view things from social and humane reasoning also but Marxism, as a science, is not based on emotional reasoning. That would be a complete disregard for historical processes and historical materialism. Capitalism and capitalist exploitation was a necessary, progressive evil at one point but has outgrown its usefulness. Socialism is now a necessity for mankind to progress and develop but also is "morally" progressive. While exploitation under capitalism was always "morally" wrong, it was economically necessary to build the productive forces. Yes, it would have been nice to skip all that but it was unrealistic.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Taxing the proletariat of their wealth by the bourgeois state is authoritarian. To the same extent, taxing the bourgeoisie of all their wealth by the workers state/revolutionary society (if your an anarchist) is also an authoritarian act.

[bezdomni]

so the question then becomes by what critera do we measure whether or not something is just/fair?

You see, this is what happens when you are an idealist. You begin to think that we are concerned with justice and fairness as opposed to what we are actually concerned with: the complete liberation of the proletariat.

Of course, we think the liberation of the proletariat is just - because we are (mostly) proletarians. However, the bourgeoisie will think that communist revolution is unjust because it is taking away their property that they believe is "rightfully theirs".

However, this is not a question of morality or justice. In fact, to think it is would be potentially dangerous, because then you believe that you are a moral force as opposed to an historical force.

The proletarian revolution will be about creating a better world for the majority of humanity - the working class. It is not about "being nice" or establishing something that is "more moral" than capitalism - because the question of "more moral for whom" will emerge and that question will have more than once answer in class society.

The liberation of the proletarian class as a whole does not rest with morality and justice. It is much greater than that. The liberation of the proletariat is about control over the means of production and the abolition of class society.

Not because it is "right", but because it is reasonable.

[syndicat]

bloody:
Taxing the proletariat of their wealth by the bourgeois state is authoritarian. To the same extent, taxing the bourgeoisie of all their wealth by the workers state/revolutionary society (if your an anarchist) is also an authoritarian act.

Expropriating the capitalists is not in itself authoritarian. That&#39;s because their ownership of their property is a form of hierarchical authority over the working class, and enables them to dominate the working class in production, thus trampling on the self-management of workers. Liberation from an authoritarian hierarchy is not itself "an authoritarian act." Now if you replace the capitalists with a new class regime, based on a so-called "workers" state, and this is a structure that empowers the professional/managerial class to dominate the working class, then that also tramples the self-management of the working class, and is another type of authoritarian hierarchy.

You need to look at the institutions, and their relationship to people being able to control the decisions that affect them. Thus if society is reorganized on the basis of institutions of popular self-management, and these institutions expropriate the capitalists, since these institutions are not authoritarian, their expropriation of the capitalists isn&#39;t either.

[RebelDog]

Syndicat:

Expropriating the capitalists is not in itself authoritarian. That&#39;s because their ownership of their property is a form of hierarchical authority over the working class, and enables them to dominate the working class in production, thus trampling on the self-management of workers. Liberation from an authoritarian hierarchy is not itself "an authoritarian act." Now if you replace the capitalists with a new class regime, based on a so-called "workers" state, and this is a structure that empowers the professional/managerial class to dominate the working class, then that also tramples the self-management of the working class, and is another type of authoritarian hierarchy.

They currently exercise their &#39;authority&#39; over us. We want proletarian revolution and in making and protecting that revolution we must exercise our authority over them. The bourgeoisie are not going to lie down and say its ok were all proletarians now and go peacefully. Whether we like it or not we are going to be authoritarian as a class against our former and would-be oppressors to change society. Thats nothing for libertarians to fret about, its a necessary thing we have to do. How did the working class appropriate the factories in Catalonia? They exercised their authority over the bourgeoisie.

[syndicat]

They currently exercise their &#39;authority&#39; over us. We want proletarian revolution and in making and protecting that revolution we must exercise our authority over them. The bourgeoisie are not going to lie down and say its ok were all proletarians now and go peacefully. Whether we like it or not we are going to be authoritarian as a class against our former and would-be oppressors to change society. Thats nothing for libertarians to fret about, its a necessary thing we have to do. How did the working class appropriate the factories in Catalonia? They exercised their authority over the bourgeoisie.

You&#39;re confused. Exercizing authority isn&#39;t authoritarian. Exercizing authority is inevitable. The fact that the capitalists are forced to submit to self-managed decisions of the mass of working people, of our movement, taking away their power, their property, that is not authoritarian. Just because it is an exercize of authority, and goes against their will, does not make it authoritarian. If you propose to set up a new hierarchy over the working class in production, then that would be authoritarian. But forcing the ex-capitalists to live by the same rules as the working class is not authoritiarian. It&#39;s called democratic self-management of society by the people.

The term "authoritarian" was introduced by the anti-authoritarian left, and therefore it is we who say what it means, as it is part of our terminology.

[Rawthentic]

Whatever, the point is that the proletariat uses its authority to crush and maintain the counter-revolutionaries down.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:10 am
The term "authoritarian" was introduced by the anti-authoritarian left, and therefore it is we who say what it means, as it is part of our terminology.
The problem is that you are not the anti-authoritarian left. You are a single member of that group. And the vast majority of anti-authoritarian lefts here and in real life would consider revolution to be authoritarian.

[syndicat]

The problem is that you are not the anti-authoritarian left. You are a single member of that group. And the vast majority of anti-authoritarian lefts here and in real life would consider revolution to be authoritarian.

can you provide any evidence for this claim? since the anti-authoritarian Left is revolutionary and anti-authoritarican, it would be inconsistent for them to regard revolution as authoritarian. your claim is therefore unlikely on its face.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:02 pm

The problem is that you are not the anti-authoritarian left. You are a single member of that group. And the vast majority of anti-authoritarian lefts here and in real life would consider revolution to be authoritarian.

can you provide any evidence for this claim? since the anti-authoritarian Left is revolutionary and anti-authoritarican, it would be inconsistent for them to regard revolution as authoritarian. your claim is therefore unlikely on its face.
Because most of them aren&#39;t spending their time being pedantic and can recognise that forcing the will of one section of the population onto another is authoritarian and forceful, even when it&#39;s done with internal democracy of those involved.

[Labor Shall Rule]

This is downright ridiculous. In Moscow shortly after the seizure of the political power by the Bolsheviks, a "questionaire" was distributed to all bourgeois households in the city that would serve the purpose of tracking their financial assets for the stated intention of later requisition. In Barcelona shortly after the anarchists; the "anti-authoritarians" gained a foothold in the city, actions were also taken in which the worker militias followed the holdings of the bourgeoisie in the city for, of course, the stated intention of later requisition for supplying troops at the front. Now, what is the difference between these two? It is an authoritarian action that was the inevitable outcome of the violent outburst of class tensions between the workers and the bosses.

[syndicat]

reddali:
This is downright ridiculous. In Moscow shortly after the seizure of the political power by the Bolsheviks, a "questionaire" was distributed to all bourgeois households in the city that would serve the purpose of tracking their financial assets for the stated intention of later requisition. In Barcelona shortly after the anarchists; the "anti-authoritarians" gained a foothold in the city, actions were also taken in which the worker militias followed the holdings of the bourgeoisie in the city for, of course, the stated intention of later requisition for supplying troops at the front. Now, what is the difference between these two? It is an authoritarian action that was the inevitable outcome of the violent outburst of class tensions between the workers and the bosses.

Seizing the ill-gotten gains of parasites is not authoritarian as this term is understood by the anti-authoritarian left.

BOZG:
Because most of them aren&#39;t spending their time being pedantic and can recognise that forcing the will of one section of the population onto another is authoritarian and forceful, even when it&#39;s done with internal democracy of those involved.

But they don&#39;t "recognize that forcing the will onto another is authoritarian" in all cases.

The fact is, the anarchists who have addressed this issue in this thread agree with me. I&#39;ve explained clearly how the anti-authoritarian left uses the term "authoritarian."

Forcing the will of individuals is not authoritarian except for individualists. There in lines the fallacy of Engels&#39; argument in "On Authority". He falsely equates the anti-authoritarian left with individualism. This is a typical Marxist strawman.

Now, in fact there is such a thing as individualist anarchism. And they might say that forcing the will of individuals, even by vote of an assembly, is "authoritarian." But that is not how social anarchists/libertarian socialists understand the term "authoritarian". We understand it to refer to top-down power hierarchies through which elites control the lives and work of others. It&#39;s an institutional question, it&#39;s about structures that deny human self-management.

If for example someone is prevented from raping someone, that is forcing their will, to prevent them from forcing the will of others. Similarly, capitalism is based on forcing the will of the proletarian class, systematically. Removing that power of the capitalists, by for example seizing their property, is no more authoritarian than is that act of preventing someone from raping someone.

[Rawthentic]

This is a typical Marxist strawman.
Maybe because its typical of anarchists to make strawmen, like "Oh, its Leninism&#39;s fault that Russia degenerated, he&#39;s evil&#33;" Alot of times its just moralistic arguments against a real worker&#39;s state while having the wrong definition of a state and the lack of a materialist understanding to back anything up.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

the "anti-authoritarian" left is a myth, of a massive kind.

Anarchists, for example, have stood up to the worst despots. This has included throwing bombs and assassination. Both authoritarian acts.

Marxists reject those tactics, because ultimately, they achieve little, but their spirit is commendable.

Likewise, when anarchist prior, during and after, fought the fascists, they used authoritarian means. They met bands of thugs, but bands of armed anarchists from the streets of London to Spain.

If the "anti-authoritarian" left really exists out there somewhere, it is not those anarchists.

While i don&#39;t agree with anarchists on many things, everyone knows their history is not anti-authoritarian, its anti-hierarchical. Its because the authoritarian nature of violence or the threat of violence can always be justified when targeted towards a class enemy. Whether or not the tactics work is irrelevant.

On the same lines, the structure of the organizations that are able to enforce the revolution on the capitalist class is irrelevant. Its the fact an organization (even an informal one) is able and willing to enforce their demands is what makes it authoritarian.

[syndicat]

bloody:
While i don&#39;t agree with anarchists on many things, everyone knows their history is not anti-authoritarian, its anti-hierarchical. Its because the authoritarian nature of violence or the threat of violence can always be justified when targeted towards a class enemy. Whether or not the tactics work is irrelevant.

On the same lines, the structure of the organizations that are able to enforce the revolution on the capitalist class is irrelevant. Its the fact an organization (even an informal one) is able and willing to enforce their demands is what makes it authoritarian.


The idea that anarchism stands for bomb throwing and violent acts is a bourgeois smear.

You&#39;re just playing games here. You keep repeating the use of the term "authoritarian" where anything that runs contrary to the will of anyone is "authoritarian." That trivializes the word and is contrary to the usage of the anti-authoritarian Left.

The structure of organizations able to enforce a revolution is very directly relevant to what the outcome is likely to be. If these are organizations built on hierarchical habits of command, of order giver and order obeyer, they will tend to simply replicate the class system, in some new form, as has happened in all the so-called "Communist" countries.

A liberatory revolution presupposes that practices of self-management have emerged in the mass organizations that are the key force in the change. That&#39;s because the working class can&#39;t liberate itself unless it generates a society based on self-management.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Propaganda of the dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed)

Hardly "anti authoritarian"

The link should read propaganda of the DEED not dead. hehe

[abbielives!]

you should check out groups like the Shining Path, Red Army Faction, Weathermen, IRA, Red Brigades, SLA, Tupamaros. before you say that marxists reject using &#39;those tactics&#39;.


the problem here is that we disagree what authoritarian means.
this is how we define it

authoritarianism is a government that governs without the consent of those being governed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian


favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/authoritarian

[KC]

Forcing the will of individuals is not authoritarian except for individualists. There in lines the fallacy of Engels&#39; argument in "On Authority". He falsely equates the anti-authoritarian left with individualism. This is a typical Marxist strawman.

Unfortunately for you, Engels hasn&#39;t done that. Engels, as well as all Marxists, realize that the actions in the class war are performed by real people and not some abstract "class" entity. You are vulgarizing Marxist class theory.


The idea that anarchism stands for bomb throwing and violent acts is a bourgeois smear.

He never said that&#39;s what anarchism "stands for"; he said that those are some actions that anarchists have taken. You are creating a straw man.

As for authoritarianism, I&#39;m getting that anarchists consider acts which are "against oppression" aren&#39;t authoritarian. Now, does this include any act against oppression? For example, is suicide bombing not authoritarian according to anarchists? If someone two guys are fighting, and one&#39;s on the ground getting punched in the face, and the other pulls out a knife and stabs the other guy to death, is he "anti-authoritarian" because he was acting "against oppression"?


The structure of organizations able to enforce a revolution is very directly relevant to what the outcome is likely to be. If these are organizations built on hierarchical habits of command, of order giver and order obeyer, they will tend to simply replicate the class system, in some new form, as has happened in all the so-called "Communist" countries.

Hierarchy isn&#39;t the same thing as authoritarianism.


A liberatory revolution presupposes that practices of self-management have emerged in the mass organizations that are the key force in the change. That&#39;s because the working class can&#39;t liberate itself unless it generates a society based on self-management.

Anti-hierarchy...

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:10 am

They currently exercise their &#39;authority&#39; over us. We want proletarian revolution and in making and protecting that revolution we must exercise our authority over them. The bourgeoisie are not going to lie down and say its ok were all proletarians now and go peacefully. Whether we like it or not we are going to be authoritarian as a class against our former and would-be oppressors to change society. Thats nothing for libertarians to fret about, its a necessary thing we have to do. How did the working class appropriate the factories in Catalonia? They exercised their authority over the bourgeoisie.

You&#39;re confused. Exercizing authority isn&#39;t authoritarian. Exercizing authority is inevitable. The fact that the capitalists are forced to submit to self-managed decisions of the mass of working people, of our movement, taking away their power, their property, that is not authoritarian. Just because it is an exercize of authority, and goes against their will, does not make it authoritarian. If you propose to set up a new hierarchy over the working class in production, then that would be authoritarian. But forcing the ex-capitalists to live by the same rules as the working class is not authoritiarian. It&#39;s called democratic self-management of society by the people.

The term "authoritarian" was introduced by the anti-authoritarian left, and therefore it is we who say what it means, as it is part of our terminology.
This is really just a debate about semantics but I regard myself as part of the &#39;anti-authoritarian left&#39; and I recognise that authority will have to be used by us. If we achieve a libertarian revolution and elements of society try to organise class and market structures again, the collective will have to exert its &#39;authority&#39; over these elements and these elements will have to bend to that will and authority. Each class really acts in its own interests and we should adopt this attitude also and understand that the producing revolutionary class can use its authority and unique power to destroy class and property and it doesn&#39;t really matter if anyone regards this as authoritarian or otherwise. The bourgeoisie currently have power and to get to the situation we desire authority will have been used to remove bourgeois hegemony.

I also desire a world without states, class and hierarchy and I think humans can achieve this, and providing humanity has a future, then such a world is their future. If the working class do not &#39;exercise their authority&#39; over all other classes then I don&#39;t see how we get there.

[KC]

Exercizing authority isn&#39;t authoritarian.

Yes it is; that&#39;s the very definition of authoritarian: "exercising authority over others".

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Zampanò@June 22, 2007 03:14 am

Exercizing authority isn&#39;t authoritarian.

Yes it is; that&#39;s the very definition of authoritarian: "exercising authority over others".

not accordingto the definition we use


authoritarianism is a government that governs without the consent of those being governed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian

[KC]

authoritarianism is a government that governs without the consent of those being governed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian

No; that would be an authoritarian government. That isn&#39;t the definition of authoritarianism. That&#39;s like saying fat is defined as a person with excessive amounts of body fat.

Also, if you believe that to be the definition of authoritarian then you&#39;ve basically invalidated the arguments of both yourself and those that agree with you, as we&#39;ve been talking about authoritarian acts. If you believed authoritarianism was simply a government, then you would have originally stated that authoritarian actions don&#39;t exist and that it is simply a form of government. This is obviously not what you believe, as your original post clearly shows.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by BOZG+June 21, 2007 03:47 am--> (BOZG @ June 21, 2007 03:47 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 03:10 am
The term "authoritarian" was introduced by the anti-authoritarian left, and therefore it is we who say what it means, as it is part of our terminology.
The problem is that you are not the anti-authoritarian left. You are a single member of that group. And the vast majority of anti-authoritarian lefts here and in real life would consider revolution to be authoritarian. [/b]
Most if not all of the anti-authoritarians that have participated in this and the other thread have proven that statement wrong.

"If I can&#39;t dance - I don&#39;t want to be part of your revolution” - Emma Goldman

[BOZG]

Originally posted by abbielives&#33;@June 22, 2007 01:36 am
you should check out groups like the Shining Path, Red Army Faction, Weathermen, IRA, Red Brigades, SLA, Tupamaros. before you say that marxists reject using &#39;those tactics&#39;.


the problem here is that we disagree what authoritarian means.
this is how we define it

authoritarianism is a government that governs without the consent of those being governed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian


favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/authoritarian
And genuine Marxists have always criticised those groups, what&#39;s your point?


Chicano Shamrock,
What other thread are you talking about? Only 3 anti-authoritarian lefts have posted in this one.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:38 am
Chicano Shamrock,
What other thread are you talking about? Only 3 anti-authoritarian lefts have posted in this one.
This thread is just a spin off of the other thread.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66731&hl=

[BOZG]

I noticed that later. Thanks anyway.

[RebelDog]

I don&#39;[t give a fuck anymore, anyway. I fuck you all assholes.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 22, 2007 02:00 am

This is really just a debate about semantics but I regard myself as part of the &#39;anti-authoritarian left&#39; and I recognise that authority will have to be used by us. If we achieve a libertarian revolution and elements of society try to organise class and market structures again, the collective will have to exert its &#39;authority&#39; over these elements and these elements will have to bend to that will and authority. Each class really acts in its own interests and we should adopt this attitude also and understand that the producing revolutionary class can use its authority and unique power to destroy class and property and it doesn&#39;t really matter if anyone regards this as authoritarian or otherwise. The bourgeoisie currently have power and to get to the situation we desire authority will have been used to remove bourgeois hegemony.

I also desire a world without states, class and hierarchy and I think humans can achieve this, and providing humanity has a future, then such a world is their future. If the working class do not &#39;exercise their authority&#39; over all other classes then I don&#39;t see how we get there.
It is indeed about semantics, which is not always a bad thing. In this case though...
The return of expropriated goods to the commons is said to be "authoritarian." It follows that a slave attempting to free himself, thereby taking away the master&#39;s property, is "authoritarian."