On authority is used to justify the fact that many communist movements of the past turned into brutal dictatorships and that “it’s fine actually that mao starved half of China because you can’t have a revolution without being authoritarian”.
The actual paper is short and kind of stupid. What Engels was arguing in that short essay with a ridiculously outsized influence was that he was technically correct (the best kind) that anarchists are silly because any type of government someone could propose inevitably involves one person imposing their will on another like your quote says.
Really what Engels (who was a prominent communist thinker) was doing was fucking up any attempts at communist organization because now 1/3 of communists think that brutal authoritarianism is based and necessary for a revolution.
Ok, I’ve read it and I’m not impressed. The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.
The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way. While the hexbear author acknowledges that fact in the beginning and seems to take the (IMHO flawed) definition of the anarchist’s critique at face value, he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one.
The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.
I think you’re confusing dismissing your viewpoint after engaging with it in a serious way with being disingenuous
The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way.
You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued in a Marxist Response
he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one
The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.
They aren’t engaging with the definition in a serious way. That is my point.
I follow a different definition, that’s more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few. With that definition, which is compatible with the bulk of anarchist theory, “On authority” is nothing, but the incoherent ramblings of someone with too much personal beef.
The hexbear author not once seriously engages with any of the two viewpoints given in the anarchist rebuttal. They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist’s definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels’ definition. If I change the preconditions in the middle of my logical chain, shit will get goofy. Duh.
You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued.
No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.
The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.
The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.
Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority. Therefore, they don’t argue against necessity, or self-defense.
I follow a different definition, that’s more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.
Okay:
then don’t link a video to defend your point that you don’t agree with
then Marxist Leninist projects meet your definition of anti-authoritarian?
They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist’s definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels’ definition.
The robber example rebuts the claim by the most popular anarchist rebuttal that authority is established by unquestioning obedience. Did you not read the anarchist rebuttal?
This feels like a basic misreading of the text.
No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.
No, you don’t get to claim this after your failure to read, I spent 45 minutes that I will never get back listening to inane shit like him claiming “steam isn’t authority” without understanding how the circumstances of prime mover operation is socially created and influences downstream production processes, or “delegates and representatives are different actually, silly Engels” It was the same inane failures of reading along similar thrusts to the article.
The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.
How would you know? You didn’t fucking read it, if you didn’t source the argument of “authority is created through unquestioning obedience”!
Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority.
There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the “Problems with “On Authority””? No?
The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.
Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.
I read the anarchist rebuttal. It made clear that force and authority are different things. The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay. The hexbear author didn’t understand that, or misrepresented the anarchist.
It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?
Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate? If not, then you don’t understand the anarchist’s critique.
How would you know? You didn’t fucking read it, if you didn’t source the argument of “authority is created through unquestioning obedience”!
I did read both the anarchist’s rebuttal and the hexbear comment (as far as I could stomach). I don’t completely agree with the anarchist’s rebuttal, which is why I didn’t share it. The hexbear bloke didn’t genuinely take the anarchist’s proposal seriously, as I’ve explained several times now.
There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the “Problems with “On Authority””? No?
That’s not what the essay’s author claims. The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority. Please stop misrepresenting stuff, it’s getting exhausting.
It’s no use arguing, if we both don’t accept each other’s definition of authority. You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition. I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.
Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives. It would save you a lot of time.
An anticommunist breadtuber (but I repeat myself) debunks Engels 😂 Anarchism, unlike Marxism-Leninism, has yet to succeed in the real world for more than a few months. We will welcome anarchists’ lectures once they’ve proven their theory in praxis.
Anarchism’s lack of success to date is historical fact, and I think that’s reason enough not to take the time to engage with some Burgerland anarchist’s video essay.
He mostly explained how he actually didn’t really have a proper grasp of what authority actually means. He conflated them with a lot of things without actually making sense. I’m surprised why “On authority” is so widely known.
He has a great grasp on how often Anarchists operate mainly on vibes, even if in practice when they get into power they still implement some form of authoritarianism, such as the labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
Sorry, but claiming that just shows that someone didn’t engage at all with anarchist theory.
Edit - addendum: even if this wasn’t true back then in Engel’s days: Still quoting him today ignores all that anarchist theory on power that happened since then.
I have, I used to lean more Anarchist, until I read more Marxist theory. Concepts like ParEcon were extremely interesting, and could be applied to both an Anarchist system or a Worker State. I am aware of Anarchist principles of horizontal organization, and I think they are quite beautiful, but I am also aware that Anarchist critique of Marxism falls flat almost all of the time.
How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.
Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.
While he didn’t specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: “All I know is that I’m not a marxist.” That’s what I was referencing.
Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn’t claim that states “had issues”. Here’s a quote, for example:
That is because no state, not even the most republican and democratic, not even the pseudo-popular state contemplated by Marx, in essence represents anything but government of the masses from above downward, by an educated and thereby privileged minority which supposedly understands the real interests of the people better than the people themselves.
The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn’t have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn’t have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.
The problem with anarchist theory is that it demonstrably doesn’t work. A theory that can’t be put into practice is not worth the paper its written on.
Hey, I stepped into an anarchist space to read the most popular critique of on authority, you can step into a non-sectarian left space to read a critique of the critique.
If the critique was well founded we’d see it applied in practice in the real world. The fact that anarchists aren’t able to put their ideas into practice shows that they can be safely binned.
People seriously still quote On Authority? 🙄
I found the quote interesting. Is the source material bad? How so?
On authority is used to justify the fact that many communist movements of the past turned into brutal dictatorships and that “it’s fine actually that mao starved half of China because you can’t have a revolution without being authoritarian”.
The actual paper is short and kind of stupid. What Engels was arguing in that short essay with a ridiculously outsized influence was that he was technically correct (the best kind) that anarchists are silly because any type of government someone could propose inevitably involves one person imposing their will on another like your quote says.
Really what Engels (who was a prominent communist thinker) was doing was fucking up any attempts at communist organization because now 1/3 of communists think that brutal authoritarianism is based and necessary for a revolution.
Just because you have trouble comprehending something doesn’t make it stupid.
Engels conflates authority with basically everything: necessity, organization, processes, violence, self-defense, etc.
This video thoroughly debunks the essay
He literally just cites abridged arguments from “The problems with on authority”
Read "A Marxist Response to “The problems with on authority” ": https://hexbear.net/post/2141265
Also yeah, I watched it so everyone else doesn’t have to waste time
Ok, I’ve read it and I’m not impressed. The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.
The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way. While the hexbear author acknowledges that fact in the beginning and seems to take the (IMHO flawed) definition of the anarchist’s critique at face value, he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one.
I think you’re confusing dismissing your viewpoint after engaging with it in a serious way with being disingenuous
You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued in a Marxist Response
The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.
They aren’t engaging with the definition in a serious way. That is my point.
I follow a different definition, that’s more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few. With that definition, which is compatible with the bulk of anarchist theory, “On authority” is nothing, but the incoherent ramblings of someone with too much personal beef.
The hexbear author not once seriously engages with any of the two viewpoints given in the anarchist rebuttal. They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist’s definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels’ definition. If I change the preconditions in the middle of my logical chain, shit will get goofy. Duh.
No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.
The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.
Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority. Therefore, they don’t argue against necessity, or self-defense.
Okay:
then don’t link a video to defend your point that you don’t agree with
then Marxist Leninist projects meet your definition of anti-authoritarian?
The robber example rebuts the claim by the most popular anarchist rebuttal that authority is established by unquestioning obedience. Did you not read the anarchist rebuttal?
This feels like a basic misreading of the text.
No, you don’t get to claim this after your failure to read, I spent 45 minutes that I will never get back listening to inane shit like him claiming “steam isn’t authority” without understanding how the circumstances of prime mover operation is socially created and influences downstream production processes, or “delegates and representatives are different actually, silly Engels” It was the same inane failures of reading along similar thrusts to the article.
How would you know? You didn’t fucking read it, if you didn’t source the argument of “authority is created through unquestioning obedience”!
There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the “Problems with “On Authority””? No?
I read the anarchist rebuttal. It made clear that force and authority are different things. The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay. The hexbear author didn’t understand that, or misrepresented the anarchist.
It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?
Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate? If not, then you don’t understand the anarchist’s critique.
I did read both the anarchist’s rebuttal and the hexbear comment (as far as I could stomach). I don’t completely agree with the anarchist’s rebuttal, which is why I didn’t share it. The hexbear bloke didn’t genuinely take the anarchist’s proposal seriously, as I’ve explained several times now.
That’s not what the essay’s author claims. The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority. Please stop misrepresenting stuff, it’s getting exhausting.
It’s no use arguing, if we both don’t accept each other’s definition of authority. You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition. I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.
Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives. It would save you a lot of time.
An anticommunist breadtuber (but I repeat myself) debunks Engels 😂 Anarchism, unlike Marxism-Leninism, has yet to succeed in the real world for more than a few months. We will welcome anarchists’ lectures once they’ve proven their theory in praxis.
Anything else than ad-hominem attacks and wishful thinking? Like actually engaging with the actual critique, tankie?
Anarchism’s lack of success to date is historical fact, and I think that’s reason enough not to take the time to engage with some Burgerland anarchist’s video essay.
Someone’s scared, I see.
What a great theorist Engels must have been, given that you must find ridiculous excuses in order to avoid engaging critically with his work. /s
So, tell me: in what way is necessity, the laws of physics or self-defense the same thing as a monopolization of decision making power?
Yes, Engels does a pretty good job of explaining why “authoritarian” complaints are usually explained purely by vibes.
deleted by creator
He mostly explained how he actually didn’t really have a proper grasp of what authority actually means. He conflated them with a lot of things without actually making sense. I’m surprised why “On authority” is so widely known.
He has a great grasp on how often Anarchists operate mainly on vibes, even if in practice when they get into power they still implement some form of authoritarianism, such as the labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
Sorry, but claiming that just shows that someone didn’t engage at all with anarchist theory.
Edit - addendum: even if this wasn’t true back then in Engel’s days: Still quoting him today ignores all that anarchist theory on power that happened since then.
I have, I used to lean more Anarchist, until I read more Marxist theory. Concepts like ParEcon were extremely interesting, and could be applied to both an Anarchist system or a Worker State. I am aware of Anarchist principles of horizontal organization, and I think they are quite beautiful, but I am also aware that Anarchist critique of Marxism falls flat almost all of the time.
What kind of Marxism? Marx’s Marxism, or that body of theory by his followers that even Marx denounced, i.e. ML, MLM, etc.
Anarchist’s analysis of power has been spot-on ever since Bakunin predicted the bureaucratic dictatorship that Russia became under the Bolsheviki.
How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.
Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.
You’d know if you read anarchist theory 😂
While he didn’t specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: “All I know is that I’m not a marxist.” That’s what I was referencing.
Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn’t claim that states “had issues”. Here’s a quote, for example:
The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn’t have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn’t have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.
Marx died March 14th, 1883
Mao was born December 26th, 1893
Was Karl Marx a time traveler?
Yes. /j
The problem with anarchist theory is that it demonstrably doesn’t work. A theory that can’t be put into practice is not worth the paper its written on.
Sorry, but you obviously have no idea of modern anarchist theory.
neither do anarchists though, so I don’t feel alone in that regard
Wow, sick burn, homie. /s
Let me guess, you’ve read “The problems with on authority”, but haven’t read "A Marxist Response to “The problems with on authority” " ?
Here you go: https://hexbear.net/post/2141265
Lol, not dipping into that cesspool.
Hey, I stepped into an anarchist space to read the most popular critique of on authority, you can step into a non-sectarian left space to read a critique of the critique.
To this day, nobody’s actually articulated any counterpoints to it, so yeah.
Just cause you chose to ignore the well-founded critique, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
If the critique was well founded we’d see it applied in practice in the real world. The fact that anarchists aren’t able to put their ideas into practice shows that they can be safely binned.
Libertarian socialists have come closer to achieving socialism than any state in the ML tradition.
If memorizing age of consent laws by region is achieving socialism, then sure.
Please research what libertarian socialism means. You obviously have no idea what’s being talked about.
LMFAO
Xi will give the means of production back to the workers yany day now* I can feel it. /s
already has https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2024/01/employees-participation-in-corporate-governance-under-the-revised-chinese-company-law
Will this be implemented before or after they allow non-state-run unions to exist?