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.
The dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the bourgeoisie are suppressed politically until they can be integrated into the rest of society, it doesn't mean a dictatorship, it means a democracy where the former oppressors don't get a seat at the table.
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.
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?
Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.
Okay so the first problem is that you're basing your ideas around the soviet union on popular western media and not an actual understanding of how the system worked.
Here is a fun rabbit hole to go down.. how did too much horizontalism lead to a failure to cyberize the planned economy ala cybersyn?
The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.
Timestamp.
It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?
The decisions made regarding the nature and circumstances of operation impose restrictions on all operatives in the system, ergo decisions made on a local level affect everyone. It is the monopolization of the use of literal power (and torque) unless you reject specialization, it is the imposition of authority. And rejecting specialization on a practical societal level requires a massive imposition of authority.
Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate?
Yes, are you asking a ML if they don't understand the difference between strong and weak delegates? Y'all know democratic centralism is our thing right? Which is a much more thorough application of the principle.
The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay.
LOL. Someone pointing a gun at you and giving you instructions isn't authority? It isn't the monopolization of violence in this context?
The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority.
The essays author establishes that some anarchists define self defense as a justifiable exercise in authority.
You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition.
No, the argument is that the anarchist definition isn't grounded in materialism.
I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.
That is because Engels is a dialectical materialist and convinced that definitions grounded in dialectical materialism are superior- his problem is that anarchists are being idealist in their definition, and that they should embrace a more coherent definition of it.
Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives.
I spent a couple years reading anarchist literature, and turned to reading marxist lit when the anarchists started giving unsatisfactory explanations.
This might be your pipeline. But I would suggest avoiding wasting time on YouTube.
Basically when you do a socialist revolution your national bourgeoisie and international bourgeoisie are willing to crush it through any means necessary. You unfortunately have to use the machinery of the state to protect from bourgeois subversion, or you get shit like Indonesia, Chile, overthrow of the USSR through executive coup, etc.
In Russia, Stalin abolished the soviets (A.K.A worker’s councils, kinda like mega unions) in the Soviet union.
Are you referring to the constitution of 1936, which established 4 layers of representative councils (local, regional, national, union) as Stalin dissolving the Soviets?
why do you think that is worse
why do you blame it on Stalin? Seems like a thing that was written and implemented pretty democratically.
Shifted power in the sense of the local branches were federated within the same structure now, but honestly that seems more accountable and democratic?
Authoritarian is just a buzzword armchair generals throw around. All states rely on authority, including anarchist attempts like in Catalonia and Ukraine.
Wait did you not know about the anarcho-communists doing labor camps?
My point is that authoritarian is a useless word. Anarchists accuse left wingers of being authoritarian and then do the exact same thing with a different name. Just accept that some parts of revolution are gonna suck and gonna have excesses.
The red terror was much smaller than the white terror, and the torture is nothing that capitalist countries don't do on the regular. I for one would like to decrease the amount of torture in the world.
I am quite sure that now amount of torture in western countries is negligible when compared with China and North Korea
This sounds like western chauvinism. Hoe can you be sure? The US has soo many blacksites, hell even local PDs have them.
Guantanamo or Pinoshit. Actually Pinoshit and Franco should not be counted as nominal western mindset, since they are authoritarian fascist piece of shits.
Pinochet was straight up supported by the west until it was too politically inconvenient, but by that time he'd already done his job of eradicating the left. Franco wouldn't have won if it wasn't for Britain, France, etc, enforcing "no arms and troops shipments" for the USSR but not for Italy and Germany. And they also weren't willing to accept Spanish republican gold.
I despise all authoritarian despots equally, no matter fascist Franco or “communist” Stalin.
Hmm. One of these people was a dictator. The other was democratically elected and lead the industrialization of a society that allowed it to defeat the industrial superpower that was Germany and end the holocaust.
And how can you be sure? Given nontransparent smokescreen of all red imperialist countries like USSR, China and North Korea?
You call them imperialist without having an understanding of imperialism.
For example, explain China increasing in manufacturing output as a percent of their economy as they enter and push into the middle income bracket?
Also, how the hell is the DPRK imperialist? The only place they've invaded was a US military dictatorship in the same country that they're in, while the US dictatorship was slaughtering 10s of thousands of protestors.
Oh yes, USSR, the famous standard of democracy /s
Yes. If you can't explain how the soviet councils were layered and how elections were carried out then don't pretend like you can argue about this in an informed way.
China uses a similar system and has a 95 percent approval rate, according to Harvard Surveys.
*replace it with the gulag system
This is holocaust trivialization. The gulags were not meant to kill people, and the mortality rate in them reflects this.
Exploiting cheap workers in inhumane conditions, resembling 19th century capitalism. Exactly what communism was supposed to end. China is getting robotized somewhat, since its society ages dramatically, but they want to keep polluting the world with cheap throwaways.
Taking everything you said as true, that isn't imperialist though. Imperialism is a specific thing, have you read any academic writings on imperialism?
DPRK constantly threaten South Korea and Japan. Apart the famous missile launches, it performs abductions, drug smuggling, marine poaching, and spying. And we have cyber attacks as well. The country is too shitty to invade another country full scale, but it does what it can do to be a bully, officially uses imperialist rhetorics and throw threats.
Taking everything you say is true, that also isn't imperialism
The elections were carried out in such a way, that an average worker had no chance to vote for a social demoratic party, anarchist party, or liberal democratic party. They even killed their communist opposition, Mensheviks. There is no democracy with a single party system, don’t be ridiculous.
Okay, see my original point about not being informed.
Setting aside manufactured famine in Ukraine and genocides like Katyn, very cautious estimates says that around 30 millions of people were victims of gulag, with lethal 2,7 million victims. This is probably massive underestimation, since many of gulag documents were destroyed in 2014. But hey, the mortality rate was smaller than in Nazi death camps, great job USSR! /s
Your estimate should be 1.7 million, Nazis aren't people remember?
That's the one, where Russians had less interest in the USSR than the participating territories.
Or the ones that followed in each that led to them declaring independence which in turn led to the collapse of the soviet union?
Sure, and not the presidential coup. Get real.
The baltics were 3 of those boycotting territories and we had similar referendums for independence which, I’m pretty sure, all got over 70% support.
And the Baltics are doing so much better now.
I'm reminded of a story of Lithuania charging holocaust survivors for fighting as partisans against the nazis in WW2. It happened in 2009. They've gotten more fascist since. Wonder what itd be like if the USSR was never overthrown.
and that’s something you can objectively prove, lol.
Weren't you literally just claiming that if Russia stayed in the war the nazis wouldn't have happened?
Bwahahaha
The repeated Bolshevik genocides of Jewish people.
As someone who had jewish family which survived the holocaust, lol, wtf? The worst instance of antisemitism in the USSR was the doctor's plot, which wasn't a genocide.
I’ll not comment on your apparent belief that Nazism was some fated historical inevitability, which sure seems like something a Nazi would believe and not a Marxist.
Nazijacketing me for thinking that Russia staying in ww1 wouldn't have stopped the rise of nazism? Wow.
for all the "anti-authoritarians" out there
Three Wishes
Elections ( sffa.community )
*audible sigh* ( slrpnk.net ) Englisch
Here we go again with the lip service
Weapons manufacturers are terrorist organizations ( lemmy.ml )
Why haven't you taken the bear pill? ( jlai.lu )
Tap for contextSome woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man
Know the difference. ( lemmy.ml )