You’re echoing ideas from Engels’ On Authority essay, which is famously known for showing a complete lack of understanding for what authority actually means. With all respect, the ML space has a dismissive attitude towards authority that borders on straight up denial.
which is famously known for showing a complete lack of understanding for what authority actually means.
I imagine this is the point where you start defining authority in a completely abstract and arbitrary way, rather than the most simple, common-sense one intelligible to every worker already.
Engels is already one step ahead of you:
But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that’s true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
No I think I agree with what any average worker would understand as authority. And I think any sane anti-authoritarian would agree with Engels that there are contexts where it is important to have a single leader, such as the ship example. The difference is, does the crew agree collectively to pick such a leader, or is the leader forced upon them by threat of violence? What if they want a different leader, are they able to choose a new one? If they disobey a ludicrous order from a corrupt captain, will they be systematically persecuted? These aren’t crazy questions to consider IMO, but Engels wants to handwave the entire concept.
does the crew agree collectively to pick such a leader, or is the leader forced upon them by threat of violence?
That’s related to, but not fundamental to the definition of authority, whose core point is enforcement via class violence (IE either capitalist authority or proletarian authority). You can have a completely democratic selection process, and the enforcement of that decision is still “authoritarian”, unless you want to allow everyone to break the decisions that are reached.
Marxists already have this collective democratic process, its called democratic centralism, which takes many different forms depending on the situation, but is essentially “diversity in discussion, unity in action”. One of the first practictioners of it was Mao, who impressed that individual red army units during the Chinese civil war should select their own officers.
Once decisions are selected, they are binding upon the members. I can tell you from experience that “anti-authoritarian” types consider even democratic rulings “oppressive”, and that they feel free to break them since that imposes on their individual freedom.
What if they want a different leader, are they able to choose a new one?
That also is related to, but not fundamental, to the question of authority. Recall exists(ed) not only in communist countries, but even in liberal dictatorships, where recall does absolutely nothing to hinder the authority of the capitalist class.
If anti-authoritarianism to you (like many anarchists) means the freedom to disobey (even democratic rulings), then its no wonder that every single historical anarchist attempt has lasted less long than it took most of us to get through highschool.
The only way for a revolution to survive is for proletarian authority to be even more organized and more disciplined than its capitalist opponents.
These things are central to what I consider authority. You may have a different definition but then I guess we’re discussing different things. “Proletarian authority” makes zero sense in the vocabulary of anarchism, it only works with Engels’ definition that conflates authority with power. But I don’t think arguing about the meaning of words is a good pastime.
It sounds like you are in favor of Mao letting people choose their own generals rather than being appointed centrally. Why? Are you some sort of anti-authoritarian?
These things are central to what I consider authority.
That’s fine if you want to define it differently according to your own standards, and think that if proletarians make laws and rules, being forced to obey them isn’t authoritarian (although you would be going against most of your anarchist comrades with that definition, who consider any affront to personal liberty, “authoritarian”).
Why? Are you some sort of anti-authoritarian?
Mao and every other ML are defining authority in the same way; all consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to be equivalent to working-class democracy, and democratic centralizsm. “Anti-authoritarians” staunchly oppose Mao and the DOTP, so you’d be in a tiny minority of anarchists if you actually support the CPC.
No need to explain a fact that’s famously known. Turn on the TV and everyone will be talking about Engels misunderstanding authority. Go walk in the park and you’ll overhear people talking about Engels misunderstanding authority.
Sure. Criticisms of authority typically refer to systemic authority and power structures. It’s not just the ability to compel somebody else at any given time. It’s about contrasting different forms of social organization. Engles kinda tries to handwave the entire concept. But surely everyone can tell the difference between, say, a kingdom, and collective decisionmaking. To handwave the entire concept of authority, to me, is just an unwillingness to formulate a serious answer. It’s denial.
I will say that most capitalists present some highly hypocritical arguments for what they call authoritarianism. I should sooner listen to the anarchist arguments, which also criticize the inherent authoritarianism in capitalism. One doesn’t even need to be an anarchist to engage with that.
Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.
Ah ok this makes it clear it is not Engels who has a misunderstanding but you.
But surely everyone can tell the difference between, say, a kingdom, and collective decisionmaking.
Obviously but the difference is not that of authority but of form. The collective decision will be just as authoritarian on the minority who disagree as the kingdom is to those not integrated into the power structure.
should sooner listen to the anarchist arguments, which also criticize the inherent authoritarianism in capitalism. One doesn’t even need to be an anarchist to engage with that.
The anarchist definition of hierarchy (and thus authority) constantly shifts to accommodate whatever hierarchy anarchists currently want to defend as “not really hierarchy” or “justified authority” or “expertise” or “coordination.” Parent and child, doctor and patient, teacher and student, elected militia command, workplace coordination, revolutionary defense, public health measures, collective discipline: suddenly these are not hierarchy, because even anarchists know society cannot function without structured authority.
The collective decision will be just as authoritarian on the minority who disagree as the kingdom is to those not integrated into the power structure.
Please rethink this.
For one, even just the outcome of any kind of collective decisionmaking process will generally be one that doesn’t oppress the masses, or at least not most of them. Whereas the king might decide at his own whim that he shall receive everybody’s firstborn baby to eat.
More importantly, there’s also enforcement. If we are comparing the kingdom to, say, a modern nation state with a police force, then yes, the enforcement can be authoritarian in either case. But you know as well as I that anarchists don’t advocate for electoral nation states precisely because they create an oppressive political class, as well as a capitalist class in the case of capitalism.
The anarchist definition of hierarchy (and thus authority) constantly shifts
I would also argue that MLs tend to shift the definition of authority to something completely meaningless (Engels’ definition) whenever criticized by anti-authoritarians.
You’re echoing ideas from Engels’ On Authority essay, which is famously known for showing a complete lack of understanding for what authority actually means. With all respect, the ML space has a dismissive attitude towards authority that borders on straight up denial.
I imagine this is the point where you start defining authority in a completely abstract and arbitrary way, rather than the most simple, common-sense one intelligible to every worker already.
Engels is already one step ahead of you:
No I think I agree with what any average worker would understand as authority. And I think any sane anti-authoritarian would agree with Engels that there are contexts where it is important to have a single leader, such as the ship example. The difference is, does the crew agree collectively to pick such a leader, or is the leader forced upon them by threat of violence? What if they want a different leader, are they able to choose a new one? If they disobey a ludicrous order from a corrupt captain, will they be systematically persecuted? These aren’t crazy questions to consider IMO, but Engels wants to handwave the entire concept.
That’s related to, but not fundamental to the definition of authority, whose core point is enforcement via class violence (IE either capitalist authority or proletarian authority). You can have a completely democratic selection process, and the enforcement of that decision is still “authoritarian”, unless you want to allow everyone to break the decisions that are reached.
Marxists already have this collective democratic process, its called democratic centralism, which takes many different forms depending on the situation, but is essentially “diversity in discussion, unity in action”. One of the first practictioners of it was Mao, who impressed that individual red army units during the Chinese civil war should select their own officers.
Once decisions are selected, they are binding upon the members. I can tell you from experience that “anti-authoritarian” types consider even democratic rulings “oppressive”, and that they feel free to break them since that imposes on their individual freedom.
That also is related to, but not fundamental, to the question of authority. Recall exists(ed) not only in communist countries, but even in liberal dictatorships, where recall does absolutely nothing to hinder the authority of the capitalist class.
If anti-authoritarianism to you (like many anarchists) means the freedom to disobey (even democratic rulings), then its no wonder that every single historical anarchist attempt has lasted less long than it took most of us to get through highschool.
The only way for a revolution to survive is for proletarian authority to be even more organized and more disciplined than its capitalist opponents.
These things are central to what I consider authority. You may have a different definition but then I guess we’re discussing different things. “Proletarian authority” makes zero sense in the vocabulary of anarchism, it only works with Engels’ definition that conflates authority with power. But I don’t think arguing about the meaning of words is a good pastime.
It sounds like you are in favor of Mao letting people choose their own generals rather than being appointed centrally. Why? Are you some sort of anti-authoritarian?
That’s fine if you want to define it differently according to your own standards, and think that if proletarians make laws and rules, being forced to obey them isn’t authoritarian (although you would be going against most of your anarchist comrades with that definition, who consider any affront to personal liberty, “authoritarian”).
Mao and every other ML are defining authority in the same way; all consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to be equivalent to working-class democracy, and democratic centralizsm. “Anti-authoritarians” staunchly oppose Mao and the DOTP, so you’d be in a tiny minority of anarchists if you actually support the CPC.
Care to expand? Maybe give a more accurate definition?
No need to explain a fact that’s famously known. Turn on the TV and everyone will be talking about Engels misunderstanding authority. Go walk in the park and you’ll overhear people talking about Engels misunderstanding authority.
Fair point lol.
Sure. Criticisms of authority typically refer to systemic authority and power structures. It’s not just the ability to compel somebody else at any given time. It’s about contrasting different forms of social organization. Engles kinda tries to handwave the entire concept. But surely everyone can tell the difference between, say, a kingdom, and collective decisionmaking. To handwave the entire concept of authority, to me, is just an unwillingness to formulate a serious answer. It’s denial.
I will say that most capitalists present some highly hypocritical arguments for what they call authoritarianism. I should sooner listen to the anarchist arguments, which also criticize the inherent authoritarianism in capitalism. One doesn’t even need to be an anarchist to engage with that.
Sounds like Engels does have a good grasp
Ah ok this makes it clear it is not Engels who has a misunderstanding but you.
Obviously but the difference is not that of authority but of form. The collective decision will be just as authoritarian on the minority who disagree as the kingdom is to those not integrated into the power structure.
The anarchist definition of hierarchy (and thus authority) constantly shifts to accommodate whatever hierarchy anarchists currently want to defend as “not really hierarchy” or “justified authority” or “expertise” or “coordination.” Parent and child, doctor and patient, teacher and student, elected militia command, workplace coordination, revolutionary defense, public health measures, collective discipline: suddenly these are not hierarchy, because even anarchists know society cannot function without structured authority.
Please rethink this.
For one, even just the outcome of any kind of collective decisionmaking process will generally be one that doesn’t oppress the masses, or at least not most of them. Whereas the king might decide at his own whim that he shall receive everybody’s firstborn baby to eat.
More importantly, there’s also enforcement. If we are comparing the kingdom to, say, a modern nation state with a police force, then yes, the enforcement can be authoritarian in either case. But you know as well as I that anarchists don’t advocate for electoral nation states precisely because they create an oppressive political class, as well as a capitalist class in the case of capitalism.
I would also argue that MLs tend to shift the definition of authority to something completely meaningless (Engels’ definition) whenever criticized by anti-authoritarians.
“Uhh ur wrong, Engels is wrong, and it’s so obvious that I don’t need to point out how.”
Behold, liberal analysis. “Nuh uh.”
I dont get what you are saying, can you expand?
I elaborated a bit in response to another comment: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/26471106