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.
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.