In Capitalist countries authority is used to oppress the masses and protect exploitation, in Socialist countries it is used to oppress the Capitalists (who don’t just disappear the second the revolution succeeds), the CIA invented “Authoritarian” as a way of demonizing Socialist countries by drawing attention to how it suppresses the class enemy of the working class rather then who is suppressed and for who’s benefit. A State is needed for as long as class antagonism exists, which itself will exist as long as class itself exists, which itself will exist so long as the material conditions for classes exist, which will exist until global communism is achieved. Until then, a State is needed to protect the success of the revolution, which is “Authoritarian”, along with your brain telling your body to get up in the morning, the bullet from a gun used against fascists who do the same to you, or even missiles used to deter the U.S. from bombing the shit out of you which they have done before and would do again. TL:DR “Authoritarianism” isn’t a thing.
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.
Engels’ On Authority essay, which is famously known for showing a complete lack of understanding for what authority actually means
Care to expand? Maybe give a more accurate definition?
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.
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.
