Hm I thought we were going somewhere. Whether or not I support Mao is besides the point. The point is that we both seem to think it’s good that in that system, people could choose their own generals. Not to mention you’ve poured your heart and soul into developing an incredible federated software that defies central control. I know why I like that, but I’m confused as to why you would.

I’m not some pure-blooded anarchist. I don’t strictly adhere to one ideology. I don’t think anyone should.

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.

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?

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.

I elaborated a bit in response to another comment: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/26471106

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.

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.