• davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    Friedrich Engels, 1872, On authority

    Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?

    Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction.

      • highduc@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I found the quote interesting. Is the source material bad? How so?

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          On authority is used to justify the fact that many communist movements of the past turned into brutal dictatorships and that “it’s fine actually that mao starved half of China because you can’t have a revolution without being authoritarian”.

          The actual paper is short and kind of stupid. What Engels was arguing in that short essay with a ridiculously outsized influence was that he was technically correct (the best kind) that anarchists are silly because any type of government someone could propose inevitably involves one person imposing their will on another like your quote says.

          Really what Engels (who was a prominent communist thinker) was doing was fucking up any attempts at communist organization because now 1/3 of communists think that brutal authoritarianism is based and necessary for a revolution.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            He literally just cites abridged arguments from “The problems with on authority”

            Read "A Marxist Response to “The problems with on authority” ": https://hexbear.net/post/2141265

            Also yeah, I watched it so everyone else doesn’t have to waste time

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              Ok, I’ve read it and I’m not impressed. The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly 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. While the hexbear author acknowledges that fact in the beginning and seems to take the (IMHO flawed) definition of the anarchist’s critique at face value, he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                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.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  They aren’t engaging with the definition in a serious way. That is my point.

                  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. With that definition, which is compatible with the bulk of anarchist theory, “On authority” is nothing, but the incoherent ramblings of someone with too much personal beef.

                  The hexbear author not once seriously engages with any of the two viewpoints given in the anarchist rebuttal. 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. If I change the preconditions in the middle of my logical chain, shit will get goofy. Duh.

                  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.

                  No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.

                  The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.

                  The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.

                  Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority. Therefore, they don’t argue against necessity, or self-defense.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    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:

                    1. then don’t link a video to defend your point that you don’t agree with

                    2. 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?

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            An anticommunist breadtuber (but I repeat myself) debunks Engels 😂 Anarchism, unlike Marxism-Leninism, has yet to succeed in the real world for more than a few months. We will welcome anarchists’ lectures once they’ve proven their theory in praxis.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              5 months ago

              Anything else than ad-hominem attacks and wishful thinking? Like actually engaging with the actual critique, tankie?

              • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Anarchism’s lack of success to date is historical fact, and I think that’s reason enough not to take the time to engage with some Burgerland anarchist’s video essay.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Someone’s scared, I see.

                  What a great theorist Engels must have been, given that you must find ridiculous excuses in order to avoid engaging critically with his work. /s

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Yes, Engels does a pretty good job of explaining why “authoritarian” complaints are usually explained purely by vibes.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          He mostly explained how he actually didn’t really have a proper grasp of what authority actually means. He conflated them with a lot of things without actually making sense. I’m surprised why “On authority” is so widely known.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            He has a great grasp on how often Anarchists operate mainly on vibes, even if in practice when they get into power they still implement some form of authoritarianism, such as the labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Sorry, but claiming that just shows that someone didn’t engage at all with anarchist theory.

              Edit - addendum: even if this wasn’t true back then in Engel’s days: Still quoting him today ignores all that anarchist theory on power that happened since then.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I have, I used to lean more Anarchist, until I read more Marxist theory. Concepts like ParEcon were extremely interesting, and could be applied to both an Anarchist system or a Worker State. I am aware of Anarchist principles of horizontal organization, and I think they are quite beautiful, but I am also aware that Anarchist critique of Marxism falls flat almost all of the time.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  What kind of Marxism? Marx’s Marxism, or that body of theory by his followers that even Marx denounced, i.e. ML, MLM, etc.

                  Anarchist’s analysis of power has been spot-on ever since Bakunin predicted the bureaucratic dictatorship that Russia became under the Bolsheviki.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.

                    Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.

                  • Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Marx died March 14th, 1883

                    Mao was born December 26th, 1893

                    Was Karl Marx a time traveler?

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                The problem with anarchist theory is that it demonstrably doesn’t work. A theory that can’t be put into practice is not worth the paper its written on.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.