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.
People seriously still quote On Authority? 🙄
Yes, Engels does a pretty good job of explaining why “authoritarian” complaints are usually explained purely by vibes.
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.
Let me guess, you’ve read “The problems with on authority”, but haven’t read "A Marxist Response to “The problems with on authority” " ?
Here you go: https://hexbear.net/post/2141265
Lol, not dipping into that cesspool.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To this day, nobody’s actually articulated any counterpoints to it, so yeah.
Just cause you chose to ignore the well-founded critique, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
If the critique was well founded we’d see it applied in practice in the real world. The fact that anarchists aren’t able to put their ideas into practice shows that they can be safely binned.
Libertarian socialists have come closer to achieving socialism than any state in the ML tradition.
LMFAO
Xi will give the means of production back to the workers yany day now* I can feel it. /s
If memorizing age of consent laws by region is achieving socialism, then sure.
I found the quote interesting. Is the source material bad? How so?
Engels conflates authority with basically everything: necessity, organization, processes, violence, self-defense, etc.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anything else than ad-hominem attacks and wishful thinking? Like actually engaging with the actual critique, tankie?
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.
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
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.
This is the kind of analysis you get when you have no understanding how organizations work. Mao was not some lone actor who miraculously acquired supreme power, and then starved “half of China” for shits and giggles apparently.
Anyone familiar with the way that Mao operated knows that he made frequent use of the mass line and mass mobilisation. He also made use of the collective leadership of the party, and was often frustrated by their lack of cooperation with him (at one point even threatening to launch a revolution against the party). Even anti-communists who have at least studied China in detail know that the lone dictator nonsense is well, nonsense. It is just great man theory of history. A society is made of many moving parts.
As to the failures of the glf, they were entirely technical. The rush to industrialise in a decentralised manner left agricultural production vulnerable to poor weather conditions. This was compounded with the fact that much of the country at the time had poor transportation and communications, and ruled by corrupt cardie, leading to a disastrous lack of effective coordination across the nation. It is only with higher level organization today that countries can mount effective disaster responses. The glf proves the opposite of your point.
Just because you have trouble comprehending something doesn’t make it stupid.
Mark Twain Two Reigns of Terror Quote never gets old. People are blind to all the normalized terror around them that happens soley because one class seeks to maintain its dominance over the class they exploit to make thier lifestyles possible.
We get it, you’re bottoms. Can you stop shouting it daily on main, please?
nah, the actual bottoms are the people who have been so conditioned to subjugation that they can’t even imagine being in charge
Hey, just because they’re being homophobic doesn’t mean you should stoop to their level
I thought this was more of a BDSM thing?
The term comes from gay culture, and that is where it is still predominantly used.
But you also shouldn’t make fun of bdsm bottoms (without negotiating)
Right, so your solution is to get the people you like to do the terrorizing? Genius play. Really smart. I see no downsides.
What’s the alternative? Ending up like Allende, or the Spanish second republic, or Rosa Luxembourg? “The only good socialist movements are those who fail”
You need to take power in a way that doesn’t make a majority of the population hate your guts. Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.
You say that as if communists don’t want democracy. I want the highest degree of democracy possible, I just understand that the material conditions that allow revolutions don’t always allow for extremely high democracy at the beginning, and how a vanguard party of communist intellectuals can initially serve well to guide an uneducated populace or, worse, educated against communism as we are now.
So we just need super smart authoritarian communist to lead a bloody revolution backed by the uneducated masses that will then be handed over peacefully to the uneducated masses once communism is firmly established?
I support communism, I want revolutionary change, and I’m an idealist. But I don’t understand how that’s realistically possible. Theoretically possible, but the number of complications that would arise, the number of variables that could go wrong and destroy the entire movement, how easy it would be to corrupt… It’s never happened before for a reason, and having violent, bloody revolutions every few decades in the hopes it finally works perfectly this time doesn’t seem constructive or intelligent to me. There has to be a better way to balance how fast the change happens and how fragile and volatile the system will be during the change
We need, as commies, to establish grassroots movements that will improve things locally, create safety nets, organize labor to get progressively better victories through strike and if necessary through other means, and to have a growing sector of workers that are class-conscious. When the material conditions arrive, we need to have a critical mass of class-conscious workers so that we can organise as best as possible, and help to educate the rest of people, and to discuss the wants and needs of the workers and translate those needs to the vanguard party. But we also need the vanguard party.
You talk about how things can “go wrong and corrupt the entire thing”, but by doing so you’re forgetting that that’s already the case, that we live in a corrupt, bloody and oppressive system, which kills millions every year worldwide through violent and less-violent means. You say it’s never happened, but I disagree with you. Ask an anarchist and they’ll tell you about Zapatista and Rohinya movements. Ask a Marxist-Leninist like me and we’ll tell you about Cuba and the USSR and why we believe they’re inherently more democratic and less oppressive than the current system, although admittedly not perfect. Our best tool to prevent the system from being corrupt, is to have as many class-conscious workers as possible. So let’s organise labor, let’s create communities and activist organizations, and let’s improve things on a local level, so that people’s material conditions start to improve and as a bonus we can draw more people to the movement that actively improves their lives.
The way to such a system can’t be through a violent uprising, you’ll be seen as illegitimate and opportunists. Revolutions themselves are very volatile points in history, and it can be very easy for the wrong person or set of people to take the reigns of power. We don’t want another Stalin or Mao.
Revolution can only effectively happen with a mass worker movement, yes. Communists aren’t advocating for coups.
Please read any revolutionary theory, even Lenin. None advocate for coups.
Remind me, what exactly did the red army do to put the communists in power?
You may or may not be making a valid point, but you need to be clearer about who you are referring to and in which context.
the meme is referencing a quote from marx that is greatly useful for dunking on idealist leftists who believe that the revolution can simply be wished into existence without all the dirty work.
Do you consider yourself a leftist?
obviously
Revolutionaries thinking that only if they terrorize enough people a new better society will magically come into existence.
And of course they will be the new ruling class, never on the receiving end of the terror.
Anti-communists thinking that by doing blanket condemnations of past mistakes instead of historical and material analysis of why it happened, how much was necessary, and how much was the excess, they can totally avoid them in the future and bring down capitalism with the power of love.
How many times does the same mistake have to repeat? Communists didn’t invent revolutions you know. Peasant rebellions were a thing in medieval Europe, and many different kinds of uprisings were tried during the centuries. And there’s the same pattern repeating again and again - it either fails in bloodshed, or succeeds only for the winners to establish a new tyrannical system.
The only exception was started by rich landowners because they didn’t want to pay taxes to the king. (American)
Note that I’m talking about violent revolutions - there were quite a few examples of non-violent or semi-violent revolts/uprisings that didn’t end up catastrophically. India, South Africa, Portugal, post-communist Eastern Europe come to mind.
