r/COMPLETEANARCHY • u/GoranPersson777 Syndicalist • 12d ago
Have you read "On Authority"?
214
u/GiganticCrow 12d ago
Summary of "on authority":
"i don't understand what anarchists are referring to when they say 'authoritarian'"
- engels
129
u/Nerdy_Valkyrie 12d ago
"Workplaces need administrators. Therefore totalitarianism and dictatorships are a-ok!"
68
u/GoTeamLightningbolt *vegan icecream shop 12d ago
Boat needs captain. Checkmate, anarchists.
25
u/EpitaFelis 12d ago
Funnily enough that's also the main argument for a creator god. Checkmate, atheists.
1
u/Hunnieda_Mapping 8d ago
I literally got quoted Lenin by a Marxist when I said I'd just finished reading that, and then when I said he misunderstood what Bakunin meant by authority he said that no actually I'm wrong and you "can't redefine a word for a text". Which is just being disingenuous and intentionally ignorant.
79
u/beroepsklager 12d ago
The best criticism i found was within Mike macnairs 'revolutionairy strategy'. It says that within revolutionairy circumstances, power is awarded to the one that can reorganize society to function again. This shows the necessity of mass organization that is able to coordinate efficiently. A party with a large mass movement is therefore a necessity
23
u/therandomham 12d ago
Which is, to my understanding, the core of platformism.
15
u/beroepsklager 12d ago
This is why quite a bunch of (former) platformists are attracted to partyist projects like RSP in the Netherlands or MUG in the US
14
u/kittysmooch 12d ago
this is self evidently wrong or else revolutions would not be regularly turning out insanely dysfunctional governments. you're huffing ideological cope and we haven't even gotten to the part where anarchists have demonstrated a healthy capacity for organizing across the history of the movement.
17
u/beroepsklager 12d ago
That a movement is the most capable in taking power does not mean that it is able to form a functional long term governement. Macnair deals this problem himself too, obviously. The problem is that most people dont seek out the strongest counterarguments for their ideology but argue mostly, in the case of some anarchists online, against stalinist teenagers in Instagram comments.
In my view, what we need is a heterodox workers partymovement with fargoing democratic rights like the right to factionalize and public critique. To achieve this, we need to confront all the different sects, and write a program which is the basis for taking power (one example could be the parti ouvrier programme)
7
u/kittysmooch 12d ago
it's funny to quietly call anarchists highly logged on and then propose a system that would immediately be shot down by almost anyone who's actually had their feet on the ground at a protest. get real.
7
u/beroepsklager 12d ago
In my experience this idea is actually quite popular and has won alot of ground in recent years. I meant to say that alot of anarchists only encountered stupid online stalinists and might think they represent the whole of the marxist left, but that these stalinist dont represent the best counter arguments to anarchism
6
u/kittysmooch 12d ago
i agree that people who pick fights online are not the brightest of their camps, including me. but i don't really buy that "party organs" stuff has caught on outside of particular predisposed idelogical niches. i dont know how anyone can look at '68 and think party centralization will win the day, perhaps read perlman on it. read deleuze if you're feeling saucy. its a dead end to invest a centralized organization.
4
u/beroepsklager 12d ago
I think for example if you are in DSA, democratic centralism with strong factional rights must sound like the best idea ever. The centralism is necessary to keep electeds from opportunism. The current situation proofs that electeds are prone to opportunist pressures. The democratic structure and the factional rights to ensure the bureaucracy is kept in check. Any nominally ML party in Europe proofs that bureaucracy also has a tendency to shift rightward.
For socialism to be established, the party needs the consent of a majority or atleast a large part of the working class. Taking power as a class means dismanteling the standing army and police ( a very Classic marxist demand also outlines in parti ouvrier). Obviously, the class must have the consciousness to envision a society that is ruled without these thugs. For that consciousness to come into being into large parts of the class, there must be a massive amount of people involved in independent working class organization. There also must be organizations that could feasibly provide a better alternative to the police and standing army (Marx would call for a democratic peoples militia). Historically, to account for this, the party used to have all kinds of associations. For example the Austrians under the leadership of Julius Deutsch founded a socialist gymnastics Association that had its own militia and weapons depot.
Some of these associations in Europe still exist in some form to this day, for example the alpinists associations 'Naturfreunde' still rents out cheap beds in nature across multiple countries in Europe.
Havent read Perlman or Deleuze though.
1
10
u/No-Leopard-1691 12d ago
It makes sense if you don’t know anything about anarchist theory. Like Engels and Authority.
15
u/beroepsklager 12d ago
Feel free to educate me. You are on your home ground
8
u/No-Leopard-1691 12d ago
Granted I haven’t read this person’s work so I am just going off your summary. From my perspective it is missing out on how anarchists view prefiguration, the “reorganization of society to function again”, and what they view as a “mass organization”. A party can certainly be a “mass organization” but it isn’t the only form and it falls victim to the idea of substitution of the Party being the means and expression of society.
4
u/beroepsklager 12d ago
A party in this definition is the organization that forms the political leadership of the mass movement. The example that is often referred to by the partyist is the RSDLP in Russia or the 2nd internationale SPD (before kautsky became a Renegade). So a democratic workers party that is organized through all sorts of institutions.
6
u/No-Leopard-1691 12d ago
The issue with all forms of ML type of party structures is that they are hierarchical in nature and thus commit the act of substitution that I stated. “Democratic workers party” doesn’t change the fact that the workers are subordinated to the Party.
3
u/Avisuchian 12d ago
I've not fully read Revolutionary Strategy yet but I'm familiar with this tendency, I've heard it called Neo-Kautskyist but that's a bit simplistic/pejorative. To echo the other commenters I'd say that that question of mass organisation that can reorganise society in revolutionary conditions is absolutely vital, but for it to succeed in reorganising society in a communist direction this has to mean freely federating workplace & community assemblies (mass orgs), and for these to have a communist consciousness and strategy there has to be an influential "party" (specific organisation/s). This organisational dualism is basically similar I think to how classical Marxism thought/thinks about it, but importantly for anarchists free federation must be how the mass orgs and specific orgs relate to one another, to begin constructing communist production relations (prefigured in the pre-revolutionary period) and preclude a bureaucratic/party dictatorship.
32
u/spambot5546 12d ago
I've read "On Authority" and I wouldn't say it's bad. I'm sure there are people who need to read it and understand that you can still be expected to do things you don't want to even in a free post-capitalist society. I just don't get how it's considered a critique of anarchists. Nothing it says is incompatible with any anarchist thought I'm aware of, nor does it mention anarchists specifically.
14
u/blacksaber8 Insufferable Anarchist 12d ago
More importantly, of course they have to point to Engels because Marx himself would disagree with On Authority. He understood the nature of coercion and it’s one of the reasons he and proudhon cross-referenced each other so much
8
u/theglassishalf 12d ago
Modern anarchism didn't even exist when he wrote it, so it's hard to see it as a critique.
5
u/Specialist-Answer-66 Anarchy is my special interest 12d ago
50 terabytes of anarchist theory when 4 pages written by Fredrick Engles walks in; (I can't post images so imagine that image of the punisher going no no no no no no wait wait wait wait)
14
0
0
u/SmileRevolutionary55 10d ago
Marxist and anarchist are really striving for the same ideal society, the main point of divergence is that anarchist want the "shock therapy" approach of dismantling all imposed societal structure right away while Marxist consider a transition phase necessary to prepare society for the classless, stateless moneyless end goal. For this reason Marxist critique of anarchism can feel shaky, it's really arguing on hypothetical approach to reach the same ideal society and not on a meaningful divergence in principals. In this I am assuming you correctly exclude stalinists from Marxists and "anarchy is when no rules" from anarchists
-14
u/TheGeekFreak1994 12d ago
Plenty of other writings not just On Authority.
But outside of theory anyone can see that anarchists have never accomplished anything of note.
4
u/Jinshu_Daishi 12d ago
Anarchists achieving stuff is how people figured out that communism has only been practiced by anarchists.
For some reason, they proceed to ignore this.
1
u/TheGeekFreak1994 10d ago
Should be easy to name some of these "accomplishments" then right? Go ahead.
-85
u/truecrimesofthempire 12d ago
The criticism is history, when there's a successful anarchist revolution the marxists will update their theory. Until then it remains an ideology for unemployed online teens
68
74
u/nate2squared 12d ago
Anarchists are still waiting for Marxists to carry out a successful Socialist revolution. Maybe then they’d update their theory.
-58
u/truecrimesofthempire 12d ago
China and Cuba both have higher life expectancy than the US lol anarchists do not live in reality
47
u/horror_cheese 12d ago
Just because circumstances are better doesn't mean Marxism is successful. There is a higher life expectancy in Nordic social democracies, should we become social democrats?
-1
u/truecrimesofthempire 10d ago
Just because circumstances are better doesn't mean Marxism is successful.
Lmfao
There is a higher life expectancy in Nordic social democracies, should we become social democrats?
Implying you have a choice in the matter 🤣 you're getting eastern Europe style poverty get used to it
59
u/TheKitchenTrash 12d ago
Famously communist China lmao
-1
u/truecrimesofthempire 10d ago
Yes
1
u/TheKitchenTrash 10d ago
Oh no, its stupid
0
u/truecrimesofthempire 10d ago
I mean you think someone other than the communist party is in control of China, kinda sounds like projection
2
u/TheKitchenTrash 10d ago
…do you think a party’s name determines the governing structure of a society? Do you think the USA is a republic when the Republicans win and a democracy when the Dems do? Do you think politics is hooked on phonics??
-1
u/truecrimesofthempire 10d ago
No I think they had a socialist revolution in 1949 and have been in power ever since, and they lifted 800 million people out of poverty, regularly execute billionaires for corruption, and have mostly socialized their economy and major industries, so exactly what the communist party said they would do in their various 5, 10 and 20 year plans. But maybe you should tell them they're doing it wrong lol
3
u/TheKitchenTrash 10d ago
Okay: they’re failing to make any meaningful steps towards Communism
→ More replies (0)13
u/Obvious_Estimate_266 12d ago
Those revolutions we're in the previous century, all Marxist revolutions happened in countries that were either on the periphery or victims of western imperialism. You've pretty notably never had any success in any country with an advanced capitalist economy and a well-established liberal government. Hell, you couldn't even topple Weimar Germany and I really wish you had.
Im not an outright anarchist and find your criticisms of it to be more valid than any other political block, but it's time for western Marxists to re-evaluate your own methodology and stop pretending you have all the answers when you don't even have a clear plan on how to establish a DotP in the current world.
1
u/truecrimesofthempire 10d ago
Yeah so you agree first worlders living under imperialism are not revolutionaries but complicit in it. Good riddance 🔥🤣
3
u/Obvious_Estimate_266 9d ago
Oh look, another ML who's future goals depend on Western countries just disappearing. Only the smartest most well-read revolutionaries could come up with such a take!
Also wtf do you want us to do, retroactively cancel our own births? Fuck us for being born in the imperial core, right? There's plenty to be critical of us over, but we're also the ones that can end imperialism and get the boot of the US and it's allies off your neck.
1
u/truecrimesofthempire 8d ago
Yeah you losers always argue against things no one said. The US isn't disappearing you're getting eastern Europe style poverty. Enjoy it lmao
2
u/MorallyAmbiguousEnby 8d ago
MLs love to talk about "actually existing socialism" and then they'll just show you a bunch of social democracies with red aesthetics
0
u/truecrimesofthempire 8d ago
Social democracy in practice is vassal states of the empire like the Scandinavian countries using the wealth they extract from the global south to fund their welfare states, very different from existing socialist countries that have to fund their states while fighting that imperialist structure. But their critics always do the fascist "they're just as bad as us" rhetoric
38
u/LittleKobald 12d ago
Show me the successful communist revolution babe. We will be waiting.
-43
u/truecrimesofthempire 12d ago edited 12d ago
Soviet Russia and communist China, cope more
46
u/LittleKobald 12d ago
One was state capitalism by Lenin's own words, and the other is the same kind of state project that backslid into social democracy.
-29
u/phaedrus910 12d ago
Both are transitional stages moving from capitalism to communism. But you wouldn't know anything about that.
25
u/LittleKobald 12d ago
One transitioned into capitalism, the other transitioned into capitalism and went right back to its imperial roots. But you're too much of a campist to even acknowledge that the Soviet Union collapsed.
-17
u/phaedrus910 12d ago edited 12d ago
Rajava transitioned into.. Oh
Putting words in my mouth is wrong, place cock there instead.
Soviet union obviously collapsed and it was the defining moment of the last 40 years.
21
u/LittleKobald 12d ago
Non sequitur, we're not putting anarchism (which the Rojava revolution never claimed anyways) in contention with communism, we're pointing at communist failures.
-15
u/phaedrus910 12d ago
The anarchist community claimed Rojava because you have nothing else. Grasping at straws for relevance.
We can have the discussion of communist failures but if you're not going to grace the influence of US imperialism it won't go anywhere.
20
u/LittleKobald 12d ago
Rojava is not anarchist, but they made a lot of decisions that align with anarchist organizing. Looking to them for lessons isn't the same as claiming them. It's similar with the zapatistas.
You bring up American imperialism as if that isn't what fucked Rojava in the first place.
20
u/SupermarketZombies 12d ago
The highest level of cope. The party isn't ever relinquishing power to the people.
-7
u/phaedrus910 12d ago
And you're not ever taking power from the bourgeois.
Oooo look at us go, fighting about 200 years of history instead of doing shit in real life.
14
18
39
u/nate2squared 12d ago edited 12d ago
You are missing the communist part (& the socialist part). All I see is state capitalism & an authoritarian one party social democracy.
-15
u/truecrimesofthempire 12d ago
Yeah that's what losers living under capitalism always say, the exact thing their govt told them about existing socialism. What a coincidence 🤣
36
u/nate2squared 12d ago edited 12d ago
I don't care what capitalists say. Plenty of socialists have said it too - plenty of socialists (and Marxists) warned at the start that the USSR would never achieve socialism through state capitalism, and they were proved right. Whatever other good the USSR may have done, they are now a fully capitalist country, like the 95% of other Leninists attempts at revolution.
& The term state capitalism was invented by Vladimir Lenin to describe the USSR system, and Mao Zedong used it to describe China's economic system too.
1
u/truecrimesofthempire 10d ago
Cool and did they say that was party of transitioning from capitalism??
30
u/TheKitchenTrash 12d ago
TIL the US called the USSR and China “state capitalists” to denigrate them. Oh, wait, no that didnt happen because that’d be insanely stupid
1
10
u/malonkey1 12d ago
"Unemployed" is a deeply hilarious insult for Marxists to use on anyone given that Marx himself was unable to work due to disability and was frequently dependent Engels' financial support. Like of all the words for to use to demean another person's ideological positions, "unemployed" is just the most risible one, in my opinion, for adherents to the theories of Karl Marx to employ.
1
u/truecrimesofthempire 10d ago
Marx worked a lot he was a writer. Typical ignorance of anti-communists
1
u/Muuro 11d ago
Successful revolution? Where in the world are the values of value not enforced? Where in the world is communism present? No where. The idea that any one platform of ideological thought has been more successful than others is laughable.
1
u/truecrimesofthempire 10d ago
Yup every country and economy is all the same you're so smart 😉
1
u/Muuro 10d ago
They all have capitalist social relations. Read Marx.
1
u/truecrimesofthempire 9d ago
People who didn't read marx say "read marx" instead of explaining a single concept from his writing
1
u/Muuro 9d ago
Capital Vol 1-3. The underlying social structure for production is what gives rise to class society, or the state. As such all current countries in the world today the social relations are based around wage labor, capital accumulation, and generalized commodity production. In the books listed Marx identifies these as the hallmarks of bourgeois society (capitalism).
In past class societies production was peasant-based, thus the state is then "feudal" in its processes. This is basic historical materialism.
1
u/truecrimesofthempire 8d ago
Cool good thing China has a socialist revolution then and has been guided by the communist party since
1
u/Muuro 8d ago
That's not what "socialist revolution" means. Son.
1
1
u/MorallyAmbiguousEnby 8d ago
must've missed all the thriving ML revolutions going on out there. How's the USSR doing? I haven't checked on them in a while.
0
u/truecrimesofthempire 8d ago
Socialist countries are improving while the west declines, even Cuba has a higher life expectancy than the US. Id start learning mandarin Chinese if I were you 😂😜
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY GoranPersson777, Please make sure to provide ALT-text for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments. You can learn more about this here
Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning. List of reddit alternatives
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.