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? 🙄
I found the quote interesting. Is the source material bad? How so?
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.
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.
Authority as indirect or direct force (essentially the engels) argument is the only logical way of definition authority, as the hexbear post argues using the example of the armed mugger. The definition of authority as blind obedience (as defined by the anarchist) is completely flawed in that it doesn’t account for the source of the blind obidelience and isn’t easy to measure.
In addition to not making sense from a historical development or material analysis perspective
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
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
This video thoroughly debunks the essay
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yes, Engels does a pretty good job of explaining why “authoritarian” complaints are usually explained purely by vibes.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, but you obviously have no idea of modern anarchist theory.
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.
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.
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.
If memorizing age of consent laws by region is achieving socialism, then sure.
Please research what libertarian socialism means. You obviously have no idea what’s being talked about.
LMFAO
Xi will give the means of production back to the workers yany day now* I can feel it. /s
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.
Land of the free btw
I like how the reactionary communities post shit that isn’t thought out. Then you got a couple of… Left communities where they post thought out essays. Too long to read but probably mostly true
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
Obviously they do, they are dunking on armchair leftists that judge every leftist movement on how perfect it is, but judge all liberal structures with supreme nuance.
Seriously. I might not be a great “Marx Scholar” and I don’t think the revolution will just be a peaceful process “whished into existence” but I don’t think Marx was Dunkin g on anti authoritarians here and to presume the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the long term free society of Marx ideals is utter garbage. Communism will be anti-authoritarian or it will not be.
I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
Marx and Engels considered the mere act of revolution to be authoritarian. Advocating for a worker state is at some level authoritarian.
Jumping straight to statelessness is Anarchism, not Marxism, and has a much lower success rate at lasting any amount of time.
The thing is that anarchism fundamentally doesn’t scale. There’s a reason we see central authority arise in every functioning society regardless of its political system. It’s the same reason complex animals evolve things like nervous systems and brains. Large organism need a way to coordinate actions towards a common purpose, and a human society is no different. This is why we see anarchist style societies at small scales, and then as they grow they develop central coordination mechanisms. The fact that anarchist can’t wrap their heads around this simple concept is frankly depressing.
Anarchists tend to fall for idealism, and see only Anarchism as “good” and therefore acceptable. That’s really the key point, they feel like they must unify means and ends, and that the microscopic chance that one day Anarchism may be established is worth fighting for.
It’s idealism to the core and puts the individual over the well-being of the group.
Indeed, and this is why anarchism is really just an offshoot of the liberal ideology at the end of the day. Idealism holds that existence is inseparable from human perception and that reality stems from the mind. This leads them to think that they can just will reality into existence through sheer force of will. The general premise most anarchists seem to believe is that the state is responsible for all the problems in society, and if it was somehow abolished then people would just naturally act in cooperative and enlightened way. This appears to be premised on the assumption that most people think the way anarchists do.
You claim to know with great detail and certainty what anarchists believe without citing any anarchist thinkers. All you are doing is constructing a strawman of anarchists based on vibes hoping that none will be here to refute it. Anarchy is more than the absence of the state, and none who are knowledgeable posit that anarchy will materialize without effort. Anarchists are idealists not out of naivete, but necessity. It has been born out of history that when means and ends are not unified, the means become the ends. This was true of the Russian revolution when “all power to the Soviets” became hollow words and “war communism” became the new oppressor of the people.
Nah, I’m going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.
This was true of the Russian revolution when “all power to the Soviets” became hollow words and “war communism” became the new oppressor of the people.
Having actually grown up in USSR, I can tell you that listening to anarchists regurgitate this nonsense is incredibly offensive. It completely discredits your argument and shows that it is you who’s opining on a subject you have no understanding of. All people like you accomplish is enable capitalist oppression by rejecting real world solutions.
Nah, I’m going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.
The Bolsheviks discount anarchist achievements by claiming them as their own. Anarchists fought alongside the Bolsheviks because they promised to realize the anarchists’ goal of all power to the Soviets. When it became clear the Bolsheviks lied in order to selfishly establish themselves as the intelligentsia, a privileged class, the anarchists resisted and were violently repressed by their former brothers and sisters in arms.
I would like to hear about your experiences growing up in the USSR as I know there were many positive aspects, but by betraying the values for which many of the revolutionaries fought they created a society with an unstable foundation, as evidenced by its’ eventual collapse. Anarchists did not reject real world solutions, they defended them with their lives and lost. The Bolsheviks have themselves to blame for the collapse.
The dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the bourgeoisie are suppressed politically until they can be integrated into the rest of society, it doesn’t mean a dictatorship, it means a democracy where the former oppressors don’t get a seat at the table.
Wat?
we have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. but the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of god and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.
What does that have to do with “anti-authoritarians”. Sounds a bit like too much Engels to me.
Typical Stalinism/Maoism: Anyone who opposes my implementation of Marxism is an enemy of the proletariat and can be persecuted to any extent. These people agree with the mainstream idea that communism can’t be implemented democratically, but come to the conclusion that democracy must be abolished.
This meme is an open dogwhistle to tankies and thankfully meaningless to anyone who hasn’t fallen into or interacted with this small subsection of the far-left.
Are you conflating Capitalism with democracy?
Please, go ahead and develop. What part of my comment leads you to believe that?
What Communist says “Democracy must be abolished?”
The kind that rails on “anti authoritarianism”? Or do you have a charitable interpretation of “authoritarianism” that is somehow compatible with democracy?
I also fail to see what any of that has to do with capitalism, which I have neither defended nor mentioned yet you brought up.
Goddam arguing with tankies and their endless litany of non-sequiturs is such a pointless exercise.
Most communists are some branch of ML, even moreso if you exclude the imperial core. The CPC has over 100 million members.
You are the fringe subsection of the left.
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.
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.
We don’t want another Stalin or Mao.
Speak for yourself.
Oh, so you’re into fascists?
To ask that is to understand neither fascism nor communism.
Oh look, holocaust trivialization from an “anti-authoritarian”
You’re insulting all the people who suffered even more oppressive regimes than Stalin or Mao as a consequence of NOT arming themselves. Chileans suffered Pinochet as a consequence of lack of oppression of the fascist opposition during Allende. Spanish suffered Franco as a consequence of lack of oppression of the fascists during the Spanish Second Republic. Oppression is sadly a tool that must be used, as sparingly as possible that’s true, to prevent reactionary elements from maintaining or reinstating even more oppressive structures.
People everyday in post-colonial countries suffer immeasurable despair as a consequence of lack of revolution. If you criticise Stalin or Mao and consider them undesirable and illegitimate, you should be even more convinced of the illegitimacy of current western governments that impose imperialism on the global south. Every day that we delay or refuse these armed revolutions, we’re perpetuating this system which is even more harmful than the USSR or communist China by any metric possible.
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
Have you read Marxist theory? Marxists don’t typically identify themselves as idealists, preferring instead Materialism, specifically Historical and Dialectical Materialism.
Reading theory may help you better engage with leftists online.
Right, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the definition of idealist "One whose conduct or thinking is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations. "
Not that I necessarily am “An adherent of any system of philosophical idealism.”
But yes, I’ll read more Marxist theory specifically. I don’t have trouble interacting with leftists online very much, it’s just when I see leftists who are strictly authoritarian. The “by any means necessary” just ain’t it for me
I understand what you meant, it’s just that Marxists don’t take on that mantle whatsoever. Same with your notion that we rely on some “super smart authoritarian,” that goes against revolutionary theory.
That’s why I suggested reading theory. You seem to have an idea of what you want your end to be, and why current Capitalism is bad, but you lack organizational and Dialectical Materialist theory.
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.
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?
Took advantage of a wildly unpopular government during WWI to hold a revolution, taking the Winter Palace.
It wasn’t just a random strike and coup, but a revolutionary movement backed by a mass of workers.
That’s what a coup is.
A coup is a revolutionary movement with mass support? Are all revolutions coups?
You’re contradicting yourself little buddy, just earlier you were claiming that mass popular support is democracy. But apparently an uprising of the oppressed is just a coup. 🤡
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
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)
ah gotcha
sure
ok
yes
indeed
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.
The only exception was started by rich landowners because they didn’t want to pay taxes to the king. (American)
You really think the US is the only American colony that seceded from its colonial authority by means of violence? And are you implying that the current US government isn’t tyrannical?
or succeeds only for the winners to establish a new tyrannical system
You’re just making that up. You’re tautologically defining any successful violent revolution as failed because it didn’t eliminate every single hierarchy overnight. Even if I’m a Marxist-Leninist I can conceive why you’d make that argument about the USSR (though I’d disagree with you), but if you make that argument about Cuba too you’re just wrong. Cuba is a state much more democratic and much less oppressive by every metric than its predecessor. You’re just falling into that mentality that “the only acceptable revolutions are those which failed”.
Additionally, you’re failing to acknowledge that non-violent revolutions, such as Allende’s Chile and the Spanish Second Republic, can end up in bloodshed and a more authoritarian and repressive form of government not as a consequence of violent revolution, but as a consequence of the lack of it. As a Spanish myself, I’d have much rather seen a version of my country where there was an armed socialist repression against fascism (for example by the CNT or some Bolshevik party), than the history we lived, where a democratically elected, non-violent leftist government was nevertheless couped, plunged into civil war, and eventually turned into fascism. An armed revolution could have actually possibly prevented that. (Funny historical note: the only country that really supported the struggle against fascism in Spain was the USSR, despite the Italian and German fascists helping their Spanish counterpart.)
So, more propaganda that Biden is a Communist? Really, that’s how you make that point and comparison? Tired of the Dems are Communist trope when it’s not true. Sure Biden is for the worker - THE WORKER IS THE MIDDLE CLASS!!
Which by Trump has been shrunk, and not in a good way, making it harder for middle class workers. Biden, whether I agree with him or not, clearly thinks MORE about the middle class and worker protections than Trump ever has done.
Your interpretation of this meme is very funny. It has nothing to do with Biden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Rheinische_Zeitung
Then why use the same Meme for Dark Brandon?
wtf
Bro’s very, very lost
There is no such thing as the “middle class.”
you ok there little buddy?
