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.
which is famously known for showing a complete lack of understanding for what authority actually means.
I imagine this is the point where you start defining authority in a completely abstract and arbitrary way, rather than the most simple, common-sense one intelligible to every worker already.
Engels is already one step ahead of you:
But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that’s true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
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.
does the crew agree collectively to pick such a leader, or is the leader forced upon them by threat of violence?
That’s related to, but not fundamental to the definition of authority, whose core point is enforcement via class violence (IE either capitalist authority or proletarian authority). You can have a completely democratic selection process, and the enforcement of that decision is still “authoritarian”, unless you want to allow everyone to break the decisions that are reached.
Marxists already have this collective democratic process, its called democratic centralism, which takes many different forms depending on the situation, but is essentially “diversity in discussion, unity in action”. One of the first practictioners of it was Mao, who impressed that individual red army units during the Chinese civil war should select their own officers.
Once decisions are selected, they are binding upon the members. I can tell you from experience that “anti-authoritarian” types consider even democratic rulings “oppressive”, and that they feel free to break them since that imposes on their individual freedom.
What if they want a different leader, are they able to choose a new one?
That also is related to, but not fundamental, to the question of authority. Recall exists(ed) not only in communist countries, but even in liberal dictatorships, where recall does absolutely nothing to hinder the authority of the capitalist class.
If anti-authoritarianism to you (like many anarchists) means the freedom to disobey (even democratic rulings), then its no wonder that every single historical anarchist attempt has lasted less long than it took most of us to get through highschool.
The only way for a revolution to survive is for proletarian authority to be even more organized and more disciplined than its capitalist opponents.
No need to explain a fact that’s famously known. Turn on the TV and everyone will be talking about Engels misunderstanding authority. Go walk in the park and you’ll overhear people talking about Engels misunderstanding authority.
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.
I imagine this is the point where you start defining authority in a completely abstract and arbitrary way, rather than the most simple, common-sense one intelligible to every worker already.
Engels is already one step ahead of you:
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.
That’s related to, but not fundamental to the definition of authority, whose core point is enforcement via class violence (IE either capitalist authority or proletarian authority). You can have a completely democratic selection process, and the enforcement of that decision is still “authoritarian”, unless you want to allow everyone to break the decisions that are reached.
Marxists already have this collective democratic process, its called democratic centralism, which takes many different forms depending on the situation, but is essentially “diversity in discussion, unity in action”. One of the first practictioners of it was Mao, who impressed that individual red army units during the Chinese civil war should select their own officers.
Once decisions are selected, they are binding upon the members. I can tell you from experience that “anti-authoritarian” types consider even democratic rulings “oppressive”, and that they feel free to break them since that imposes on their individual freedom.
That also is related to, but not fundamental, to the question of authority. Recall exists(ed) not only in communist countries, but even in liberal dictatorships, where recall does absolutely nothing to hinder the authority of the capitalist class.
If anti-authoritarianism to you (like many anarchists) means the freedom to disobey (even democratic rulings), then its no wonder that every single historical anarchist attempt has lasted less long than it took most of us to get through highschool.
The only way for a revolution to survive is for proletarian authority to be even more organized and more disciplined than its capitalist opponents.
“Uhh ur wrong, Engels is wrong, and it’s so obvious that I don’t need to point out how.”
Behold, liberal analysis. “Nuh uh.”
Care to expand? Maybe give a more accurate definition?
No need to explain a fact that’s famously known. Turn on the TV and everyone will be talking about Engels misunderstanding authority. Go walk in the park and you’ll overhear people talking about Engels misunderstanding authority.
I dont get what you are saying, can you expand?