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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago

Just because you have trouble comprehending something doesn't make it stupid.

[–] Prunebutt -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Engels conflates authority with basically everything: necessity, organization, processes, violence, self-defense, etc.

This video thoroughly debunks the essay

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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 -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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:

then don't link a video to defend your point that you don't agree with
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?

[+] Prunebutt -6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.
Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.

I read the anarchist rebuttal. It made clear that force and authority are different things. The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay. The hexbear author didn't understand that, or misrepresented the anarchist.

It's ok, if you didn't get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?

Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate? If not, then you don't understand the anarchist's critique.

How would you know? You didn't fucking read it, if you didn't source the argument of "authority is created through unquestioning obedience"!

I did read both the anarchist's rebuttal and the hexbear comment (as far as I could stomach). I don't completely agree with the anarchist's rebuttal, which is why I didn't share it. The hexbear bloke didn't genuinely take the anarchist's proposal seriously, as I've explained several times now.

There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the "Problems with "On Authority""? No?

That's not what the essay's author claims. The essay's author doesn't view self-defense as "blind obedience", hence they don't think it is authority. Please stop misrepresenting stuff, it's getting exhausting.

It's no use arguing, if we both don't accept each other's definition of authority. You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels' definition. I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.

Just admit that you don't want to consider anarchist perspectives. It would save you a lot of time.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.

Okay so the first problem is that you're basing your ideas around the soviet union on popular western media and not an actual understanding of how the system worked.

Here is a fun rabbit hole to go down.. how did too much horizontalism lead to a failure to cyberize the planned economy ala cybersyn?

The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.

Timestamp.

It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?

The decisions made regarding the nature and circumstances of operation impose restrictions on all operatives in the system, ergo decisions made on a local level affect everyone. It is the monopolization of the use of literal power (and torque) unless you reject specialization, it is the imposition of authority. And rejecting specialization on a practical societal level requires a massive imposition of authority.

Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate?

Yes, are you asking a ML if they don't understand the difference between strong and weak delegates? Y'all know democratic centralism is our thing right? Which is a much more thorough application of the principle.

The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay.

LOL. Someone pointing a gun at you and giving you instructions isn't authority? It isn't the monopolization of violence in this context?

The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority.

The essays author establishes that some anarchists define self defense as a justifiable exercise in authority.

You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition.

No, the argument is that the anarchist definition isn't grounded in materialism.

I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.

That is because Engels is a dialectical materialist and convinced that definitions grounded in dialectical materialism are superior- his problem is that anarchists are being idealist in their definition, and that they should embrace a more coherent definition of it.

Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives.

I spent a couple years reading anarchist literature, and turned to reading marxist lit when the anarchists started giving unsatisfactory explanations.

This might be your pipeline. But I would suggest avoiding wasting time on YouTube.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I spent a couple years reading anarchist literature, and turned to reading marxist lit when the anarchists started giving unsatisfactory explanations.

Are you me?!

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think that's a pretty common experience in strongly anticommunist societies

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

I agree, post-radicalization Anarchism is a comforting and easy position to adopt, because western Anarchists tend to rail against Marxism, which fits with liberal anticommunism.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.