for all the "anti-authoritarians" out there : memes

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 34 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

People seriously still quote On Authority? 🙄

[–] highduc@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I found the quote interesting. Is the source material bad? How so?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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

This video thoroughly debunks the essay

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 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@slrpnk.net 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago (9 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

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, Engels does a pretty good job of explaining why "authoritarian" complaints are usually explained purely by vibes.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (18 children)

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.

load more comments (18 replies)

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Lol, not dipping into that cesspool.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] somenonewho@feddit.de 19 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wat?

[–] imnotfromkaliningrad@lemmy.ml 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

karl marx

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago

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.)

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right, so your solution is to get the people you like to do the terrorizing? Genius play. Really smart. I see no downsides.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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"

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Empathy 10 points 9 months ago

We get it, you're bottoms. Can you stop shouting it daily on main, please?

Memes

Rules: