this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
29 points (67.1% liked)
Memes
56020 readers
347 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
These things are central to what I consider authority. You may have a different definition but then I guess we're discussing different things. "Proletarian authority" makes zero sense in the vocabulary of anarchism, it only works with Engels' definition that conflates authority with power. But I don't think arguing about the meaning of words is a good pastime.
It sounds like you are in favor of Mao letting people choose their own generals rather than being appointed centrally. Why? Are you some sort of anti-authoritarian?
That's fine if you want to define it differently according to your own standards, and think that if proletarians make laws and rules, being forced to obey them isn't authoritarian (although you would be going against most of your anarchist comrades with that definition, who consider any affront to personal liberty, "authoritarian").
Mao and every other ML are defining authority in the same way; all consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to be equivalent to working-class democracy, and democratic centralizsm. "Anti-authoritarians" staunchly oppose Mao and the DOTP, so you'd be in a tiny minority of anarchists if you actually support the CPC.
Hm I thought we were going somewhere. Whether or not I support Mao is besides the point. The point is that we both seem to think it's good that in that system, people could choose their own generals. Not to mention you've poured your heart and soul into developing an incredible federated software that defies central control. I know why I like that, but I'm confused as to why you would.
I'm not some pure-blooded anarchist. I don't strictly adhere to one ideology. I don't think anyone should.
I don't see this, or any federated service as anti-authoritarian. I see it as increasing the authority and power of normal people at the expense of corporate / capitalist authority. We must own our own tools, media, news, and communications platforms, and use the power and authority these tools give us to moderate and curate content according to what we think is appropriate, rather than pushing pro-capitalist and western-supremacist narratives that inundate the english-speaking media landscape.