this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
35 points (69.2% liked)
Memes
56020 readers
655 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
In Capitalist countries authority is used to oppress the masses and protect exploitation, in Socialist countries it is used to oppress the Capitalists (who don't just disappear the second the revolution succeeds), the CIA invented "Authoritarian" as a way of demonizing Socialist countries by drawing attention to how it suppresses the class enemy of the working class rather then who is suppressed and for who's benefit. A State is needed for as long as class antagonism exists, which itself will exist as long as class itself exists, which itself will exist so long as the material conditions for classes exist, which will exist until global communism is achieved. Until then, a State is needed to protect the success of the revolution, which is "Authoritarian", along with your brain telling your body to get up in the morning, the bullet from a gun used against fascists who do the same to you, or even missiles used to deter the U.S. from bombing the shit out of you which they have done before and would do again. TL:DR "Authoritarianism" isn't a thing.
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?
Fair point lol.
Sure. Criticisms of authority typically refer to systemic authority and power structures. It's not just the ability to compel somebody else at any given time. It's about contrasting different forms of social organization. Engles kinda tries to handwave the entire concept. But surely everyone can tell the difference between, say, a kingdom, and collective decisionmaking. To handwave the entire concept of authority, to me, is just an unwillingness to formulate a serious answer. It's denial.
I will say that most capitalists present some highly hypocritical arguments for what they call authoritarianism. I should sooner listen to the anarchist arguments, which also criticize the inherent authoritarianism in capitalism. One doesn't even need to be an anarchist to engage with that.
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?
I elaborated a bit in response to another comment: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/26471106