• Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    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 [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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 [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            5 months ago

            What kind of Marxism? Marx’s Marxism, or that body of theory by his followers that even Marx denounced, i.e. ML, MLM, etc.

            Anarchist’s analysis of power has been spot-on ever since Bakunin predicted the bureaucratic dictatorship that Russia became under the Bolsheviki.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.

              Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.

              • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                While he didn’t specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: “All I know is that I’m not a marxist.” That’s what I was referencing.

                Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn’t claim that states “had issues”. Here’s a quote, for example:

                That is because no state, not even the most republican and democratic, not even the pseudo-popular state contemplated by Marx, in essence represents anything but government of the masses from above downward, by an educated and thereby privileged minority which supposedly understands the real interests of the people better than the people themselves.

                The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn’t have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn’t have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  That’s a bit ridiculous, with respect to the Marx claim. Marx was attacking Dogmatism, not his own ideas. Post-Marx’s death, people following his ideas understandably called themselves Marxists not because they worshipped Marx, but because they were working with his ideas!

                  As for Bakunin, he’s a pure idealist here. His rejection of the state is based on the notion that the elected cannot represent the will of the people because they are not the people. This, of course, is wrong, as it assumes the people do not want someone managing higher-order decisions! Letting vast improvements in material conditions be held back because workers had representatives is why Anarchism has failed to last very long.

                  As for the USSR being “State Capitalist,” that referred to the NEP. Judging Leftist movements by their structure as compared to perfect Marxism in a vacuum without considering the historical context is deeply silly idealism. You would have to do some heavy justification for why you believe a worker state to form a new class that isn’t just vibes.

                  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I’m not claiming he denounced his own ideas, but rather the people claiming to represent marxism. I’m not claiming that anyone worshipped Marx, but that they misunderstood his work.

                    No, sorry. Claiming that a state can work to not enslave the masses, just because “the right people” are in charge is the actual idealism.

                    Your claim about representation is wrong, too. Sorry. Anarchist regions have collapsed due to external military pressure. You should read a book on how well the material conditions improved in Catalonia. Sorry, your claims about anarghist regions failing to improve their material condition runs counter to reality and to the actual Marxist theory (that only the people can free themselves, etc.)

                    The whole planned economy was bogus. What do you think a class is?

                    Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.

            • Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Marx died March 14th, 1883

              Mao was born December 26th, 1893

              Was Karl Marx a time traveler?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The problem with anarchist theory is that it demonstrably doesn’t work. A theory that can’t be put into practice is not worth the paper its written on.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 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.