Friedrich Engels' 'On Authority' - An Anarchist Response
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- Sources
Brecher, J (1997). Strike! Boston: South End Press. p17, p32.
Dolgoff, S (1971). Bakunin On Anarchy. New York: Vintage Books. p76-97; p226-242. Available:
libcom.org/files/Bakunin%20on...
Engels, F (1872). On Authority. Available:
www.marxists.org/archive/marx...
Hartman, J and Lause, M (2012). In the Sphere of Humanity:
Joseph Déjacque, Slavery, and the Struggle for Freedom. Published Digitally via Creative Commons License by the University of Cincinnati Libraries 2012. p4-39. Available:
marx.libcom.org/files/Le%20Hum...
Leval, G (1975). Collectives in the Spanish Revolution. 2nd ed. London: Freedom Press. p450-487. Available:
libcom.org/files/Gaston%20Leva...
Wetzel, T (retrieved 2017). On Organisation. Available: theanarchistlibrary.org/libra....
Small correction - Engels did not himself own the factory, his father did and Engels helped to manage it. Apologies for this error.
Another small correction is that Tom Wetzel identifies as a libertarian socialist rather than libertarian communist.
Engels took part in the Baden-Palatinate uprising so it's silly of you to criticize him as an armchair critic in contrast to that French anarchist.
I know Tom Wetzel! He is a solid comrade and one of the best ansyns and educators that I ever knew.
Have you read 'From Democracy to Freedom' by crimethinc? You should check it out if not!
Of course he does 😉
You should watch Socialism for All's reply to this video. NGL, I agree with him - you seem really hostile in this video and yet, you seem about 90-95% in agreement with the text you claim to be debunking.
Listening to On Authority made me more of an anarchist
Also I didn’t even have to listen to this response cause I was thinking most of the same points
from a revolutionary anarchist to a reformist anarchist, okay...
@@twoface2001 more like a marxist with a psychotic fear of the word authoritarian
@@kobemop how so?
@@twoface2001 I think a lot of anarcho communists are more likely closer to minarcho communist because an anarchist might believe that we'd need to abolish all forms of hierarchy, while minarcho communists believe that hierarchy should be minimized as much as possible.
I am the latter, because I believe the idea that power begets power, and power corrupts, so only where hierarchy is far more useful than no hierarchy should hierarchy exist, plus giving more power to one position leaves you more open to spies sabotaging you.
such as in the Ussr, the general secretary and the executive committee had too much power which allowed them to make private property legal.
What is Marx's conception of freedom? You say it is similar to that of Bakhunin, but then you explain how to achieve it. Without actually defining it.
Things are very difficult for anarchists in Greece. Most of our squats have been evacuated one after the other... But sooner or later we are gonna take them over again! (Although I am a little skeptical about how well squats work in coping with capitalism, what is your opinion on that? You could make a video about squats, I think it would be a nice topic, thanks.)
Yea unfortunately with koulis in government our options are limited and the stubid curfew don't doing us any fevor to... I thing is time for something more massive in the streets
Covid has most certainly helped them by giving them an excuse to limit our liberties by creating rules that not even koulis follows
@@mkokkinos Yeah, this is exactly what happened, the government has passed so many unacceptable laws during the pandemic, taking advantage of the fact that we could not protest on a large scale because of the whole situation.
I saw some of the shit the Greek cops are doing on the news the other day. Stay well and stay strong comrades.
@@guidemeChrist exactly anarchy serve no purpose!!! Anarchy serve humanity...
Are you planning to put the script on the Anarchist Library ? (great video btw)
It would be interesting to see contradictory stances among anti-authoritarian socialist Bakunin's anti-semitism, Eugene Debs' anti-immigration views, George Orwell's homophobia, Proudhon's... pretty much everything (anti Semite, sexist, racist). Maybe could show how certain ways of thinking can go horribly wrong, (despite ardent general support for good causes), and undermine the greater point and cause each of them looked to push forward. I've been thinking more about the crucial mistakes revolutionaries have run into on the psychological front recently.
Marx was racist and pro colonization. He was in favor of the annexation of Mexico into California and referred to the indigenous inhabitants as “lazy Mexicans”. That’s just the start.
It just shows that although they laid the foundations for progressive ideologies and liberation, they were still human and a product of their time
@@hassankhan-jg1dx lol, the whataboutism begins.
it's called historical context. Everybody is products of their time to an extent.
@@joeschmoe2202 most of the people mentioned in the comment I replied to weren’t Anarchists.
hey, could you make a video on Rojava? seems like a really interesting attempt at libertarian socialism, that's going very well
Agreed. An ML friend was trying to say it's just a problematic US imperialist proxy state, and would love to hear an explanation and response.
@@ComradeLavender I mean there are some problematic stuff there, like any other country. But under the circumstances they seem to me doing very well.
Like they made those alliances with western & now Syrian forces for like strategic reasons.
no it isn't. lol
@@joeschmoe2202 could you elaborate
I love MLs bro. Any group or country that is anti-capitalist or even socialist but isnt a carbon copy of the Leninist model is somehow a Capitalist dystopia. Although in this case I hope they just mean the fact that during the Obama admin they backed Rojava over Assad and NATO technically still does. Which is pretty obvious once you realize that Assad was backed by Russia and the entire civil war has become a proxy war for years. The US gives military support to Rojava because theyll be a thorn in Assads side and at best will get autonomous region in a liberal democratic capitalist Syria. They dont give a shit what the kurds do, they care about Russia not getting a foothold (puppet) in Arabia.
I am watching this right after your video from 6 years prior on the topic of Authoritarian “Socialism” vs Libertarian Socialism and it’s making each point hit that much harder! Thank you for your continued effort in debunking authority and paving the path for greater understandings of all things Libertarian, Communist and Socialist. You have brought so much knowledge to a fledgling anarchist like myself and I just can’t take you enough!
Very good video. Minor correction though. Myself and Wetzel are both in Workers' Solidarity Alliance so we have worked together for like 4-5 years now. He actually doesn't identify as a Libertarian Communist, he prefers "Libertarian Socialism" because he thinks that the proposals of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel (Participatory Economics) when combined with Anarcho-Syndicalist strategy are more well worked out than 19th century Anarchist Communism. It's probably the only significant point of disagreement between he and I.
Oh sorry about that! Even still, the point stands that most communists would probably be okay with his proposals there.
Oh also, the photo of Dejacque you used has been widely associated with him, but according to Shawn Wilbur's scholarship it's actually of an Eastern European poet. There are no actual known photos of Dejacque to my knowledge.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew No need to apologize and yea the point you made obviously still stands.
I have no idea how challenging this would be, but could be trouble you to have the text on the screen? Or perhaps closed captioning set up?
Subtitles have now been published.
Great video, I was waiting for someone to do this.
THANK. YOU.
"Take that Straw-Man, NAH!"- Fredrik Skeletor Engels
Thank you for this!
👍
Thanks for doing this video. A much needed rebuttal to this widely worshiped strawman.
The funny thing is that Friedrich Engels actually contradicts himself. In "On Authority" he writes that factory production is inherently despotic and inevitably authoritarian. Then five years later in his book "Anti-Dühring" he writes:
"In making itself the master of all the means of production to use them in accordance with a social plan, society puts an end to the former subjection of men to their own means of production. It goes without saying that society cannot free itself unless every individual is freed. The old mode of production must therefore be revolutionised from top to bottom, and in particular the former division of labour must disappear. Its place must be taken by an organisation of production in which, on the one hand, no individual can throw on the shoulders of others his share in productive labour, this natural condition of human existence; and in which, on the other hand, productive labour, instead of being a means of subjugating men, will become a means of their emancipation...."
Well, gee, Engels, which is it?
*Engels when trashing anarchism* Hurhur anarkiddies, don't you know industrial production is inherently authoritarian?
*Engels when advocating Marxism* In communism, industrial production will be emancipatory!
Anyways... I'm so glad you're doing videos again. I've been watching you since way back in the day. You've been an inspiration to me in doing my own UA-cam videos.
????
In anti-Duhring he is talking about a communist mode of production, which liberates man from the conditions he lived under capitalism, crises, insecurity about homes and food, the anarchy of the market and will be able to control the development of the productive forces and social relations themselves.
In authority he is talking about the division of labour, or specifically about a person (not on a societal level) who has to subject himself to "the movement of the machine".
This is just bad faith arguing
@@dialecticalveganegoist1721 In "On Authority" he seems to say that the authoritarian nature of industrial production is inescapable, and anarchists are fools to believe otherwise.
@@dialecticalveganegoist1721 Man liberated in the first is the individual in the second. He, in the quote above, particularly highlights that it is the individual and not humanity as such.
@@LuckyBlackCat Yes capitalist production is inherently authoritarian, an important reason why early socialist development under a dictatorship of the proletariat continues to reproduce bourgeois relations (since it carries out state capitalist production,) and why it is necessary to continue class struggle under socialism. Once the material abundance, technological level and social relations of society are advanced enough we can move into the socialist mode of production. Late socialism will likely include a few years of ones life being in the factories and collective farms and the rest being largely free associative labor using commonly held means of production, with little to no obligations beyond those inherent in things like kinship, morality, tending earth, parent-child, etc.
This is a bad faith misreading of Engels' text. He states quite clearly that "the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable." So his point is that under communism, authority would be restricted solely to that which is absolutely necessary in order to organize production. Under capitalism, authority goes far beyond this necessary limit due to the private ownership of the means of labor. Under communism, authority would be limited to the smallest necessity. Your comment demonstrates a basic confusion over this simple point.
It strikes me as particularly authoritarian to look at people defending themselves and others against oppression and accuse those people of just being authoritarian as well because sometimes in order to defend yourself and others against oppression the use of some kind of force might be employed. It's literally saying that "if you use any kind of force whatsoever it's inherently authoritarian" and that's just not true because for one thing the use of force doesn't require authority (meaning hierarchy in this context) and you can't have authoritarianism if there is no authority. I feel like even the straw man of anarchism/anti-authoritarianism being argued against isn't even really adequately addressed by this piece and it certainly doesn't debunk actual anarchism, but given the frequency with which it can be invoked as an argument against anarchism it's still worth addressing nonetheless.
RIGHT? It completely ignored the power dynamics already at play
Yeah that is kind of weird.
Fantastic Video!!
Another great video
One thing I take issue with is you seem to treat Engels describing justified revolutions as “authoritarian” as a moral judgment on his part. I thought it was clear in the text that he isn’t condemning revolutions for relying on authority nor is he equating all uprisings with each other. At no point does he explicitly or implicitly equate a bourgeois revolution with a proletarian revolution in this text.
What he was saying that I feel wasn’t really addressed in this video is the fact that the opposition in any revolution is going to describe its enemies as authoritarian or draconian, whether in good faith or not. For example, we are seeing pro-Trump reactionaries in the u.s. claim that they are being “force-fed” critical race theory in prison and are even asking to be transferred to Gitmo for more “merciful” treatment. This is an example of someone trying to use antiauthoritarian rhetoric in bad faith. That is what I felt was the focus of the criticisms in this text, not against anarchists in general.
I have seen “leftists” condemn the Haitian Revolution, for example, for featuring violence against white French civilians, some describing the entire revolution as a net negative due to it being “authoritarian.” This is not a good faith argument as it oversimplifies the tactics used by the oppressed peoples in the rebellion, plays into untrue/anti-Black stereotypes, and ignores the brutal conditions that necessitated such a revolution in the first place under chattel slavery, colonialism, capitalism, and anti-Blackness. I am not saying that the Haitian Revolution would be accurately described as authoritarian. I agree with you that resisting oppression is not authoritarian. Thing is, because authoritarian’s definition strictly refers to censorship, suppression, and violence (with its connotations varying from person to person), it’s a term that is often appropriated and misused depending on who the speaker is. That is why I personally am not a fan of the term. I feel like this distinction was made much better in Greg Jackson's “Authoritarian Leftists: Kill the Cop in Your Head,” but sadly, many people are not as discerning in their usage of this very volatile term as Jackson was.
Engels is not arguing that no one should ever question any attempt to seize power. This text seems to instead suggest that many people (sometimes anarchists, sometimes liberals, etc.), in a well-intentioned effort to resist unjust hierarchies (which should be combatted), end up focusing so heavily on condemning any example of autonomy suppression that they end up misrepresenting the reality of armed conflict and misrepresenting the urgent need to suppress the bourgeoisie and other reactionary elements. This text is meant to be a warning against utopianism and accidental chauvinism, not against anarchism, autonomism, etc. It’s necessary to combat reactionaries, no one argued against that, but these are protracted struggles and that fighting will not lead to lasting changes if you do not suppress reactionary ideologies and people. We should not let racists, rapists, etc. regain the power they once held in such a scenario. Once you fight back, though, expect a pushback from reactionaries claiming in bad faith that they are being oppressed by left “authoritarians,” and we need language to combat that falsehood.
Furthermore, if you think this is just a tactic used by the most ardent reactionaries, I am saddened to report that we saw even so-called leftists like George Orwell, who even expressed support for anarchist movements in his younger years, would later willingly become rats for the british government against civil rights icons, communists, etc. using this kind of logic. This does contribute to fractures, chauvinism, and security breaches in movements. Combatting things like this is what I felt was the purpose of this text, not criticizing anarchists. Engels’ text criticized utopians who resist armed struggle and reject suppression of the bourgeoisie post-revolution, which he does not conflate entirely with anarchists. There are certainly criticisms of anarchist tactics at points, but it’s more targeting a very specific subset demonstrating chauvinism or those who reject the concept of collective infrastructure.
Anarchists have every reason to be especially critical of authoritarian tendencies. Anarchists in Russia helped to overthrow the tzar and provisional government, only to be thrown into gulags or worse for their ideologies afterwards. They had accurately described the state socialism of Russia decades in advance of the revolution, yet even to this day, statists still smear them as having been "naive." Context is important as well, as some hierarchy is democratic and administered from the bottom up.
@@r.w.bottorff7735 The anarchist circles in Russia, including Makhno himself, had a serious problem with failing to curtail antisemitic pogroms (which the Red Army had a better track record on) and sexual violence within their ranks. Even Makhno's fellow anarchist intellectual and comrade, Volin, admitted that the allegations of gang rape by Makhno and his closest comrades were credible enough that he believed them to be true. In the first source below, Volin blames Makhno's gang rapes on his drinking, which we know isn't a good excuse. Makhno's forces also failed to organize efforts at a scale any larger than a small town, which resulted in lots of starvation and unpaid wages that workers were promised by Makhno. This cost Makhno support in major cities. Furthermore, in June 1919, Makhno also allied with Grigorev (a well-known, antisemitic pogromist) and, when that alliance failed, Makhno's army still allowed Grigorev's pogromists/troops (which slaughtered ~6,000 Jewish Russians in pogroms across 40 communities) to join their ranks. It's no wonder that religious minorities tended to ally with the Red Army more.
My point is that the anarchists you claim were unfairly persecuted often had authoritarian tendencies of their own that too often go unaddressed when they are discussed in modern times. Their movement didn't fail because they were dealt an unfair hand. They had their own antagonistic contradictions that proved insurmountable for them to overcome.
Sources (note that none of them are from Marxist authors in case you were worried that they were biased in some way):
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-the-personal-side-of-nestor-makhno
kehilalinks.jewishgen.org/Colonies_of_Ukraine/pogroms/ukrainianpogroms.htm
Kenez, Peter (2004). Red Advance, White Defeat. Civil War in South Russia 1919-1920. Washington DC: New Academia Publishing
@@ChasingBooks the faults of these individuals, thankfully, do nothing to besmirch the credibility of the facts. Regardless of what they may or may not have done individually, the movement as a whole was punished collectively.
@@r.w.bottorff7735 You are the one who brought up Russian anarchists, not me. If Makhno allows hundreds or thousands of troops that were implicated in antisemitic pogroms, that means the movement has a sizable percentage of bigoted murderers and rapists in it, which would get any movement in trouble.
You can't bring up Russian anarchists specifically and then pull a "No true Scotsman" fallacy when someone correctly notes that the forces you cited sympathetically had systemic problems with violence against civilians and abusing their own power. If the leadership within a given movement can't reign in their troops, then they are incompetent at best and complicit at worst. I bring these up because these pogroms were not reducible to individual crimes, but those who committed them were integrated into anarchist formations at the time and were systemic in nature.
@@ChasingBooks I'm bringing up the people that were swept up in a flurry of violence, in "defense" of the state. It doesn't matter who you think their leader was, they were all repressed, disappeared, etc, the same. The anarchists we're absolutely right too, about how that whole "experiment" would play out.
Appealing to „on authority“ is appealing to Engels' authority.
What happened to your "Top 10 US Backed Dictators" video, which was my favorite video. Did it violate ToS?
I took it down because I don't feel the tone of the video was appropriate.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew
I appreciate the reply.
It was too satirical for the subject matter? I never thought of this since it was making fun of the hypocrisy of the US, and the last segments got serious. I think it can be salvable by replacing the light-heated music and drum rolling between segments.
@@jstevinik3261 Meh, I can do better.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew I think could work with the same subject but remove the comedic tone. You are capable of giving justice to these atrocities more than Simon Whistler or WatchMojo could ever will.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew please do, I'm sure we'd love to see it remade
you dont even see how he was addressing your own arguments as you made them. wow
I'm glad I'm not the only one who read "On Authority" and thought "this is bollocks". I'm so sick of Marxists (especially MLs and Maoists) using it as a "gotcha" for anarchism.
lol still coping 150 years later.
I LOVE YOU AND I MISSED YOU!
Idk why but my notifications didn't let me know you uploaded recently!
I've always thought Engel's point of "a revolution is the most authoritarian thing" utterly ridiculous. Under that conception, self-defence could be considered authoritarian because you're imposing your will onto someone else to stop them from harming you.
Yes.
You're playing word-games. It doesn't matter if the revolution is "offensive" or "self-defensive." That is a moral judgment. The point Engels is making is that for a revolution to be successful, it must use force and coercion to overthrow the capitalist state. Changing the words we use does not change that reality.
and the capitalists are thinking the same thing. Self defense of "their" property
@@jonathanrich1612 using force is not the definition fo authoritarian
@@guyfauks2576 It is according to this definition. Which is a shite one.
All these same arguments for keeping hierarchy, that only a strong hierarchical power can maintain a complex industry, are indistinguishable from arguments for monarchy, and I think that's been pretty well junked.
I entered leftism down the ML road, but I became an ancom when I realised that MLs need to misrepresent anarchism to make their point and that ancoms make a lot of compelling arguments. I'm really disappointed in a lot of MLs because bad faith arguments are supposed to be beneath leftists of all stripes.
lol you were never a real ML. You're probably to stupid to understand the concepts of MLism
@@joeschmoe2202 I certainly never took the label of ML, it was simply the road through which I entered leftist politics. Only a fool would adopt the political label of the first school of thought they become familiar with without honestly engaging with the other schools of thought on their own terms as well. I wouldn't be so arrogant or vulgar as to assume you didn't do the same or that you don't understand the various schools of thought. I don't know you.
@@joeschmoe2202 he was just talking about bad faith arguments
@@joeschmoe2202 You sound exactly like a cultist. People can change their minds when come to new information, this is a normal thing. You had to resort to insults because you couldn't handle someone changing their views. I doubt you were a communist since birth, so don't be an ass to other people.
I think they're better off not being an ML, when rude jerks like you go around, looking for people to harass.
@@SorceressWitch lol projection.
Damn, that's one good video
Let's also not forget that this book is from the 19th century, before most anarchist or socialist experiments except the paris commune. Engels never saw the USSR, china, north korea, the black army territories, revolutionary catalonia, etc etc.
I heard from Luna Oi's partner, Emerican Johnson, from the channel NonCompete, that despite being a Marxist-Leninist, Luna Oi actually believes that anarchism is the most appropriate ideology for a revolution in America. I do agree. Based on the fact that hating, as conservatives in America call "Big Government" is practically a meme in the US, I do believe that anarchism is the best ideology to push for if we want to create an non-capitalist system in the US. I also happened to be an anarchist, so I think it works out.
I think in terms of immediate priorities for the working class, we're not even close to a revolution in the United States. Revolutionary infrastructure needs to be established first, and, pressure needs to be exerted on the state to establish basic things that every other industrialised country has. Vulgar anti-government ideology of the right needs to be overcome.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew I do see what you're saying. You're not wrong. Though the idea of having the freedom to do as one pleases is kind of a defining feature of the mindset of many American people. That's why I still think it's good to sell libertarian socialism or Anarcho-communism to Americans instead of Marxism-Leninism, which too many ML's think is the best call to implement, instead of a libertarian option.
@@comradefreedom8275 Yeah I'm with you there.
Agreed; it's likely going to be Anarchists pushing for autonomous zones like CHAZ and George Floyd square while the state moves more towards Social Democracy.
@@ComradeLavender Yeah, I can see that.
_Spread the bread, comrade!_
(algorhithm comment)
Thank you for doing this. I just read State and Revolution and I was really bothered by how much it strawmans Anarchists. Lenin and Engels and MLs I know thinking all violence (even self-defensive) and organization is authoritarian is strictly opinion, yet they treat it like fact.
it's a common feature of authoritarianism. either claiming that everyone is just as authoritarian as they are, or that authoritarianism just isn't a meaningful category.
in their view, you shouldn't judge organisation on whether it's voluntary or violence on whether it's defensive, you should judge it by who does it. you should be on "their side" not question how organisations should be structured or what justifies violence.
Well, at least Lenin founded a socialist state which lasted for 70 years rather than 2 months 🤷♂️
@@travisbickle3835 He didn't found a socialist state. He never ever called the USSR socialist and if you actually read State and Revolution, he even says socialism is stateless. It was Stalin who came up with the socialism in one country nonsense. Plus you cannot have socialism within isolation, the revolution has to be international. As capitalism is a global system, which means that you will have to make compromises in dealing with capitalist nations, which the USSR did. Having commodity production and a state is contradictory to the a socialist system.
As capitalism is a global system, so is socialism. The state is also meant to whither away and is meant to be in that process in a socialist system. If Stalinists actually read Marx or Lenin, they would not be upholding failed bureaucratic states that became capitalist nations. They did the opposite of what Marx and Lenin said. Maintaining a standing army and having a secret police which was even more powerful than the one that came before it, they used them to crack down on the working class and crush any dissent. So for a state that was meant to be withering away, it instead grew stronger, doing the opposite and this is because the bureaucracy must protect its own interests. You have a minority ruling over the majority and the anarchists did predict the things happening in the USSR, of course you never listened or learn and so you repeat the same mistakes.
Plus the anarchist territories were sabotaged by MLs, Stalin made sure that other projects were hindered. He funded parties loyal to him and the other parties were weakened. Khrushchev himself would denounce Stalin.
Having a long lasting state means nothing if it's going to oppress and kill it's own people. They deported ethnic groups like Chechens and Tatars and many others. You don't care for the masses, you care for the rulers.
@@SorceressWitch Jesus you took that poor bastards whole soul with that rebuttal 😂😂😂
it is authoritarian, and theres nothing wrong with that.
Great work. All my support. Thank you.
"The state as an institution is designed to protect and enforce oppressive class relations such as that of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, not erode them. Allowing the state to continue to exist will not assist in dissolving such relations, only in perpetuating them in new and equally destructive forms . Without the state , such classes will be unable to enforce their will on the populous, and thus will not be able to continue their existence." - Nestor Makhno.
Thank you for the vid, excellent topic and an especially important matter of distinction.
Hey you are looking great! :)
Well, as you haven't given Marx's definition of freedom I have to say that your claims of it being the same as Bakunin's, which according to you is the "materialist" one, are incorrect. Marx's definition of freedom has little to do with all this discussion, Marx understands freedom as what exists once necessity has been satisfied, as the lack of necessity (which he obviously doesn't understand as just the things needed to be alive), he also understands freedom as a social thing, he doesn't claim that individual freedom is achieved through the social organization but instead claims that the only freedom that can exist is the freedom of society as a whole once it has dominated nature (Marx understands nature as all that is outside of humanity's control) and reshaped it to suit their needs. As far as the video itself goes you just seem to be taking all the rage that you have against M-L telling you that this work debunks anarchism and putting it against Engels which is the only way I can explain how someone that seems to be competent enough to understand a text properly hasn't thought about the fact that maybe this text isn't directed towards anarchism, nor at ant theory in particular but towards a tendency, which is what he refers to in the beginning of the text, that still exists in politics in general to this very day. All you do in this video is assuming that this "Authority" he's talking about is the one that he opposes to what you have called the "materialist" conception of freedom and therefore claim that either he's wrong for not agreeing with that conception of freedom or say that Anarchism doesn't actually defend what he's criticizing as if that in some way even relates to what he's saying. Maybe the reason you think On Authority is such a strawman against anarchism is because it is, it's not talking about anarchism, it's talking about Authority and the absurdity of wanting to be rid of it without that being possible, which is the same thing you have done in the majority of this video (although most of the time simply as "anarchists don't disagree with organization"). If you read this text again understanding that it's directed towards "socialists" who have "started a true crusade against what they call the principle of authority" and not an attack towards Anarchism you may understand it better, I assure you that if Engels wanted to target Anarchists he would have called them Anarchists and likely by name.
In your first note you completely ignored what he said. You said he conflated collective organization with authority, but he literally just asked how to distinguish them. Are you even reading the text? The basic problem is saying that non hierarchical organization is possible. We all know it is. The problem is the amount of social input necessary to carry out. It requires years of education and trust building to teach people how to put collective interests over their own and respect legitimate “authority” in the non hierarchical sense. Since this is not possible to do expediently in all situations, we must deal with the question of when hierarchical authority is necessary and in fact morally required. This is not to say that it is “good” but that any alternative to it must prove its merit on a world historic scale, something which anarchism has largely failed to do. There is very little systematic analysis of what is possible and needed within human society here.
yeah engels was wrong on that one.
the presence of rules or fixed hours is not inherently authoritarian as these are things that can be collectively agreed upon
The whole point is that cooperation in labor is also subordination of individual will to a higher goal... its pretty clear that engels doesnt think this is antithetical to communist freedom
Why does he call it authoritarian then?
Because it’s submission of the individual will to the needs of the community
@@culverculver922 But as Bakunin has already argued, the freedom of the individual is compatible with that of the community, in fact the freedom of the community enhances the freedom of the individual. This is the basic idea in Man Society and Freedom.
Communist freedom is not a voluntarist one in which the pre-existing individual will is left untouched by external pressures. Friends of the Classless Society argues this well in their essay "On Communisation and Its Theorists":
"If Marx in a classic passage envisions a “shortening of the working-day”, this is misleading insofar as it implies the persistence of two clearly distinct areas, thus almost giving the impression that in communism there will still be punch clocks. The weakness of TC and many others, it seems to us, is that they can take the opposite position (for the abolition of punch clocks) only based on the false promise of a “becoming passionate” of all productive activities and thus paint communism in a rather naive or infantile manner as pure pleasure and fun, which it will certainly not be. This position is merely the mirror image of the notoriously bourgeois ideology which, out of the inevitable inconveniences of life, derives the inevitability of domination and coercion. Freely associated individuals will have to deal with bothersome necessities; how they will do so we do not know, but we are confident that the commune will not fail over the question of who’s going to clean the loo tomorrow."
@@culverculver922 Sounds like you're ignoring what I've said about boring admin but okay
Your response to Engels' jab at anarchism (have these gentlemen seen a revolution) being listing a couple anarchists who faced persecution (not controversial) is pretty silly. Do you have an actual response to his point? Where are your successful anarchist revolutions? Tell us why dismantling the state should be the first goal of a revolution.
He has no actual response that is why he relied on anecdotal evidence.
@@jonathanrich1612 classic anarchist
@@jonathanrich1612 PROOF OR STFU
ok , but you don't debunk the concept of a revolution being autoritarian in nature : just because it's the lower class doing it against the upper class it doesn't mean that it's not what it is ...
if a woman raped a man that woudln't make the notion of the patriarchy and that would still be rape ,
in the same way in wich if workers where to revolt it would still be violent , self defence is the only acceptable form of violence ,
and since autority is formed trough violence , the way in wich a revolution would take place is trough violent means , a revolution would be the way in wich the working class shows his autority ,
the capitalist class isn't the personification of autority , they sadly are pepole who are living on trough autoritarian means , namely the wage slavery of workers ,
as such FORCING a capitalist person to live as a worker ( the least violent realistic option ) , would still be violent , and as such would still be autoritarian by the part of the workers ,
hence dictatorship of the proletariat ,
marxism doesn't make moral claims , it's a science , and as such it shows the best path to an outcome , this path doesn't have to be ethical , to wich i am fine honestly , politics isn't ethical ...
claiming that the lower classes aren't autoritative during a revolution is equal to claiming "we aren't trying to change stuff , we are just making some noise" , at least this has all been my opinion
Who would force a capitalist to be a worker? Even then how is advocating for shit on equal terms at all "authoritarian"
@@guyfauks2576 Typical (dumb) equating of authority=authoritarianism, which no, so you know.
"READ THEORY!1!1!" As Dogmatic Dogshite theory only zealots like to spout on the shitternet.
Also, I especially hate the typical vile scum that likes to kiss the arses of tyrants because they are painted red to claim that "UHhh, ReVoluTiOn SomeThing OrgaNisiIng VioleNce therFore Ur AuThoRiTarIan, cHecKmaTe, AnNArKid"
Just end your suffering
18:00 I must disagree sharply on this last point about socialist revolution not being "authoritarian". To call Engels reactionary for openly admitting the power and coercion involved in revolution is irresponsible. You say that workers rising up to seize the means of production is their natural right and taking and holding it by force of arms is in fact "anti-authoritarian" even going so far as to say "It is not the social revolution itself which is violent but the institutions it seeks to abolish that are." Yet surely you must know that some amount of violence would be necessary, and that you will not simply be suppressing the capitalists. What about all the managers, police, and state officials you will be forced to arrest, surveille, or shoot to achieve and maintain your revolution? What about their families who may want revenge or a return to the old ways? Surely you know there are many "reactionists", as Engels says, who are not capitalists, who may even be proletarians whose ideology or whatever reason turns them against the revolution. What about them? What amount of violence and terror and control done by your ideal non-hierarchical, horizontally organized workers militias against those who stand in the way of revolution is justified or tolerable for you?
In a revolution we must take seriously the reality that many human lives will be ruined and ended, and as revolutionaries we must solemnly realize and account for our responsibility in that process. I must say I am rather worried because It seems that the so-called "authoritarian" Engels is more open and has thought much more seriously than you have about the power over the lives, autonomy, and well-being of others which he would wield if he were to lead or even partake in such a revolution. Engels realizes all of this yet still believes revolution through "authoritarian" means is necessary and worthwhile, as do I. Through realizing and admitting the power we wield it becomes easier for others to hold us accountable for our actions and words, and thus do the best we can to avoid mistakes, excesses, and unnecessary suffering. To advocate for armed revolution without admitting the power and coercion that revolution would entail is irresponsible, and to abandon revolution because it will not live up to a utopian non-violent ideal is to retreat into reformism.
Exactly. The video's point about "revolution is actually anti-authoritarian" is a totally idealist statement that is the exact sort of word-games that Engels mocked in the original essay ("thinking you can change the word you call something will change the reality of the thing itself"). The video is essentially saying "if we just change the words we use for revolution, it won't require force and coercion anymore!"
Now I know where every leninist ever got their nonesense about anarchism.
Excellent video thanks. But about the pandemic you should see Dr Sam Bailey video on virus isolation. Perhaps freedom is under attack.
This video is guilty of playing the exact same sort of word-games that Engels critiqued in his original essay. You change the word "authority" to "expertise," you argue over words like "delegation" and "organization," etc. This is exactly the sort of argument Engels already debunked when he said that anarchists think that by "changing the names of things they have changed the things themselves."
this is how they mock at the whole world.
Simply saying "you us different words therefore Engels right" is a horrible argument. The video is attempting to distinguish between separate concepts. One in which authority is not equivalent to expertise. Delegation and organization are unrelated. But delegation and, say representation, are often described as fundamentally different things in anarchist discourse. These are not word games. These are attempts at distinguishing things that anarchists support from things that they do not support. Such as the delegate, who cannot make decisions for a group, and a representative, who can. Or an authority who has the final say on a given decision and an expert, who does not. Calling that a "word game" is being intellectually dishonest.
how can who is expert be determined? consider the knowledge/competence/expertise required to do so. consider the dunning-kruger graph.
I know i replied to this 2 years ago, but seeing it again... the same part triggers my epistemology alarm. this is unsound reasoning offered, in "For the same reason that, in the middle of this pandemic, I listened to the advice of doctors and nurses to stay at home. I don't waltz around saying 'oh you're asking me to wear a mask, that violates my liberty, ra ra ra, i want to my right to get sick and die', because getting sick and dying or putting other people at risk, does not enhance my freedom at all, hence I defer to the authority of doctors or nurses." is peddling false equivalence, and overlooking the heirarchy they obey. it's not their expertise that advises this, and if you used your liberty to research matters for yourself, you'd be alleviated of that naive certainty born of obeying the official narrative, which does not "follow the science" at all, in there being many studies over many decades that have shown the wearing of masks not only does not provide protection sufficient to have such warnings put on mask packaging, to prevent that dangerous misinformed presumption, which studies showed actually caused an increase of pathogenicity! always worth getting another second opinion, and not presume you're getting expertise, not authority masquerading as expertise.
p.s., are you still alive? have not seen a post in a while... and given what you said... i'm concerned you climbed on a gas chamber train, erroneously believing it took you to freedom. give us a shout to say you're still alive. :)
Indeed. Ya knocked it outta the park at the end there too. I am sooo past sick of seein people throw quotes at others in a way that's mad similar to how the religious will quote their sacred texts. The evidence, point, argument, etc, stands or falls on its own merit, the source is only one component of determining legitimacy, quality, bias, etc. Some of the worst people to ever exist have said things that can be quoted and sound convincing and some of the best never wrote any of it down, so simply sayin "X said 'Y, Z, and A' therefore B" should be seen as the flawed and fallacious thinking that it is and shouldn't carry the weight it all too often does. It's a cult-like thinking that's consumed so many spaces and movements that is incredibly unhealthy and counterproductive. I wish more people would take the "Take What You Need And Compost The Rest" approach instead of relying on figures, texts, programs, and dogmatic ideological thinking.
✊👊☮️🖤🥀🏴🌐A///E
You say the authority of expertise is distinct from hierarchical authority. Ok, so then why do you believe that socialist states are principally hierarchical, when the authority of expertise is greatly valued. And expertise is largely decided through collective decision making and other social practice. You also seem to ignore who decides that someone is an expert, taking an extremely idealist position, refusing to acknowledge the social process that determines expertise. It seems like you can either agree with Engels that this is legitimate authority, or acknowledge that socialist states are legitimate authorities, but not both. This of course does not preclude critiques of the method of carrying out socialist development, which we Marxist-Leninists do constantly, but it does bring into question why you seem to accept that there is legitimate authority, but a proletarian state is necessarily illegitimate. And if you believe they are legitimate in some ways, but not in others, then welcome to being a Marxist I guess lol.
TITLE: Guy Loses Debate With A Book
YES! engels is giving off such reverse racism energy here!
also bakunin was wrong to use the term "authority" when referring to eg the bootmaker.
compare the definitions of racism:
- racial prejudice
- systemic racial oppression
the reactionary definition is that it's simply racial prejudice as that only tells such a small part of the picture as to convey an entirely false reality (one in which there is not a specific "race" perpetuating and benefiting from the oppression of others), whether a white supremacist "feels" prejudice or not is irrelevant to whether they're a racist or not, their ideology and actions do, and yet they can claim not to be a racist if you limit the definition to only prejudice as they may have convinced themselves that their lack of emotion (or self-censorship of emotions that do not fit their narrative) equates to lack of prejudice.
so in the same way, "authority", is not simply following the advice of someone more knowledgeable, or taking direction from someone with expertise, if someone wants to direct a movie and 100 people think they'll do a great job and want to help them make it happen, those 100 cast and crew can take direction from the director without any authority being exercised against them, if the director says "can we do another take but this time with more feeling" and the amount of feeling that had been conveyed in the previous take was reasonably below the creative vision as expressed hopefully by that director, then why wouldn't they choose to follow that lead, they wouldn't have agreed to the project if they doubted the director's expertise
but, if the director said somethind out of line, for example "jennifer, your character is trans, you need to act less feminine" (a wildly transhpobic statement btw) the entire cast and crew may very well walk off the set and resign from the project, (they may try to explain to the director how bigotted the direction was, and that trans characters should be played by trans actors, but they wouldn't be obliged to). there would be absolutely zero leverage or capacity to prevent them from doing so, zero "authority" to force them to do the transphobic portrayal.
because that director would simply have been the one walking ahead of the pack, as soon as the pack no longer wants to walk in the same direction as them they could walk in a different direction.
so, in my humble opinion, we should avoid using the term "racism" in reference to simply racial prejudice, and, likewise, not use the word "authority" for a completely non-hierarchical voluntary consent based arrangement, "authority" should be used when referring to structure, or some kind of power over others.
also worth taking note that, under capitalism that arrangement will always be authoritarian because those people would be tied to the project for their source of income, and so walking off isn't done free of coercion, there is leverage for the director to force his vision under capitalism because the people he's leading need the job to survive.
so only in a socialist / anarchist society where you do not need to earn anything, where your needs are met for free simply because they are needs, only then can you actually have these kinds of arrangements and have them also be non-authoritarian.
perhaps engels couldn't imagine a world without the coercions of capital?
Bakunin was also a rationalist in philosophy, following your own reason to abide to the bootmaker; techincally is sometimes called the authority of the bootmaker. But for Bakunin it meant freedom of reason inherent to every individual.
So you're right, Authority of the bootmaker is a not authority at all.
certified liberal moment
ratio
there needs to be macro military planning and some centralized apparatus for carrying out said macro military planning, with lower bodies submitting to higher bodies. The higher bodies can be elected by the soldiers but there still has to be some apparatuses to carry out macro plans. in the vast majority of centralized versus uncentralized conflicts centralized wins historically. All things being equal the military that has some kind of macro military planning will win out over the one that doesn’t. You agree that macro military planning is important how do you address this point?
I’m not saying complete centralization it’s not a chess match.
I’m not retreating from a pro centralized position just that there needs to be more centralization then complete horizontal organization. A military cannot be reliably controlled through direct democracy in the heat of battle.
there will still be higher bodies and lower bodies that must submit to the higher bodies.
And the chain of command will be greater than a chain of two. officers and infantry there will need to be another level of organization at least. So like a chain of command of 3. And all these officials can be elected by the norms of the Paris except it’s more complex during a battle for immediate recall.
Also you are talking about battles not wars. Generally wars will be won by a centralized force.
The allocation of resources in militaries tends to also be very centralized.
i remember reading this nonsense about 14 years ago. probably the first big hint that there just isn't all that much to marxism.
but i'm sad to hear this ridiculous screed is actually popular among some marxists. i mentioned to two people who told me they liked Engels and the both hadn't heard of it before (tho one was an ancom and the other a psychologist of mine, i don't think either of them was a particularly committed marxist).
projection because there isn't that much to anarchism
@@joeschmoe2202 well, i guess that's sorta right, in a different way… there aren't that many beliefs all anarchists hold in common. people are anarchists for different reasons (including a few bad ones), an there is certainly no anarchist dogma or holy scripture that anarchists generally refer to.
i could go through the things that i think are lacking or wrong in marxism, but i'm not sure you are interested in that, and you will find plenty yourself once you look for them.
@@joeschmoe2202 there is nothing to anarchism. it is a western online meme now.
@@spellman007 Yummy yummy boot! tread on me tank!! :D :D
I like your videos but you should get a better picture of yourself tbh.
:( I like this picture.
Oh hush that picture is fine.
Don't you know, pictures of Anarchists aren't complete without a long beard and an edwardian suit?
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew I like the picture because you look genuinely happy. I want everyone to be happy (it's a major reason why I'm an anarchist) so it makes me happy to see.
It's a nice pic
12:06 : 'local anarchist attempts to describe anarchist organizational principles; proceeds to describe democratic centralism, something Engels completely agreed with'
Except that is not Democratic centralism
Also Democratic centralism was conceived after Engels.
Authoritarians should read their own theory first.
You're still an anarchist? That's cringe...
I like cringe :))
@@guyfauks2576 yeh to laugh at, not to be
@@TheRealStalin2036 that line is pretty cringe m8...
@@guyfauks2576 anarchists are cringe tho
@@TheRealStalin2036 you already said that
Marx and Engels laughing at "bottom up" in their writtings to/about Bakunin, tells you all you need to know. It wasn't a real disagreement on the concept of authority, they just felt that the gen pop was too dumb to make decisions. They didn't believe in democracy, they believe in elite management. But saying "screw the plebs" isn't great PR. lmfao
It's no coincidence that neocons are former marxists, and that the "right" is freaking out nowadays, calling the neoliberals "communists" 😂
Well it's interesting that in Marx's Conspectus on Statism and Anarchy by Bakunin he quotes a section of Bakunin asking "would the whole of the 40 million people of Germany be in the government?" somewhat facetiously but Marx responds with "Of course!" So that would necessarily require democracy to exist as such so it would be bizarre for them to be opposed to "bottom-up" organization.
Especially from Marx and Engels' writings on the Paris Commune also they very much seemed to have viewed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a maximally democratic organization of society.
This particular work is just a stupid straw man though of some particular Italian anarchists he was mad at I'm pretty sure.
@@MrxstGrssmnstMttckstPhlNelThot Sure. Except maybe you never read those pamphlets and stuff where Marx n Engels were laughing at Bakunin and the idea of "bottom up". Maybe you just got hustled by his sweet talking grift lmfao
@@MrxstGrssmnstMttckstPhlNelThot thats pretty indicative of quite a few anarchists
lol all i can say to that wordsalad is that these "marxists" you refer to are trotskyists who have the same hate boner for stalinism that you dumbass anarchists do.
@@joeschmoe2202 Yes. Marx + Engels were "Trotskyists". 😂😂😂😂😂😂
that was going well until your poorly chosen example (espoused with a change of tone that suggested a level of emotion that interrupts the calm needed for clear thinking) at around 6:22, as if unaware of doctors advising against mask use, lack of evidence of their efficacy at preventing spread of potential pathogens, evidence of their increasing spread of pathogens, of their ability to increase incubation of pathogens (e.g. via prolongued low level hypoxic effects, breathing fibers as delivery substrates, increased re-breathing virus/bacteria/fungi etc instead of expelling, redirecting exhales into mucus membranes in eyes, increased stress... this list goes on yet, but i think that should be sufficient to dispel the certainty from a little bit of information), and instructions on masks themselves insisting they offer no protection, let alone the rest of the nonsensical nature of it, against all epidemiological sense and established practices.
would you like me to pull up reams of doctors and health professionals offering their expert opinion/advice against mask wearing?
... many of them accompany such advice with frustration over censorship.
... we should be very wary of that one type of authority, denying the autonomy/sovereignty/voice of the authority of experts.
... very wary, lest we get inducted to the certainty of a little bit of information, unwilling to entertain new information, different philosophies, unable to entertain new information, different philosophies, different perspectives, because all we get to hear is the indoctrination cartoon, that we all angrily cajole each other into, lest we let the devil in, or kill our granny, or whatever it is to scare people into obedience to nonsense that harms them and further ensures they remain in that pliant obedient manageable state.
I like this but its dated, I hope you see know the couf was a fraud.