this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1217 points (91.2% liked)
Memes
45560 readers
718 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is it possible to have organisation without authority?
On Authority - F. Engels, 1872
Thank you for sharing this….I really enjoyed it.
First time I read it I couldn't believe how short and easy read it is, and what a powerful argument Engels is making
Wasn't sure if that was a legitimate question or just another example.of the usage of authoritarian. But if it was a question, I'll leave this video. It's an anarchist critique of on authority. Short answer, yes. It is possible to have organization without an authoritarian structure
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
this
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is so dumb i don't want to continue and its so long wtf Pure ideology, that video was such a waste of time
The entire point of the video is Engles misunderstood what constitutes "authority" in a libertarian framework. He created an overly broad conception of authority and proceeded to (poorly) attack that. If you're going to critique an ideology you should at the very least have an understanding of what the core concept your criticizing means. Engles made some shit up, put that in the mouths of anarchists and acted like a little piss baby about it. How on earth did you get 15 minutes into the video and not pick up on that very obvious point?
Pure ideology? You're hilarious. Like y'all haven't been sucking at the teat of Marx well past the point of his half baked ideas being useful. It never occured to you geniuses that maybe there was a bit more at play than capitalism and anachronistic conceptions of class warfare? Marx's ideas of power and complex systems are overly simplistic at best, and Engles is a bourgeois pig that somehow deluded your big "scientific socialist" brains into thinking he was one of the good ones. But go ahead and tell me how childish authoritarian conceptions of authority are righ and how I'm a big dumb guy for thinking otherwise
He's not misunderstanding what constitutes authority. He is giving a broad definition and proves the existence of authority after abolition of capitalism by referring to the organization of labour.
Because the "obvious points" are made with strawmen (see comments above)
What no theory does to a mf
in a libertarian framework.
Can you read?
He's proving the existence of authority (with a definition thats wide/encompasses the libertarian framework).
Are you dense?
He's not using that definition anywhere in his article.
If you know think about going for the "but Engel's definition is broader, therefore, his argument is still valid" boy oh boy I suggest you study logic. That's not how widening and narrowing works.
Say, cooks. They say: "These things are fruits, and with them we can make fruit salads". Botanists say "These things are fruit, our category is wider, it includes tomatoes, therefore, you can make fruit salad with tomatoes".
Ok I can see where the problem is. You don't know how narrowing and widening works.
Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It's the qualifier. The proper application would be:
Botanist says:" These things are fruits. We have tomatoes, etc. I can make fruit salad". Cooks ways:"A fruit salad is a type of salad. I have noodles I can make noodle salad. I use a wider definition of salad which encompasses fruit salads, noodle salads and a bunch of others"
Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said "you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes" they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for "fruit salad" (there's no botanical definition of "fruit salad", it's a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.
On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down "fruit" to "tropical fruit" or "temperate fruit" and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to "banana" and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.
Yes we have a category error because you made it The botanist is narrowing down the category of salads by qualifying it to be fruit salads.
Yes you're right in this example the qualifier is tropical that narrows down fruits. In the previous example we talked about fruit salads. The category being salads.
The cooks made a statement about fruit salads, not salads in general. It is not under contention that caprese is a salad and includes tomatoes. It's also not a fruit salad.
Well duh, it's because you made an error, you made the cook say it for some inexplicable reason in your thought experiment and I'm pointing it out to you.
The statement of the cooks, "these are fruits, we can turn them into fruit salad" is perfectly accurate. There's no error in there. In my example it's the botanists which make the mistake by widening the definition of "fruit" without double-checking whether that widening changes their understanding of "fruit salad" to become something different from what the cooks were saying.
Indeed, you made the thought experiment and build this error into it (aka Strawman). I corrected the conversation to show how to correctly apply widening and narrowing in regards to "fruit salads"
What you should've done instead is apply it to Engels's widening of the term "authority" to mean things that don't fit into a fruit salad, any more.
Ok let me do it now since youre dense: Authority encompasses "granted authority". Granted is the qualifier. Authority is the category. Authority being defined as:
If something is granted it's not imposed. Those two things are mutually exclusive. If Engels was honest in his argument he'd have used "imposed authority" to characterise what anti-auths were criticising, not the general "authority".
You're almost there.
On Authority is one of my absolute favourites because it's so ludicrously bourgeois. "Oh, you Anarchists", quoth Engels, "All you amount to is saying that a stone falls down when let go, and that having to hold it up so that it doesn't fall down, to have to bow to that authority, is oppressive".
Maybe, Friedrich, your workers don't mind dealing with the necessities and physical processes of yarn and cloth manufacture, what they mind is not being able to fire your ass for saying excessively over-reductive shit like that.
Are you really saying "Engels was bourgeois, therefore the argument he's making is bourgeois"? lol
Tell me how you haven't read it even more. Because he's actually concluding:
Read the paragraphs directly before: Engels refers to "arguments as these", so we can safely assume that the example he gives there is representative. What's his example? Safety in railway operations.
That, indeed, is not a job for a delegate, a person chosen by council to represent the council in a bigger council, a political position which comes with no authority, but one of a safety commissioner, a person who was entrusted with, granted authority, by a council to enact necessary safety procedures for the common good. The railway safety commissioner would be choosen by the railway workers. Someone they trust to be a stickler to details and procedure.
Both, btw, are recallable on the spot should they abuse their positions, or turn out to not be suitable for other reasons.
This is not a mere "changing of names", the tasks are completely different in character and the levels of authority could not be any more different. What Engels seems to be incapable of conceiving is that an e.g. city council doesn't have authority over a neighbourhood council. That the delegates the neighbourhood councils choose come together in a city council and then precisely not dictate to the neighbourhood councils what they're supposed to do. That's your brain on hierarchy.
So, yes, Engels concludes that he's right. And thereby proves that he either a) didn't understand what the anti-auths were telling him or b) didn't care, as authoritarians are prone to do when challenged on the necessity of there being rulers.
As to "labour cannot be organised without hierarchy" in general: It's long been proven false. There's a gazillion of examples in which it has done. There are, right now, armies out there operating without hierarchy that are fighting both Cartels and ISIS, very successfully so. If armies can be organised like that, surely it does work for ice cream factories. Stick to materialism, please, your idealist claim doesn't become true by repeating it.
?
So how can you organize anything if noone tells anyone what to do? People just suddenly know? How is that supposed to work? Who decides the level of authority? Another authority?
Literally changing the name of "authority" to "granted authority". You only changed the name of things. Engels is making the argument on the materiality of authority. That even if the authority is granted, it's an authority. He is referring to whatever makes the organization happen as authority (even when granted).
And says that without this (authority) organization is impossible. Which makes sense.
pls expand
Just now walking in now, and, oh, this is still going on? Christ these memes are a PITA.
You talk to other people and agree on a plan of action? Have you ever, in your life, interacted with people?
One example doesn't even grant any authority: A delegate has no authority.
If you OTOH now try to pull semantics and say "but by being convinced by other people of a joint plan of action, they have authority over you", or "A delegate has the authority to do as they're told by their council" then you're doing the "holding up a stone thing": You make authority such a broad term that not just organisation, but physics itself is impossible without it. Or, in different words: It's playing dumb. You hear what Anarchists are saying, including their definitions of authority, of distinguishing power-to against power-over, and say "but the stone has authority over you that's silly"!
Yes but than the plan of action takes form of authority. Which is the point that Engels makes.
Then noone is required to take the delegate serious. The delegate enjoys no authority and there's no organization happening as everybody is free to do whatever th fuck they want.
Only when you take it in in bad faith, because we're talking about people and not inanimate objects (stones). The definition of anarchists is just another social construct that basically describes authority..
It is an extension to the libertarian notion of authority that Engels makes.
Suppose you and your comrades are are at a party conference in another city, and, in a wild bout of anti-authoritarianism, you're talking among yourselves which restaurant to go to instead of following party orders. Maybe it's just an oversight, the responsible buerocrat didn't do their job. Anyway the obstacle is not insurmountable, the choice is not very contentious, some people have preference, one's a vegan, but in the end you all agree that Mexican is a perfectly fine choice.
Then, out of nowhere, a KGB agent appears saying "Now it would be a shame if someone changed their mind about eating Mexican and would need to be sent to Gulag, would it, after all, we can't have a decision without subsequent imposition of authority".
The delegate is taken just as serious as the council they represent. They are, after all, the representative of that council. If you ignore what the delegate says, you're ignoring what the council says. But the authority is that of the council, not of the delegate.
Council communists have a compatible definition, btw. It's only Bolsheviks and their descendants who disagree because they can't stand workers actually having a say in things, see the Trotsky quote before. That is authoritarianism. You can't declare it away by playing semantic games.
Basically you're arguing against the state, which we sure both want. The abolishion of class society, meaning one class is not subjugating it's will on another, be it capitalist or a socialist state bureaucrats.
I think that without a state you cannot abolish the existing forces that give rise to class society as it's not a even playing field between labour and capital. You need a form of authority to make the reorganization of political economy possible.
How are you not aware of what you're saying? Do you want me to do an anarchist caricature of going to the restaurant like you did in your example? Only the proper application would be of the building the restaurant and how noone likes to do the actual work of building it as everyone is free not to do it. There's no authority. If you tell me that the hunger is the authority im going to laugh
You are aware that communism, too, not just anarchism, is a stateless society?
(Side note: In the ole socialist definition of "state". Both still qualify for the modern political theory definition of state which bogs down to "a people, a territory, a type of governing system (organisation)". Gotta be careful with that one it often gets confused).
Indeed, without state power labour would have the upper hand. You saw that in the Russian revolution where workers very quickly formed soviets and kept things running. Then the Bolsheviks re-established state power, deliberately destroying horizontal worker organisation with hierarchical structure, and everything went to shit.
Then, going back a tiny bit:
How do you envision a state without state bureaucrats?
How do you come to the conclusion that nobody likes building things? Doubly so if there's a couple of people around who like cooking for the community who could really use a nice place to provide their services?
There's actually interesting modern polls around this, made in the context of UBI: The overwhelming majority say that if they received UBI, they'd still be working about as much. Maybe get another job, maybe cut down hour a bit, maybe take a sabbatical to do learn a new trade and switch there, but overall the wheels would keep churning at about the same speed. Meanwhile, the same overwhelming majority, when asked what other people would be doing, said "they'd stop working". That kind of mind-bug is a mixture of capitalist realism and hierarchical realism, the notion that people need to feel the whip to be motivated to be productive. That without imposition of force, humanity as we know it would cease to exist: We'd lose our zest, our creativity, our ambition, our love for one another, everything. That humanity is an inherently asocial species, held together by the powers that be. That we need to be domesticated to be ourselves.
A superpower which doesn't exist any more, it was torn apart by its own lack of productivity and internal contradictions.
The industrialisation went quickly, true, but heavy industry was the only thing the Soviet Union ever got remotely good at, its state apparatus failed to incorporate advances made elsewhere, heck it was so bad that the GDR started its own chip programme because the Soviets wouldn't and they needed chips to stay competitive in the market of industrial machinery. Did you know that in the 80s VW Wolfsburg was full of GDR-built machines? They used the proceeds to buy things that are necessary to keep Prussians happy and not rebelling, such as coffee (I'm being absolutely serious here coffee was a big political issue in the GDR).
Meanwhile, rapid increases in lifespans and living standards aren't exactly rare because it's not actually that hard to get half-way decent when you start from a point of utter destitution.
The USSR did achieve nothing special in that regard, and definitely nothing special enough to justify the abuses that come with their approach.
Yes. Are you aware that communists in socialist states handle political economic forces to achieve this, but are faced with significant capital forces that tries to work against it, thus creating contradictions?
I use the "Monopoly on violence" definition (similarly in wider meaning, as with authority)
They just did it for fun, wasn't like there was fascist and imperialist forces right?
Democratic centralism, but it will have beraucrats until the state abolished capitalist force. The party bureaucrats debate internally and acts in unison. You can freely join the party. It's deliberate to keep non marxist/people that think capitalism is good, outside. It's based. Read "What is to be done" from Lenin.
Not what Engels or I am saying? The "decision" or the process, the organization around building things requires authority e.g. architect, safety inspector etc.
Yes? And after they formed the decision they are bound by it. Giving it authority. It's this abstract that Engels is referencing
A social democratic solution, that keeps the economic base capitalist but creates a welfare state.i.e. here take the money and fuck off. do was we say
Also once you have the political will to implement UBI you could just build housing. UBI also comes at the cost of consolidating various social spending in order to create more dependency and have only one front of negation to deal with as a capitalist
Oh yes if your 5-year plan failed of course that's because the Rothschilds don't want you to succeed. Couldn't be because the plan was shit.
There's no monopoly on violence in Anarchism.
Have you actually read Lenin. That's not a method to organise a society, it's a method to organise a party. All it basically bogs down to "Once the party has made a decision, party members are to stop arguing and get to work implementing it". It has numerous problems when it comes to de-facto centralisation of power, as well as inability to address and correct decisions that were, or have become, wrong.
That's literally the authority of the shoe-maker. Being a specialist and therefore trusted to make expert decisions is not the same as having power over people. Anarchists freely bow to the shoe-maker when it comes to matters of shoe production, but not when it comes to where to walk with them.
No they're not bound by that decision. There's plenty of reasons why one would want to change their mind.
It takes power away from capitalists by giving the labourer the option to walk away from job offers they don't like. It is not a total overhaul of the system, true, but you should be able to appreciate the juicy irony of fighting capitalist power with market mechanisms.
People need more to live than housing, also, you're being paternalistic. "Here, live in this place, eat this stuff". What if I want to take the same amount of resources and live in another place, and eat different stuff?
Why the fuck are you making anti-Semitic statements? Why are you equating capitalist forces with "Rothschild's"?
As far as I now the soviet union went from feudalism to a space traveling nation. Similarly the rise of China is impressive af. Cuba despite it's sanctions and restrictive access to world markets has a higher life expectancy than the US. etc.
How many anarchist non-state states exist? Rojava? Tell me how their dealing with capitalist imperialist forces is going
Idc. I tell you how I use the term. It ssimilarly a wide category that encompasses disciplinary measures inside anarchist organization.
Brother in Christ why are you so dense about this and not taking Engels Argumentation and exploring what he could've meant and try to view from that lense (not necessarily having to adopt it)
Agree and it's the socialists states duty to serve these interests
I agree UBI is paternalistic. The state will tell you how much you get to spend and need to use for living.
Nah I'm more side-jabbing at Soviet antisemitism, dunno whether you share it it's not a universal. Could've just as well said Deutsche Bank as far as the argument is concerned. "Oh no the filthy capitalist pigs invested into semiconductors we're falling behind, they're exerting authority over us" give me a break no they're not your planners have their heads up their asses and missed the train.
Yeah saying "we're better off than the US" is just as convincing as American saying "we're better off than Haiti". Darn low bar. Do better.
Why do you demand that of me, but not of Engels? Why isn't he exploring what anti-auths could have meant instead of putting up a strawman? Also I did try to interpret Engels in a way where he doesn't argue against a strawman but then the text makes even less sense.
Which is less paternalistic than giving you goods instead of money. In one case you can consume those goods, in the other you can choose which goods you consume. You can forego expensive food for a while to save up for canvas and paintbrush, if you so please. You can choose whether you spend the money included for purposes of recreation to travel to a metal concert, the opera, or a beach bar. You can choose to spend that recreation money on better food or a new hammer, if you so please.
Is it anywhere close to usufruct? No, of course not. But it's still miles better than "work for a boss or starve", or "work for a boss or don't get to choose your meal". Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Anti-semitism like stopping the holocaust, but ok go off king
What no theory does to a mf
Do you even read? I said "Cuba despite it’s sanctions and restrictive access to world markets has a higher life expectancy than the US" Qualitative different statement
Because he's dead?
"Strawman is when you use a definition that encompasses mine"
It's paternalistic still? The economic base is capitalist and has a welfare superstructure. The undemocratic relation between worker and employer is not resolved and you get no say in how much you get.
Sure, but once you have the political will to make UBI a reality, the huge amount of money you're basically taxing off of the rich can be spent more ressourceful
Anti-semitism like this.
It is if you expand the definition of fruit to encompass things that cooks would never call a fruit, and then call caprese a valid fruit salad. There's a reason I led you down that road in the other thread.
The employer also doesn't get a say. The citizen overall, though, does get a say (in liberal democracies at last), as to how large the universal allowance is. The Labourer outnumbering the employer in the liberal democratic process thus gives an overall tilt towards the labourer, the ability to ensure that it's large enough to be able to tell bosses "Shove it, I quit".
On what? Housing? People spend it on housing. They can pool it into cooperatives, no issue there regarding economies of scale.
It is if you expand the definition of salad.. how are you not understanding this??
I'm ending this conversation as it's pointless.
Anti-auths don't have any issues with caprese We do have issues with fruit salads, though.
...or something along the lines I lost track of the isomorphism it could be that we don't have issues with fruit salads but have issues with caprese. But you'll get it, eventually, as long as you stop confusing stuff by equivocating.
You're such a joke
I lost track, you never noticed you had none from the start,, we're not the same.