It wasn't a hostile discussion or anything, i didn't even go full "the kulaks deserved it" (although the mod that single-handedly banned me did go full "the kulaks did not deserve it"). I just laid out plainly and calmly that revolutions are inherently authoritarian, that Luxemburg said "the revolution will be as violent as the ruling class makes it necessary" and that there's one Trotzki quote i 100% agree with: "If the October Revolution hadn't succeeded, the world would have known a Russian word for fascism 10 years before Mussolini's March on Rome". Basically the whole "Jakarta Method" train of thought laid out clearly and without calling anybody names.
Note that this was on an explicitly left-leaning server that does not allow cops and troops to join. Also after several days of another poster starting destructive, aggressive bad faith arguments in the politics channel until a number of users went "disengage" on her and the channel had to be frozen until recently, when she immediately started being hostile and arguing in bad faith again, which got her not one, but two warnings from the same mod without further consequences. Meanwhile, when i defend AES without attacking anybody, that's apparently too much for her to handle. No advance warning, no "sis, you're talking to me as a mod here", not even a notification that i got banned.
The best part is that according to screenshots a friend just sent me, she's now completely going off about "authoritarians". The nerve some people have.
Sorry for posting pointless internet drama here, i just needed to vent.
I think my newest take is that anti-authoritarianism is not left-leaning, it shares the aesthetics of the left but should be seen as a unique ideology in and of itself that ultimately serves the status quo. Efforts should be made to distinguish it as a unique ideology and define it firmly away from the left.
In application anti-authoritarianism opposes all revolution and all construction of anything post-revolution. It opposes authority use within the existing state but it also opposes authority use to end the existing state and in doing so it upholds it and takes a position against any and all people that seek real change.
Anti-authoritarianism is weird because it sees government authority as an ultimate evil but private entities authority as the status quo.
Private banks forcing people out of their homes? Thats a good society. Government doing the same and distributing it? Authoritarian evil.
Then if there is a successful revolution - anything the revolutionaries do is now authoritarian because they took over the government.
The problem is authoritarian doesn't have a precise mechanical definition at all. Anarchists and liberals don't use the word in the same way. A lot of my anarchist comrades don't even use the term because of how imprecise it is. Instead I'll see anarchists mention lopsided hierarchies in general, imperialism, or how a hierarchy can lead to abuses of power. Or more broadly they might disagree with seizing state power as a tactic, but I think well-read anarchists realize that authoritarian is not a coherent ideological position. No one identifies as an authoritarian, for instance.
Liberals use it as a way to conflate fascists and communists. They use it to mean there's a lack of representation from groups/interests they believe are inherent to any society. Since all socialist countries exclude or restrain representation of the capitalist class, that makes all socialism authoritarian by a liberal point of view. They see a single party state as tyrannical, because they would prefer to see a state with various competing bourgeois elements rather than the single uniting interest of the working class.
Liberals also use the term (and tankie) in a completely racist way. White countries aren't authoritarian, that's reserved for scary foreigners
it's also why, for instance, the political compass is such an awful concept in general
but yeah, I try to be cognizant of how different parts of the Left just have fundamentally different definitions behind the same words, like "authority" for instance, and so bringing up e.g. Engels to somebody who doesn't think authority means what Engels defines it as is kinda pointless, but the liberals have turned "authority" into such a meaningless term now that I can understand why your anarchist comrades don't care to use it
There's a line in the explanation of that compass, I guess written by the authors, saying that Stalin and Hitler could have a cordial discussion about politics so long as economics aren't mentioned. Which is absurd. Stalin was a Marxist and Hitler believed politics was a matter of skull measurements and racial destinies.
what the fuck? did they think WW2 and millions of deaths was just an economics debate that got too far? the only possible way you could think this is true is if you literally didn't know shit about fuck. "yeah, actually, the guy who liberated the Jews from the concentration camps was actually basically the same politically as the guy who put them in there"
It was written by British libertarians, what do you expect?
I think it’s strident individualism masquerading as anarchism.
Both anarchism and socialism heavily center community. They put slightly different emphasis on different parts of community and anarchism is more decentralized but anarchism still places community and a persons place and rights vis a vis their community as well as the expectations a community can have of its members at the center.
It’s less obvious with anarchism since anarchism is less proscriptive about what form community should take and usually it’s some vision of a decentralized variety of voluntarist communes or something like that, but it always has the idea of a person as a part of their community at the center.
Strident individualism, the idea that the individual is more important than the collective, is antithetical to both anarchism and socialism and this is what really separates right-libertarianism from anarchism.
A lot of people make the claim that individualist anarchism is right wing because they just don't know what it's actually about and think it's some kind of philosophical anarcho-capitalism. But I've never met someone who read Renzo Novatore and thought he was right wing at all. Edgy? Extremely so. Kinda dumb? Honestly I think so too. But right wing as in in favour of the reaction and the capitalist class, no way.
You have described neo-liberalism; nothing must change, only managed decline.
Maybe that's the correct way to frame anti-authoritarianism to actually get people to start recognising the need for some authority if you're going to see change.
We might honestly be slowly re-treading ground that the neoliberal thinktanks have already been over in their decision-making to support, back and push this ideology.
You did sort of reinvent anarcho-bidenism and the premise of that FBI anarchist publication.
Not sure if I'm familiar with this one. Do you have a link?
Never been a fan of this phrase. The people that take part in it like it too much and can hide behind multiple layers of irony while unironically supporting it.
I only ever used anarcho-bidenism to ridicule radlibs and "anarchists" who parrot the state department, and on the website people only really use it that way.
Here's the FBI thing: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2021/10/15/cointelpro-fbi-anarchism-disrupt-left/
To counteract this common narrative... https://archive.ph/GnQtp#selection-483.18-483.151
Here are FBI MLs too, which actually existed: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/167878
I could have told you about Maoist feds upon request. I have zero doubt that the Austin Red Guard has those connections, Black Hammer was sponsored by a Russian agent, etc. etc. The US takes impotent enemies and pits them against its threatening enemies, especially the ones with more chaotic ideologies (as, it cannot be stressed enough, the original memo does still say). That does not mean there are not good anarchist and maoist movements or that either is a State Dept. plot, but that on a sociological level the nominally-anarchist/Maoist cultural trends in the US are easier to steer in the direction of useful idiocy against actual opponents of the US. Remember, Trotsky was the biggest useful idiot of all, not any anarchist or Maoist.
My point is, the actual declassified papers of the FBI show that this "anarchist infiltration zine" never happened. It was proposed and then discarded. Either they didn't think we were enough of a threat to put the effort into subverting, or they thought they wouldn't be able to make anarchists fall for it.
ML feds did happen though, and were rather succesful, because when the State Dept. plants reached a high enough position of authority within the party, no one dared questioning them.
You may not be saying it intentionally, and I believe you aren't, but it's a massive narrative in mainly ML circles that us anarchists were just useful idiots, and we're against leftism as a whole, and we're easy to infiltrate, and most of us are CIA/FBI plants etc etc, and the only source of this is that one zine, which didn't actually happen. Continuing to post it and show it without further context just keeps reinforcing that narrative.
I'll need to look more at the reporting.
What I said is that anarchist cultural trends in the US are vulnerable to useful idiocy, which is exclusively my point and which I am generally pretty clear about with discussing "anarcho-bidenists". My instance is one with anarchists, including among admins, and they know that I'm not talking about them even though some of them are literally American anarchists, a matter made clear by the fact that they, unlike those I complain about, don't fall for this "third campist" bullshit that you see some American anarchists go off about so frequently online.
Can you tell me with a straight face that anti-"tankie" hysteria isn't useful idiocy or that those spaces aren't frequently brimming with people who fashion themselves anarchists or ""libertarian socialists""?
I think I do believe that early on anarchists tend to demonize socialist countries, and give them no real nuance or charitability, which does lead them to believe things that are objectively just cold war propaganda, and often times it is difficult to call this out because it's viewed as siding with the enemy. In my experience most do end up moving on, while still firmly opposing them but for more theoretical and pragmatic reasons and not because of an abstract notion that they are evil. I do agree this is harder to happen if one became an anarchist via people that call themselves anarchists but advocate for completely antithetical things in practice like NonCompete, or straight up co-opters like Vaush.
I don't believe as a whole that disagreement, callout and suspicion of tankies and MLism is something bad or that it benefits the U.S. I don't really see how you could expect us not to be wary, given the constant history of hijacking, blackmailing, crushing and undermining by MLs to us. It's not even something "in the past", not a lot more than just 10 years ago, greek MLs allied with the cops to stop us. I myself think we are capable of working together but I don't blame anyone who doesn't.
Also, why do you put libertarian socialists in quotation marks?
Its just crypto-libertarianism, right?
I mean, sorta?
The distinguishing feature of anarchists is that they do in fact want revolution and are willing to shoot guns over it. While there is no such feature of ancaps, the NAP is explicitly anti-revolutionary, and opposes all capability to effect change within the system through any means other than the use of money and property.
So yes. I can kinda see that comparison. The only thing I will say however is that the anti-authoritarians that can be pipelined leftwards are usually still in favour of use of authority for some things, such as enforcing the age of consent. Whereas the libertarians seem to be against authority in even that case too. This distinguishes which group of anti-authoritarians that pipeline left vs which group of them pipeline right.
I wrote a longer rely to op but I think it’s when the rights and liberties of the individual are made supreme to the point of overriding the rights of the community, that’s when it’s just crypto-libertarianism masquerading as anarchism.
I don't think anti-authoritarianism (as you describe it) can be separated from leftism (anarchism is right there), nor should it be (it's largely correct in many cases and also a powerful organizing tool). Rather, I think anyone who digs in on that front should be asked two questions:
Either they will have practical answers that lead naturally into discussions like "when is authority justified, and what actions can a justified authority take?" or they'll show their ass with some "abolish bedtimes" baby anarchist stuff.
Anti-authoritarianism is distinguishable from anarchism because anarchists do not oppose use of authority for revolution nor to maintain post-revolution, they support authoritarian means in those cases.
Anything that opposes revolution upholds the status quo.
The anti-authoritarians might be a pipeline into the left, but are not yet among the left in that their ideology literally upholds neoliberalism by opposing all use of authority to change it. You could view them in the same way that belief in alternative medicines isn't right wing but is a pipeline into right wing conspiracy thought. Distinguished from the right but you can see how it leads into it. Anti-authoritarians are distinguishable from the left in that they oppose all the things we need to bring about any real change, but they can be a pipeline into the left by making them realise this.
This is also why the anti-tankie rhetoric is so necessary for liberals. It makes it harder to do the work to pipeline the anti-authoritarians into the left by aiming to kick all real leftists out of the anti-authoritarian spaces and shut down all thought-processes of anti-authoritarians if/when they speak to people that are part of the proper left.
This seems to be the case mainly because the principal authorities in capitalist society are ones that should be opposed and destroyed. That doesn't make it a coherent political position. See Gramsci's letter to anarchists.
So,
?
Sure, but we must articulate it in a specific way or people continue to join them in the genuine belief that they're not.
Absolutely agree 07
In addition to what everyone else already said, being against something isn't the same as supporting something.
Anarchists are pro-anarchy, communists are pro-communism, but anti-authoritarians aren't necessarily either of those two. They're anti-authority, which is often a word they themselves can't even define. And because it's impossible to exercise in reality, they have to pick and choose which powers they consider "authoritarian" and which aren't. Since these people don't read, this just ends up looking like another flavor of liberalism.
American actions abroad since WW2 are definitely not authoritarian!
and then the counter-argument is always just "I don't know anything about American actions abroad since WW2"
The nifty thing about never claiming to support anything is that you never have to defend anything either. Anti-authoritarians can just say that they oppose the US along with China, the USSR, Cuba, their teachers, and their parents.
Great point. That's exactly what they do to.
nah
Like, there's a word for an antagonism to authority. It's anarchism. This doesn't imply an ignorance of power or of its present application in the real world, nor does it imply that all authorities are indistinguishable, but it does imply that we hold no structures so sacred as to be above question. That's not counterrevolutionary: it's the very thing that revolution consists of.
I don't have the time or energy to argue for/against a state at the moment but I'd like to leave some stuff for anyone interested in an actual anarchist analysis of the state over idle speculation from people who have a clear bias against left-libertarian politics. Plenty of anarchists read statist material to gain an understanding of the statist perspective. I've personally read enough of Lenin (including the state and revolution), Trotsky and all that to know it isn't my jam. Not to mention, Marx and Engles were against the state as a revolutionary apparatus (it's included in the link, don't @ me).
The State is Counterrevolutionary
And for an anarchist analysis on revolution, complex systems analysis, etc. The Revolution Series
A Modern Anarchism
Marx Against the State (article)
I'm only linking the one channel because it's relevant. Anarchism, as an inherently decentralized ideology and movement has a wide variety of theorists, analysis and opinions. Anarks material is well imformed and comprehensive. I'm not looking to convince anyone to "switch teams" but if we're going to criticize one another it would help to know what we all actually believe and stand for
I've literally read all of these before.
Nothing I said is a critique of anarchism.
No. This is definitely nonsense, I don't want to get into sectarian bollocks but you deserve correcting. Marx is completely explicit about it here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
But again. Nothing I fucking said was a criticism of anarchism. This isn't about anarchism this is about something explicitly different to it, anti-authoritarianism is not the same thing as anarchism, anarchists are not universally anti-authority.
Stop trying to turn this into sectarianism. Nothing I said was about anarchism. Fuck off. Wrecker somewhere else.
Pretty much every anarchist I know would be okay with suppressing the rights of capitalists, as well as their ability to use the state to enforce private property. That would be pretty "authoritarian" from the perspective of a capitalist, but fuck them, they do the same to us.
I would like to link to this article, it goes deeper into the anarchist conception of authority. TL;DR: These are pointless definition wars. All anarchists are fundamentally against the same thing, it's just that some prefer to not describe it as "authority"
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/london-anarchist-federation-the-problems-with-on-authority
Did you actually read the article on Marx? It misrepresents Stalin tremendously and slightly misrepresents Lenin (who was at first the biggest proponent of a "state capitalist" DotP), but it clearly and explicitly defends the notion of the DotP as a socialist state preceding stateless communism, as all Marxist-Leninists do. It would have been better to include more of the writing Lenin quotes in his own work about the paradox of the "free state", maybe even Lenin's own thoughts, but we can only expect so much from a Trot rag like this.
You aren't making a good case for your "informed criticism" plea, as though it had a chance when you call Leninists "statists". Just say "tankie" if you refuse to say ML, it is unironically less irritating.
What is one supposed to call leftists who advocate for a state if not statists?
It's a distortion to say that they "advocate for a state". They, including Marx in the very article that was linked, say that a transitional state is necessary in order for there to be a successful stateless society subsequently. No ML advocates for the permanent existence of a state or even the existence of a state that is not designed to fundamentally tend toward the destruction of all states.
Again, just say ML (or "Marxist" if you want to include the older figures like Marx, early Kautsky, Luxemburg, etc.)
So they want a state??
Also, my problem with just saying "ML" or "Marxist" is that there are plently of libertarian socialist that reject basically all Leninism, yet what they propose instead is a state too. Vastly different from ML states, but a state nonetheless. Therefore "statist leftists" is a better catch all term than "leftists who advocate for a transitional state" because that's just a mouthful.
They believe statehood cannot merely be abolished but must be destroyed in a more gradual and thorough manner. Any attempt to merely declare the state abolished will, at best, create a vacuum that neighboring state powers will rush into with the same violence as the physics analogy. The destruction of the state is necessary, but it cannot be done so easily.
Are we talking about appeasing r/polcompmemes and HoI4 modding forums or actual political movements? Because Marxists have a real historical presence and regarding what few real demsoc-like countries actually exist (such as Bolivia and to a lesser extent Venezuela), even calling them "statist" seems to be missing the plot of what their ideologies actually are. It's like when Trots call real anti-imperialists "campists," it's just a name you made up to flatter yourself that doesn't reflect the living and practiced ideologies that far overshadow yours.
This is also, again, completely sidestepping the point that Marx is on my side here, not just Lenin.
This feels like definition wars. I am aware marxists believe in the destruction of the state in the end, but it doesn't change that they advocate for a revolution that takes control of the state and keeps using it. That to me is statism, the strategy. I don't really use it to mean "the belief in a state" because the only ideology against the state is anarchism, so I just say not-anarchists or archists.
They are political movements, they're just very niche and small. I don't see why I have to pretend they don't exist just because of that though.
Never claimed he wasn't. I'm saying there are people who follow marxism and want socialism with methods and endgoals that have nothing to do with Lenin so calling any leftist who believes in a transitional state ML or tankie is just a lazy generalization that I don't see why I should use when statist is a perfectly fine word to me, you disagree with my use of it but you understand what I mean when I do so either way, no?
This is beside your point, but Lenin is pretty clear about smashing the state machinery and replacing it. You said you read State and Rev, right?
Because coloring your language over niche issues out of ideological convenience is annoying. Who gives a shit about those niches in general conversation? If you want to talk about them, talk about them, but when discussing the Soviets and CPC and their supporters, there is no need to hedge our language to include the idiosyncratic theorizing of a five-member book club/gaming club in a run-down coffee shop in exurban Milwaukee.
Pretending that classical Marxists still exist and matter, I did volunteer that you simply say "Marxist" and you ignored that too
Yes, I feel like I'm just being terrible at expressing myself, I'm sorry.
I just don't agree. I don't think we should discard or ignore ideals simply because they aren't very popular. It's not like it's a massive effort to do so, you just have to say a word instead of another.
Marxist could probably work, but when we're talking about revolutionary strategy, as I've said before, there are massive differences between kinds of marxists. "Statist" the way I use it describes the specific part about the strategy I mean so I'm not excluding or generalizing anything.