He mostly explained how he actually didn’t really have a proper grasp of what authority actually means. He conflated them with a lot of things without actually making sense. I’m surprised why “On authority” is so widely known.
Hey, I stepped into an anarchist space to read the most popular critique of on authority, you can step into a non-sectarian left space to read a critique of the critique.
He has a great grasp on how often Anarchists operate mainly on vibes, even if in practice when they get into power they still implement some form of authoritarianism, such as the labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
Sorry, but claiming that just shows that someone didn’t engage at all with anarchist theory.
Edit - addendum: even if this wasn’t true back then in Engel’s days: Still quoting him today ignores all that anarchist theory on power that happened since then.
I have, I used to lean more Anarchist, until I read more Marxist theory. Concepts like ParEcon were extremely interesting, and could be applied to both an Anarchist system or a Worker State. I am aware of Anarchist principles of horizontal organization, and I think they are quite beautiful, but I am also aware that Anarchist critique of Marxism falls flat almost all of the time.
How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.
Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.
While he didn’t specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: “All I know is that I’m not a marxist.” That’s what I was referencing.
Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn’t claim that states “had issues”. Here’s a quote, for example:
That is because no state, not even the most republican and democratic, not even the pseudo-popular state contemplated by Marx, in essence represents anything but government of the masses from above downward, by an educated and thereby privileged minority which supposedly understands the real interests of the people better than the people themselves.
The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn’t have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn’t have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.
The role of money in soviet society was always subordinate to material production. Money was necessary only due to the technical limitations of planning a vast economy without sufficient computing power. The sphere of commodity exchange was supressed as much as possible. Much of the soviet citizen’s consumption was either heavily subsidised or free. This went all the way from food, transportation to even fancy entertainment (like spas and theatres). In fact, the heavy distortion of prices in soviet society is often cited as a reason for its eventual collapse.
Therefore, calling the soviet union state capitalist is absurd. Capitalism requires a dominant bourgeois class, the operation of the law of value and the anarchy of production. None of these elements were present in the soviet union.
That’s a bit ridiculous, with respect to the Marx claim. Marx was attacking Dogmatism, not his own ideas. Post-Marx’s death, people following his ideas understandably called themselves Marxists not because they worshipped Marx, but because they were working with his ideas!
As for Bakunin, he’s a pure idealist here. His rejection of the state is based on the notion that the elected cannot represent the will of the people because they are not the people. This, of course, is wrong, as it assumes the people do not want someone managing higher-order decisions! Letting vast improvements in material conditions be held back because workers had representatives is why Anarchism has failed to last very long.
As for the USSR being “State Capitalist,” that referred to the NEP. Judging Leftist movements by their structure as compared to perfect Marxism in a vacuum without considering the historical context is deeply silly idealism. You would have to do some heavy justification for why you believe a worker state to form a new class that isn’t just vibes.
I’m not claiming he denounced his own ideas, but rather the people claiming to represent marxism. I’m not claiming that anyone worshipped Marx, but that they misunderstood his work.
No, sorry. Claiming that a state can work to not enslave the masses, just because “the right people” are in charge is the actual idealism.
Your claim about representation is wrong, too. Sorry. Anarchist regions have collapsed due to external military pressure. You should read a book on how well the material conditions improved in Catalonia. Sorry, your claims about anarghist regions failing to improve their material condition runs counter to reality and to the actual Marxist theory (that only the people can free themselves, etc.)
The whole planned economy was bogus. What do you think a class is?
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.
The problem with anarchist theory is that it demonstrably doesn’t work. A theory that can’t be put into practice is not worth the paper its written on.
He mostly explained how he actually didn’t really have a proper grasp of what authority actually means. He conflated them with a lot of things without actually making sense. I’m surprised why “On authority” is so widely known.
Let me guess, you’ve read “The problems with on authority”, but haven’t read "A Marxist Response to “The problems with on authority” " ?
Here you go: https://hexbear.net/post/2141265
Lol, not dipping into that cesspool.
Hey, I stepped into an anarchist space to read the most popular critique of on authority, you can step into a non-sectarian left space to read a critique of the critique.
He has a great grasp on how often Anarchists operate mainly on vibes, even if in practice when they get into power they still implement some form of authoritarianism, such as the labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
Sorry, but claiming that just shows that someone didn’t engage at all with anarchist theory.
Edit - addendum: even if this wasn’t true back then in Engel’s days: Still quoting him today ignores all that anarchist theory on power that happened since then.
I have, I used to lean more Anarchist, until I read more Marxist theory. Concepts like ParEcon were extremely interesting, and could be applied to both an Anarchist system or a Worker State. I am aware of Anarchist principles of horizontal organization, and I think they are quite beautiful, but I am also aware that Anarchist critique of Marxism falls flat almost all of the time.
What kind of Marxism? Marx’s Marxism, or that body of theory by his followers that even Marx denounced, i.e. ML, MLM, etc.
Anarchist’s analysis of power has been spot-on ever since Bakunin predicted the bureaucratic dictatorship that Russia became under the Bolsheviki.
Marx died March 14th, 1883
Mao was born December 26th, 1893
Was Karl Marx a time traveler?
How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That’s a supremely goofy statement.
Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying “states have issues” counts as being “correct” enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you’re intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history’s first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.
You’d know if you read anarchist theory 😂
While he didn’t specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: “All I know is that I’m not a marxist.” That’s what I was referencing.
Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn’t claim that states “had issues”. Here’s a quote, for example:
The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn’t have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn’t have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.
You are wrong on the factual level.
The role of money in soviet society was always subordinate to material production. Money was necessary only due to the technical limitations of planning a vast economy without sufficient computing power. The sphere of commodity exchange was supressed as much as possible. Much of the soviet citizen’s consumption was either heavily subsidised or free. This went all the way from food, transportation to even fancy entertainment (like spas and theatres). In fact, the heavy distortion of prices in soviet society is often cited as a reason for its eventual collapse.
Therefore, calling the soviet union state capitalist is absurd. Capitalism requires a dominant bourgeois class, the operation of the law of value and the anarchy of production. None of these elements were present in the soviet union.
That’s a bit ridiculous, with respect to the Marx claim. Marx was attacking Dogmatism, not his own ideas. Post-Marx’s death, people following his ideas understandably called themselves Marxists not because they worshipped Marx, but because they were working with his ideas!
As for Bakunin, he’s a pure idealist here. His rejection of the state is based on the notion that the elected cannot represent the will of the people because they are not the people. This, of course, is wrong, as it assumes the people do not want someone managing higher-order decisions! Letting vast improvements in material conditions be held back because workers had representatives is why Anarchism has failed to last very long.
As for the USSR being “State Capitalist,” that referred to the NEP. Judging Leftist movements by their structure as compared to perfect Marxism in a vacuum without considering the historical context is deeply silly idealism. You would have to do some heavy justification for why you believe a worker state to form a new class that isn’t just vibes.
I’m not claiming he denounced his own ideas, but rather the people claiming to represent marxism. I’m not claiming that anyone worshipped Marx, but that they misunderstood his work.
No, sorry. Claiming that a state can work to not enslave the masses, just because “the right people” are in charge is the actual idealism.
Your claim about representation is wrong, too. Sorry. Anarchist regions have collapsed due to external military pressure. You should read a book on how well the material conditions improved in Catalonia. Sorry, your claims about anarghist regions failing to improve their material condition runs counter to reality and to the actual Marxist theory (that only the people can free themselves, etc.)
The whole planned economy was bogus. What do you think a class is?
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist theory and show time and time again that you don’t have the slightest of an idea.
The problem with anarchist theory is that it demonstrably doesn’t work. A theory that can’t be put into practice is not worth the paper its written on.