I feel like you’re trying to argue when I’m trying very clearly to communicate,

“Your comments will be moderated if you keep using the word authoritarian”

Okay, but do you see what I am trying to communicate?

Use different language that isnt connected to a holocaust trivialization attempt.

Okay, well say those things instead then.

What are you trying to describe?

I would look to historians like Dovid Katz and search for “double genocide theory”, I would not like to make this an argument.

Please change your language when posting in the comm. “Authoritarian” and “totalitarian” are not useful descriptors and are historically connected to trying to equate the USSR and nazi Germany in order to do holocaust trivialization.

Yo, define authoritarian in a way that doesn’t include western bourgeois democracies or find a different word

The whole “authoritarian” nonsense has its roots in holocaust trivialization attempts in countries that collaborated with the nazis.

This is good for the dprk, the US still runs massive mock invasions to force them to spend massively on their military, this plus the nukes makes them a lot less precarious, especially with dedollarization too.

Exploiting cheap workers in inhumane conditions, resembling 19th century capitalism. Exactly what communism was supposed to end. China is getting robotized somewhat, since its society ages dramatically, but they want to keep polluting the world with cheap throwaways.

Taking everything you said as true, that isn’t imperialist though. Imperialism is a specific thing, have you read any academic writings on imperialism?

DPRK constantly threaten South Korea and Japan. Apart the famous missile launches, it performs abductions, drug smuggling, marine poaching, and spying. And we have cyber attacks as well. The country is too shitty to invade another country full scale, but it does what it can do to be a bully, officially uses imperialist rhetorics and throw threats.

Taking everything you say is true, that also isn’t imperialism

The elections were carried out in such a way, that an average worker had no chance to vote for a social demoratic party, anarchist party, or liberal democratic party. They even killed their communist opposition, Mensheviks. There is no democracy with a single party system, don’t be ridiculous.

Okay, see my original point about not being informed.

Setting aside manufactured famine in Ukraine and genocides like Katyn, very cautious estimates says that around 30 millions of people were victims of gulag, with lethal 2,7 million victims. This is probably massive underestimation, since many of gulag documents were destroyed in 2014. But hey, the mortality rate was smaller than in Nazi death camps, great job USSR! /s

Your estimate should be 1.7 million, Nazis aren’t people remember?

I think that’s a pretty common experience in strongly anticommunist societies

Please share an explicitly diamat anarchist text from the pre-kruschev era

Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.

Okay so the first problem is that you’re basing your ideas around the soviet union on popular western media and not an actual understanding of how the system worked.

Here is a fun rabbit hole to go down… how did too much horizontalism lead to a failure to cyberize the planned economy ala cybersyn?

The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.

Timestamp.

It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?

The decisions made regarding the nature and circumstances of operation impose restrictions on all operatives in the system, ergo decisions made on a local level affect everyone. It is the monopolization of the use of literal power (and torque) unless you reject specialization, it is the imposition of authority. And rejecting specialization on a practical societal level requires a massive imposition of authority.

Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate?

Yes, are you asking a ML if they don’t understand the difference between strong and weak delegates? Y’all know democratic centralism is our thing right? Which is a much more thorough application of the principle.

The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay.

LOL. Someone pointing a gun at you and giving you instructions isn’t authority? It isn’t the monopolization of violence in this context?

The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority.

The essays author establishes that some anarchists define self defense as a justifiable exercise in authority.

You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition.

No, the argument is that the anarchist definition isn’t grounded in materialism.

I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.

That is because Engels is a dialectical materialist and convinced that definitions grounded in dialectical materialism are superior- his problem is that anarchists are being idealist in their definition, and that they should embrace a more coherent definition of it.

Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives.

I spent a couple years reading anarchist literature, and turned to reading marxist lit when the anarchists started giving unsatisfactory explanations.

This might be your pipeline. But I would suggest avoiding wasting time on YouTube.

idealist

Mfw someone trying to argue that their ideology is better doesn’t understand their own ideology, or the idealist/dialectical materialist split, lmao

Oh look ageism based insults

I follow a different definition, that’s more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.

Okay:

1. then don’t link a video to defend your point that you don’t agree with

2. then Marxist Leninist projects meet your definition of anti-authoritarian?

They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist’s definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels’ definition.

The robber example rebuts the claim by the most popular anarchist rebuttal that authority is established by unquestioning obedience. Did you not read the anarchist rebuttal?

This feels like a basic misreading of the text.

No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.

No, you don’t get to claim this after your failure to read, I spent 45 minutes that I will never get back listening to inane shit like him claiming “steam isn’t authority” without understanding how the circumstances of prime mover operation is socially created and influences downstream production processes, or “delegates and representatives are different actually, silly Engels” It was the same inane failures of reading along similar thrusts to the article.

The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.

How would you know? You didn’t fucking read it, if you didn’t source the argument of “authority is created through unquestioning obedience”!

Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority.

There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the “Problems with “On Authority””? No?

In addition to not making sense from a historical development or material analysis perspective

The term comes from gay culture, and that is where it is still predominantly used.

But you also shouldn’t make fun of bdsm bottoms (without negotiating)

Oh look, holocaust trivialization from an “anti-authoritarian”

Hey, just because they’re being homophobic doesn’t mean you should stoop to their level

That is what you are referring to though when you talk about Marx not being a Marxist.

The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.

I think you’re confusing dismissing your viewpoint after engaging with it in a serious way with being disingenuous

The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way.

You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued in a Marxist Response

he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one

The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.