Since you appear to be making a criticism of the text written there, can you show where does it defend “being a bootlicker”? Because in practice, the “anti-authoritarians” are in fact the bootlickers, only they are unaware of that. To defend a revolution is to defend a change in the authority, not the abolishment of authority, because authority will always exist in one form or another. For instance, a person who dedicates 20 years of their life in the study of a particular phenomenon usually tends to become an authority on the subject.
From the text linked, which I assume you didn’t even read apart from the title:
If you’re anti-authoritarian, consider you’ve likely only ever lived under the authority of oppressors. So your understanding of “authority” is itself tainted, and this informs your understanding of the world. But if you’re familiar with revolutionaries and history, you know that’s not the only way authority can be used; revolutionary authority has been used successfully to overthrow corrupt governments and run nations in way far more just than what we’ve experienced in the US. Authority can be used to oppress the people or it can be used to achieve goals to benefit the people.
I really think that this issue is a misconception of the word “authority”, an abism of language and the meanings of concepts. Anarchists dont desapproval authority when authority is refered in common language as hability or excellence. And it has been explicitly debated by anarquists, as you can see in God and State by Bakunin.
I, as an anarquist and a political philosophy student, have extreme necessity to read comunnist books, even because they are rich and a real basis to think and analise capitalism. Marx is a genius. But as well as Kropotkin, Reclus and Goldman. Read us.
The authority of nature, as well as the authority of excellence, dont share the same matter and form of the authority of state and power. We should attack anarquist thoughts in their fragil points, it is important for everyone, even for us, anarquists. But this issue of authority is already seen in basic anarquists writings. We need to read each other, to make debates more constructive.
I know there is some real divergences that cannot be conciliated, and I hate (false)moralism and dont think all the people has to like the doctrines of each other. But I really would appreciate the same curiosity of each side for the doctrines of the another side. We need to study even Leviathan to understand the nature of power.
This issue (of the comment) is an issue of language.
I’ve read Kropotkin. His conquest of bread was utopian to the highest degree; the overarching idea was “people will just come together when they see how good anarchism is, trust me. They just will”. It had nothing on Marx or Lenin. I’ve heard mutual aid was good and there were good things to learn in there, so maybe I’ll give it a read when my schedule frees up.
As you are a student of political philosophy, you said you’ve read Marx, but have you done the exercise of understanding marxism? The three fundamental components of dialectical materialism, the LTV (less important for philosophy students), and the class struggle, and how they relate to each other? Many people tell me they’ve read Marx, but they didn’t really go the whole way. I think one way of reading something you disagree with is pretending you agree with it, to understand what the author actually said and why.
But ideology is preceded by the material world, the material conditions people find themselves in – people don’t pick their ideology out of thin air. Marxism and marxism-leninism is the ideology of the proletariat (as it will liberate them). Anarchism has long been regarded as the ideology of the petty bourgeoisie by marxists, as it will liberate the petty bourgeois. Proudhon’s land-credit plan was to make everyone into a bourgeois (he took that up after meeting Marx, while not understanding contradictions; you cannot solve a contradiction by removing only one side of it).
But once again, I think results speak volumes. If anarchism was the vanguard of the revolution, I think many of us here would turn towards anarchism. The objective problem of anarchism in the 21st century is that it hasn’t had any success. Anarchists can’t even seem to agree what is anarchism and what isn’t, and while we have some issues doing that on the marxist side as well sometimes, I’ve seen anarchists say that any revolution that fights against authority is anarchist in nature. The Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War were not fought entirely by anarchists, yet anarchists make it seem as though they were the driving force behind the movement.
In fact, to segue back into authority, let’s look at the Paris Commune. Marx said the communards should have marched directly to Versailles with their weapons to seize the government before the army had a chance to reassemble. Kropotkin, on the other hand, claimed the Commune was neither anarchist nor “authoritative and semi–religious communism of 1848” but actually it was anarchist because the “people” organised themselves. “The revolution of 1871 … sprang spontaneously from the midst of the mass”.
And where did that get them? Killed like we’d never seen before after three months. Marching on the French government was an authoritarian move; the people of Paris would have exacted their authority on the government, and then on the French people. Yet Kropotkin, while extolling the virtues of the commune, cleverly forgets to fit in their demise, and how the two are linked. Of course the army would march on Paris – there was no way they would let their biggest city secede. Of course they would make an example out of them – the proletariat revolting would mean the end of the bourgeoisie, as a class and as individuals. I cannot fault the Communards for not necessarily realising this (I wasn’t there, I didn’t live that context), but I can fault Kropotkin for claiming that theirs was actually the right path, because it was anarchism. And anarchism is all that is good, and declaring a “popular” revolt is good even if you die at the end, while seizing the government is bad.
So which is more authoritarian? Seizing the government so you can ensure the success of your revolution, or letting things run their course even if you know you will die at the end?
I think this article is quite relevant here, describing how “the fetish for defeat is one of the fundamental characteristics of Western Marxism”. That applies to anarchism even more.
You’re right, authority has a vague meaning, which is why revolutionaries usually don’t spend their time dwelling over that. This is why “anti-authoritarian” is a meaningless political thought, because instead of analyzing the state based on the class interests it serves, anti-authoritarians consider all states authoritarian and end up describing existing socialist states (where workers are in power) as “authoritarian” states.
I’ve seen anarchists defend that position too many times and it’s an example of why this terrible political thought is counter-revolutionary, much like the article above presented.
The anarchist attack on authority is not on their modern/contemporary form, but on the concept of authority, on whatever form it gets on society. It is first a philosophical attack on the nature of authority, so then exported to a sociological plain
So you’re saying anarchists are analyzing a concept instead of paying attention to the material reality, then they expand their thought based on that idealist premise. In that case, I thoroughly agree with you.
Since you appear to be making a criticism of the text written there, can you show where does it defend “being a bootlicker”? Because in practice, the “anti-authoritarians” are in fact the bootlickers, only they are unaware of that. To defend a revolution is to defend a change in the authority, not the abolishment of authority, because authority will always exist in one form or another. For instance, a person who dedicates 20 years of their life in the study of a particular phenomenon usually tends to become an authority on the subject.
From the text linked, which I assume you didn’t even read apart from the title:
I really think that this issue is a misconception of the word “authority”, an abism of language and the meanings of concepts. Anarchists dont desapproval authority when authority is refered in common language as hability or excellence. And it has been explicitly debated by anarquists, as you can see in God and State by Bakunin. I, as an anarquist and a political philosophy student, have extreme necessity to read comunnist books, even because they are rich and a real basis to think and analise capitalism. Marx is a genius. But as well as Kropotkin, Reclus and Goldman. Read us. The authority of nature, as well as the authority of excellence, dont share the same matter and form of the authority of state and power. We should attack anarquist thoughts in their fragil points, it is important for everyone, even for us, anarquists. But this issue of authority is already seen in basic anarquists writings. We need to read each other, to make debates more constructive. I know there is some real divergences that cannot be conciliated, and I hate (false)moralism and dont think all the people has to like the doctrines of each other. But I really would appreciate the same curiosity of each side for the doctrines of the another side. We need to study even Leviathan to understand the nature of power. This issue (of the comment) is an issue of language.
I’ve read Kropotkin. His conquest of bread was utopian to the highest degree; the overarching idea was “people will just come together when they see how good anarchism is, trust me. They just will”. It had nothing on Marx or Lenin. I’ve heard mutual aid was good and there were good things to learn in there, so maybe I’ll give it a read when my schedule frees up.
As you are a student of political philosophy, you said you’ve read Marx, but have you done the exercise of understanding marxism? The three fundamental components of dialectical materialism, the LTV (less important for philosophy students), and the class struggle, and how they relate to each other? Many people tell me they’ve read Marx, but they didn’t really go the whole way. I think one way of reading something you disagree with is pretending you agree with it, to understand what the author actually said and why.
But ideology is preceded by the material world, the material conditions people find themselves in – people don’t pick their ideology out of thin air. Marxism and marxism-leninism is the ideology of the proletariat (as it will liberate them). Anarchism has long been regarded as the ideology of the petty bourgeoisie by marxists, as it will liberate the petty bourgeois. Proudhon’s land-credit plan was to make everyone into a bourgeois (he took that up after meeting Marx, while not understanding contradictions; you cannot solve a contradiction by removing only one side of it).
But once again, I think results speak volumes. If anarchism was the vanguard of the revolution, I think many of us here would turn towards anarchism. The objective problem of anarchism in the 21st century is that it hasn’t had any success. Anarchists can’t even seem to agree what is anarchism and what isn’t, and while we have some issues doing that on the marxist side as well sometimes, I’ve seen anarchists say that any revolution that fights against authority is anarchist in nature. The Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War were not fought entirely by anarchists, yet anarchists make it seem as though they were the driving force behind the movement.
In fact, to segue back into authority, let’s look at the Paris Commune. Marx said the communards should have marched directly to Versailles with their weapons to seize the government before the army had a chance to reassemble. Kropotkin, on the other hand, claimed the Commune was neither anarchist nor “authoritative and semi–religious communism of 1848” but actually it was anarchist because the “people” organised themselves. “The revolution of 1871 … sprang spontaneously from the midst of the mass”.
And where did that get them? Killed like we’d never seen before after three months. Marching on the French government was an authoritarian move; the people of Paris would have exacted their authority on the government, and then on the French people. Yet Kropotkin, while extolling the virtues of the commune, cleverly forgets to fit in their demise, and how the two are linked. Of course the army would march on Paris – there was no way they would let their biggest city secede. Of course they would make an example out of them – the proletariat revolting would mean the end of the bourgeoisie, as a class and as individuals. I cannot fault the Communards for not necessarily realising this (I wasn’t there, I didn’t live that context), but I can fault Kropotkin for claiming that theirs was actually the right path, because it was anarchism. And anarchism is all that is good, and declaring a “popular” revolt is good even if you die at the end, while seizing the government is bad.
So which is more authoritarian? Seizing the government so you can ensure the success of your revolution, or letting things run their course even if you know you will die at the end?
I think this article is quite relevant here, describing how “the fetish for defeat is one of the fundamental characteristics of Western Marxism”. That applies to anarchism even more.
https://www.blackagendareport.com/western-marxism-loves-purity-and-martyrdom-not-real-revolution
You’re right, authority has a vague meaning, which is why revolutionaries usually don’t spend their time dwelling over that. This is why “anti-authoritarian” is a meaningless political thought, because instead of analyzing the state based on the class interests it serves, anti-authoritarians consider all states authoritarian and end up describing existing socialist states (where workers are in power) as “authoritarian” states.
I’ve seen anarchists defend that position too many times and it’s an example of why this terrible political thought is counter-revolutionary, much like the article above presented.
The anarchist attack on authority is not on their modern/contemporary form, but on the concept of authority, on whatever form it gets on society. It is first a philosophical attack on the nature of authority, so then exported to a sociological plain
So you’re saying anarchists are analyzing a concept instead of paying attention to the material reality, then they expand their thought based on that idealist premise. In that case, I thoroughly agree with you.