Well, that text…have you ever tried to read critiques to such?
If so, why do you come do a different conclusion, then that Engels renders the term authority useless?
In his definition, authority is is justified because it can mean everything. Mutual aid is authority, plants living in symbioses is authority, plants producing oxygen is authority over humans…sure, you can use that definition, but by doing so you simply sneak around a critique against authority by stating it’s inevitable, so the issue can’t be authority itself.
Serious question: which critiques of authority have your read, to which you disagree to such a great amount, that you feel compelled to go with Engels analysis here, that is in short: everything is authority, and because it is inevitable to exist, it invalidates the critique against, without actually engaging with the actual brought up arguments of those that critique authority.
I did read “the conquest of bread”, but wasnt convinced at all by its suggestion that people would just spontaneously organise themselves one day, without any planning or preparation at all. And I dont see Engels as “justifying” authority, rather, authority is simply something that exists in objective reality, whether you like it or not.
It is true that there are forms of authority which need to be fought against, such as the authority of the boss over the worker, or bourgeosie over the working class. But a certain form of authority is necessary to wage a revolution, because there will always be a bourgeous minority who opposes it.
Thanks, i had read some Engels previously but this one really disappointed me. The questions/critics are good, but the logic is flawed.
If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other
Well that’s precisely what autonomy/anarchism is about. But because we rely on principles of voluntary association, rule by the majority in a specific collective (if it so wishes to be organized) is not a problem, just like specific delegations of power to a coordinator with an established mandate. If you don’t agree with the organization of a specific collective, you can always find other collectives to live/organize with.
We anarchists understand the value of delegating power in specific sets of circumstances. When i’m farming, i consciously/explicitly delegate some trust to more knowledgeable comrades to guide me in the process (and learn something). When as a collective we decide to organize an event, we consciously/explicitly delegate some trust to specific groups of people to handle various aspects of that (communication, logistics, food). Because it’s a transparent and consented process, and because this trust can be revoked at any time (there’s no higher power over me that’ll ruin my life if i decide i should do something else than farming), we do not understand this delegation to be a form of authority.
To answer to the three problems posed by Engels:
a cotton mill, or any other factory can be organized in a self-organized manner as proved by the experiences of revolutionary Spain (or VIOME in Greece for a more recent example) ; the staff holds a general assembly (a soviet, if you will) and decides on how to organize things, including who to entrust with specific concerns when that is required by the circumstances (usually, not a single person is named responsible, because every single person can fail)
train systems may also be run in a self-organized manner (see revolutionary Spain) ; time-sensitiveness is less of a problem nowadays because we have instant communication devices, and rail switching has been mostly automated, but in general individuals may commit to specific timetables if they so wish for the sake of the community (public service) ; if a person does not see interest in this, they may leave the task for someone else who finds interest in it
in times of crisis on a ship (as in other circumstances), having few identified people making the decisions can be a life-saver (because time is of the essence and reaching consensus can take time) ; however, who is placed in charge in such extraordinary circumstances should also be decided in advance as a collective, otherwise conflicts for power may emerge
Individual consent is a foundational basis for anarchist understanding of collective organization. Dictatorship of the majority is usually considered an anti-pattern, though it is a perfectly fine method of organizing if it is consented by everyone involved. Consensus is hard to reach, but consensus-building as a process in and of itself reinforces trust/solidarity as a collective. Forcing ourselves to take time to address concerns upfront usually enables to prevent further issues/conflicts by developing mutual understanding and trying to build common ground.
In the end of the consensus-building process, disagreements may still happen. In this case, both sides should weigh the pros and cons, and decide which is more important, between their participation in the collective, and their individual opinions. All situations are perfectly fine:
a dissenting person compromises on their ideas/principles, because they consider their action within the collective is more important in that specific context
a dissenting person vetoes a collective decision because they can’t compromise on certain principles ; in which case, both sides will ponder whether they may or may not compromise on it, leading to either side leaving the collective (potentially forking it), or expelling other people from the collective
In all cases, personal autonomy is respected. If you don’t agree with the operating principles of a commune, you’re free to take your chances elsewhere that will better suit you, and no higher authority will hold you back. In a capitalist society, leaving your job would mean uncertainty about material survival in the coming days/months. In a dictatorship of the proletariat, leaving your job would mean uncertainty about surviving interrogation by the political police following your “counter-revolutionary acts”. There is no equivalent situation in a free commune.
Back to Engels, i was also disappointed by this sentence:
Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.
This is a strawman argument. Most anarchists are not primitivists, so reducing anti-authoritarianism to primitivism makes no sense. But even if that were the case, what’s wrong with primitivism? It’s not exactly my thing, but in our times, the dangers of industrial society for all life on this planet have been long proved. Simply dismissing primitivism like that without expanding/criticizing on it as a potentially-viable alternative way of life is depressing.
Finally, Engels argues anti-authoritarians “serve the reaction”. History has proved otherwise. Thanks for an interesting (if bad faith) read :)
You should read the text On Authority by Engels, it is quite short and explains the Marxist stance in this regard.
Well, that text…have you ever tried to read critiques to such? If so, why do you come do a different conclusion, then that Engels renders the term authority useless? In his definition, authority is is justified because it can mean everything. Mutual aid is authority, plants living in symbioses is authority, plants producing oxygen is authority over humans…sure, you can use that definition, but by doing so you simply sneak around a critique against authority by stating it’s inevitable, so the issue can’t be authority itself.
Serious question: which critiques of authority have your read, to which you disagree to such a great amount, that you feel compelled to go with Engels analysis here, that is in short: everything is authority, and because it is inevitable to exist, it invalidates the critique against, without actually engaging with the actual brought up arguments of those that critique authority.
I did read “the conquest of bread”, but wasnt convinced at all by its suggestion that people would just spontaneously organise themselves one day, without any planning or preparation at all. And I dont see Engels as “justifying” authority, rather, authority is simply something that exists in objective reality, whether you like it or not.
It is true that there are forms of authority which need to be fought against, such as the authority of the boss over the worker, or bourgeosie over the working class. But a certain form of authority is necessary to wage a revolution, because there will always be a bourgeous minority who opposes it.
Thanks, i had read some Engels previously but this one really disappointed me. The questions/critics are good, but the logic is flawed.
Well that’s precisely what autonomy/anarchism is about. But because we rely on principles of voluntary association, rule by the majority in a specific collective (if it so wishes to be organized) is not a problem, just like specific delegations of power to a coordinator with an established mandate. If you don’t agree with the organization of a specific collective, you can always find other collectives to live/organize with.
We anarchists understand the value of delegating power in specific sets of circumstances. When i’m farming, i consciously/explicitly delegate some trust to more knowledgeable comrades to guide me in the process (and learn something). When as a collective we decide to organize an event, we consciously/explicitly delegate some trust to specific groups of people to handle various aspects of that (communication, logistics, food). Because it’s a transparent and consented process, and because this trust can be revoked at any time (there’s no higher power over me that’ll ruin my life if i decide i should do something else than farming), we do not understand this delegation to be a form of authority.
To answer to the three problems posed by Engels:
Individual consent is a foundational basis for anarchist understanding of collective organization. Dictatorship of the majority is usually considered an anti-pattern, though it is a perfectly fine method of organizing if it is consented by everyone involved. Consensus is hard to reach, but consensus-building as a process in and of itself reinforces trust/solidarity as a collective. Forcing ourselves to take time to address concerns upfront usually enables to prevent further issues/conflicts by developing mutual understanding and trying to build common ground.
In the end of the consensus-building process, disagreements may still happen. In this case, both sides should weigh the pros and cons, and decide which is more important, between their participation in the collective, and their individual opinions. All situations are perfectly fine:
In all cases, personal autonomy is respected. If you don’t agree with the operating principles of a commune, you’re free to take your chances elsewhere that will better suit you, and no higher authority will hold you back. In a capitalist society, leaving your job would mean uncertainty about material survival in the coming days/months. In a dictatorship of the proletariat, leaving your job would mean uncertainty about surviving interrogation by the political police following your “counter-revolutionary acts”. There is no equivalent situation in a free commune.
Back to Engels, i was also disappointed by this sentence:
This is a strawman argument. Most anarchists are not primitivists, so reducing anti-authoritarianism to primitivism makes no sense. But even if that were the case, what’s wrong with primitivism? It’s not exactly my thing, but in our times, the dangers of industrial society for all life on this planet have been long proved. Simply dismissing primitivism like that without expanding/criticizing on it as a potentially-viable alternative way of life is depressing.
Finally, Engels argues anti-authoritarians “serve the reaction”. History has proved otherwise. Thanks for an interesting (if bad faith) read :)