Obligitatory link to said Communist music:
https://odysee.com/@trader.one:d/soviet-anthem_subtitles:5“On authority” debunked squat except any notion of Engels’ credibility as an essayist.
In general, the most useful definition of authority is the imposition of the will of one class over another, even anarchists must be authoritarian towards capitalists. The argument between Marxists and anarchists is one of collectivization vs horizontalism, but in both cases you can’t eliminate class overnight, and as such the working class must oppress the capitalist class to keep it in check. Marxists would argue that the system, even if horizontal, would still be considered a state assuming class isn’t abolished, and class cannot be abolished entirely without full collectivization of property globally.
the most useful definition of authority is the imposition of the will of one class over another
No, that’s Engels’ lackluster definition (actually, Engels’ definition was worse, since he claimed that laws of physics were “authority”. Authority is structural monopolization of power. What you’re describing is more on the line of “violence”.
even anarchists must be authoritarian towards capitalists.
Only with a wrong understanding of “authority”.
The argument between Marxists and anarchists is one of collectivization vs horizontalism
Those concepts are not contradictory. You can’t “horizontalize” something without collectivizing it.
but in both cases you can’t eliminate class overnight, and as such the working class must oppress the capitalist class to keep it in check.
The moment the capitalist class can be “oppressed”, it seizes to be the capitalist class.
Marxists would argue that the system, even if horizontal, would still be considered a state assuming class isn’t abolished
How such a “horizontal state” would be possible with classes is something no Marxist has ever been able to explain to me. Also, you’re not speaking on behalf of all Marxists. Just MLs, maybe.
and class cannot be abolished entirely without full collectivization of property globally.
I’ll go tell all those socialist regions that just abolished the bourgeoisie within their regions. /s
Engels was using the most useful interpretation of authority. “Structural monopolization of power” is still the imposition of the will of one class over another, anarchists still attempt to structurally oppress the bourgeoisie.
As for collectivization vs horizontalism, that’s actually false. Collectivization, ie equal ownership across all of society globally, necessarily contradicts with full horizontalism, at least for a long time before habit takes the place of all administration in the far-far future. A horizontalist society necessarily contradicts the role of higher levels of administration, ie imagine a battlefield with only footsoldiers, no tacticians, no strategians. Anarchists either reconcile this by considering some level of administration acceptable, going against full horizontalism, or they advocate for decentralized communes, which contradict collectivization globally.
As for how this retains class, if we go with the commune model, each commune varies in geography and development, which results in trade and perpetuation of essentially petite bourgeois cooperatives, each promoted by self-interest rather than collective interest. Accepting administration as necessary fixes this, but then you’re taking essentially a mid-point between Marxism and anarchism, just with a higher emphasis on concepts like prefiguration.
As for Marxism vs Marxism-Leninism, I haven’t spoken anything relating to Marxism-Leninism. This is just straight Marxism here, concepts like imperialism, the vanguard, the national question, etc haven’t come into play. This is straight out of works like Critique of the Gotha Programme, Theses on Feuerbach, Economic Manuscripts of 1844, and of course the Manifesto of the Communist Party.
As for your last point, socialism is not communism. Socialism is a society where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, not an economy devoid of any other forms of property. No “pure” modes of production have existed outside of early tribal societies, all ensuing class societies have had dominant forms of property relations and subordinate forms. As private property develops, it becomes easier to fold into the public sector, which is why most socialist states don’t try to immediately force a fully planned economy but incorporate some form of markets.
Engels was using the most useful interpretation of authority. “Structural monopolization of power” is still the imposition of the will of one class over another, anarchists still attempt to structurally oppress the bourgeoisie.
As I said in the other thread: you don’t engage with anything I write. You just claim “no” and don’t explain any logical errors in my statement. You’re just restating your claim and dump an unhealthy amount of text in order to make yourself feel smart.
Collectivization, ie equal ownership across all of society globally
Not a realistic model of the world. The sphere o| influence ends at some point. There’s no reason that I should have a say on what a bakery on the other side of the world should bake. Not even in a “communist” society.
A horizontalist society necessarily contradicts the role of higher levels of administration […]
Strawman. Administration/expertise is not authority.
essentially petite bourgeois cooperative
You claim that without backing up why it would be petit bourgeoise
You might not have used Lenin’s buzzwords, but you’re an authoritarian Marxist. Not every Marxist is authoritarian.
As for your last point, socialism is not communism. […]
Another non-sequitur infodump. Also, I reject your teleological notion of “early hunter-gatherers”. Also also: This mode of “pure” relations of production that you try to swipe under the rug has been the norm for about 99% of humanity’s existence.
I do engage, I feel like claiming I just say “no” is more avoidance of engaging with my points than anything.
As far as full collectivization is concerned, it doesn’t mean there isn’t local say on production. Small proprietorships wouldn’t really exist in communism, either, if you wanted to bake as a hobby that’s fine, but “bakeries” as small petty bourgeois shops wouldn’t really have a material basis for existence. In socialism, sure, they’d exist, but in the far future they’d eventually be phased out.
Administration is authority, administration that is mere suggestion isn’t administration to begin with. Administration should be accountable, but it is necessarily a use of authority.
As for why cooperatives are petite bourgeois structures, I explained by the geographic differences and having class interests that are self-driven, rather than collectively driven. If a commune doesn’t have ownership of another commune’s goods, but needs them, then this creates class distinctions.
Your whole “authoritarian Marxist” bit is kinda silly. You don’t explain what you mean when you say I’m an “authoritarian” Marxist, nor what a “non-authoritarian Marxist” would be, nor how Lenin is involved in our discussion. This is all based on Marx’s development of scientific socialism, we didn’t get into vanguards, imperialism, or Lenin’s other advancements on Marxism. This is all in the realm of Marx’s theory of the state.
As for tribal societies, they are by far the mode of production with the longest history, yes. However, since the rise of class society and technological advancements that came along with it, there has never been a “pure” mode of production. We can’t simply go back to being hunters and gatherers, but we can advance society onward into socialism, and then communism. I swept nothing under the rug, tribal formations aren’t something we can replicate while retaining large-scale industry, and there’s no reason to think we can meet the needs of humanity as it presently exists even if we all collectively agreed to form tribal societies now.
You are exceptionally incorrect
