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.
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.
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.
Strawman. Administration/expertise is not authority.
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.
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.