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.

And how can you be sure? Given nontransparent smokescreen of all red imperialist countries like USSR, China and North Korea?

You call them imperialist without having an understanding of imperialism.

For example, explain China increasing in manufacturing output as a percent of their economy as they enter and push into the middle income bracket?

Also, how the hell is the DPRK imperialist? The only place they’ve invaded was a US military dictatorship in the same country that they’re in, while the US dictatorship was slaughtering 10s of thousands of protestors.

Oh yes, USSR, the famous standard of democracy /s

Yes. If you can’t explain how the soviet councils were layered and how elections were carried out then don’t pretend like you can argue about this in an informed way.

China uses a similar system and has a 95 percent approval rate, according to Harvard Surveys.

*replace it with the gulag system

This is holocaust trivialization. The gulags were not meant to kill people, and the mortality rate in them reflects this.

He literally just cites abridged arguments from “The problems with on authority”

Read "A Marxist Response to “The problems with on authority” ": https://hexbear.net/post/2141265

Also yeah, I watched it so everyone else doesn’t have to waste time

The dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the bourgeoisie are suppressed politically until they can be integrated into the rest of society, it doesn’t mean a dictatorship, it means a democracy where the former oppressors don’t get a seat at the table.

Hey, I stepped into an anarchist space to read the most popular critique of on authority, you can step into a non-sectarian left space to read a critique of the critique.

Marx denouncing dogmatism meaning Marx hates MLs is a really incorrect point. You’d have to think MLs are dogmatists to believe it.

Most communists are some branch of ML, even moreso if you exclude the imperial core. The CPC has over 100 million members.

You are the fringe subsection of the left.

That seems like sarcasm not bad faith, there is a difference.

Let me guess, you’ve read “The problems with on authority”, but haven’t read "A Marxist Response to “The problems with on authority” " ?

Here you go: https://hexbear.net/post/2141265

I am quite sure that now amount of torture in western countries is negligible when compared with China and North Korea

This sounds like western chauvinism. Hoe can you be sure? The US has soo many blacksites, hell even local PDs have them.

Guantanamo or Pinoshit. Actually Pinoshit and Franco should not be counted as nominal western mindset, since they are authoritarian fascist piece of shits.

Pinochet was straight up supported by the west until it was too politically inconvenient, but by that time he’d already done his job of eradicating the left. Franco wouldn’t have won if it wasn’t for Britain, France, etc, enforcing “no arms and troops shipments” for the USSR but not for Italy and Germany. And they also weren’t willing to accept Spanish republican gold.

I despise all authoritarian despots equally, no matter fascist Franco or “communist” Stalin.

Hmm. One of these people was a dictator. The other was democratically elected and lead the industrialization of a society that allowed it to defeat the industrial superpower that was Germany and end the holocaust.

The red terror was much smaller than the white terror, and the torture is nothing that capitalist countries don’t do on the regular. I for one would like to decrease the amount of torture in the world.

I mean, you’ve obviously done a successful revolution in your country, so you definitely know stuff about how to build socialism.