• zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s a lot of abstractions in that link but I think the following action is a meaningful distinction to call out:

      The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[7][8] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung.

        • CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then every social structure is authoritarian.

          Anarchists usually distinguish between just and unjust hierarchies, by the way, and svoid the word “authoritarian” when describing just ones. Anarchists still need to organize themselves to have leadership and delegation.

          • Discoslugs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You should read about anarchy before you speak on it lol

            There are all kinds of organizational styles that are non heirarchical.

            Look into horizontal organization

            Also look up the zapatistas, while they do not call themselves anarchist. They use a non heirarchical form of government.

            • naeap@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
              at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.

              no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that

              edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for

            • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              yes because it’s not anything intelligent enough to be thoughtfully argued against. a 7 year old could see the holes in such an idea

              • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I oppose one more system of authority than you do, in the interest of ideological consistency, intellectual honesty.

                are you taking the position of a literal child?

                • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  is revolution not putting the authority of the people over those in power, and bringing those people low? that’s “hierarchy”

                  • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    that depends if you draw distinction between the people and the state (which is merely an abstraction of capital)

                    state capitalism, as defined by lenin, is not a classless society, and is indefensible as a liberatory philosophy.

                    just as liberalism abolished the monarchy only to replace it with a dictatorship of private capital, authoritarian socialism replaced monarchy with a beaurocratic ruling class and unilateral control of the means of production.

                    the neck cares not the color of the boot