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.
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.
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
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Basically, it’s Communists who support authoritarianism.
There’s a lot of abstractions in that link but I think the following action is a meaningful distinction to call out:
what is “authoritarianism” to you?
heirarchy in any form
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.
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.
well that’s just childish isn’t it
do you consider that a rebuttal?
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
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
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?
is revolution not putting the authority of the people over those in power, and bringing those people low? that’s “hierarchy”
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