Except he didn't. Engels describes authority as an intrinsic property of any complex social organization, including socialized production. Basically, to make any kind of decision involving a bunch of people coordinating with one other for some common goal, like in a factory, the individuals' wills have to be subordinated by some other will. That will could be the will of an owner or a tyrant, or it could be the collective will of the workers. Direct democracy is still imposing a will on every individual in the decision making process, since everyone is bound by the result of every vote. The only way to abolish all authority would be to abolish socialized production altogether:
Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.
What differentiates the communist mode of production from others vis a vis authority isn't the presence or absence of authority but the nature of that authority, i.e. the workers as opposed to a separate ruling class.
Authority isn't inherently good or bad, and "authoritarianism" isn't real.
Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.
I agree that authoritarianism isn't "real", but liberals will still describe the things we (MLs) want to do as authoritarian, and we should stand by those goals no matter what label they apply to them.
Wojak: You want to make the bourgeoisie subservient to the workers?
Engels: Yes.
Wojak: But that's authoritarianism!
Engels: Okay.
Wojak: So you think authoritarianism is good!?
Engels: Yes.
This is a bad idea, because it'll produce all sorts of "look, they're openly authoritarian!" takes. A much better approach is "authority isn't inherently good or bad, and using it to do stuff like give everyone healthcare is good."
most libs will initially, but they can be persuaded to become gradually more ambivalent to the concept IF we don't immediately do something dumb like purposely misrepresent our own position in order to set them off. As I'm sure you experienced with your radicalisation too, no-one gets radicalised and changes all their views immediately just because they saw one person give some examples of how socialism has succeeded - rather they will get nudged on bit by bit by various people, and given time to acclimatise to the ideas that maybe some of the things that have been drilled into them with decades of propaganda aren't actually true.
saying 'AUTHORITY GOOD!' will seem like a complete confirmation to them that every proponent of socialism is a braindead, dictator-worshipping, propaganda-consuming tanky.
no-one gets radicalised and changes all their views immediately just because they saw one person give some examples of how socialism has succeeded - rather they will get nudged on bit by bit by various people, and given time to acclimatise
We really need to talk more on here about how radicalization works (and it works exactly as you describe for most people). It's a conversion funnel, not a revelation.
A non-negotiable component of any path to socialism is convincing (at least) tens of millions of more people to become socialists. Where are you going to get all those new socialists if you write off every single lib?
Easy, you just change their material conditions, that convinces then every time.
It's not easy, and no, it doesn't work every time. Plenty of people who see their material conditions improve do not become socialists (or even properly credit whoever caused their improved conditions), just like plenty of people who see their material conditions deteriorate do not become socialists. You have apolitical folks and reactionaries at all economic strata. Material conditions play a large part in people's political beliefs, but framing things in political terms and convincing them your politics are right plays an enormous role, too.
We're going to need a lot more popular support before we can appreciably change material conditions. Speaking as a former lib who used to be scared of the word authoritarianism.
It doesnt matter that much, not doing it will produce "Look, they're covertly authoritarian!".
I enjoy this meme as it upsets anticommunists (despite the far more nuanced take Engels has on authority)
:cope: :LIB:
How the fuck is the means of production going to be in the hands of the people if the people aren't the ones controlling what the government does?? I swear this shit just feels like a leftist version of "owning the libs", but instead of rolling coal they just undermine their entire political life by supporting the exact opposite of what socialism inherently is, democratic.
Why the fuck are you going to overthrow the rich just so you can go back to having kings and dictators? Are we not all equal human beings here? Or are some animals more equal than others?
you're damn right. what makes people hate capital? as much as no one here wants to hear it, it's not just the fact that it's capital; it's that it tromps all over them roughshod, exploits them, and gives them no control over their life or their day. you crush more and more inspiration and hope the general population has in your movement or idea the more and more you make necessities out of these kinds of conditions. also this isn't a "hurr durr soviet union bad" argument
if the people aren’t the ones controlling what the government does
:vote: but it's red
Great so then you would let your enemy define the terms of the debate. This why you have no movements IRL except ones literally approved of by your enemy.
There's a lot of ground in between "only using the enemy's definitions", and recognizing/working around decades of propaganda. Like any act of persuasion, you tailor speech to your audience. Besides, in my experience, you don't need to extoll the 'virtues' of authoritarianism, because as people become more educated about materialism and socialist history, they realize it's necessary to prevent extinction. Authoritarianism itself is just a neutral tool, and celebrating it as a concept (or appearing to in front of libs) is both weird and plays right into the popular mainstream image of the Soviet Putin Chynese Ebil Communist Overlord, which is the definition of allowing the enemy to define your position.
If you were in a war and you encountered a minefield, I doubt you would walk right into it for the sake of not allowing your enemy to define your movements.
Ffs persuading libs is a fools errand and they'll just lie about communism either way.
Mine clearing charges are explosives used to detonate enemy mines to clear a path through minefields
So what you're saying is you wouldn't just ignore the presence of a minefield and walk forward as normal? You would employ specialized tactics and/or equipment to circumvent it?
Maybe the libs in your life are unreachable (you have my sympathy, I know how they can be), but I've already converted several, and I didn't do it by opening with "Authoritaianism good, actually."
They don't make that distinction so why give yourself more work to do? If you like explaining so much then why don't you just explain that all politics is authoritarian due to the social contract? You can just as easily use the truth to educate people instead of trying to gaslight them
We have to pick our battles, and "authoritarianism is good, actually" is a silly battle to fight.
Being pissy to other leftists is also a silly battle to fight. You know that's not what I said.
hi comrade have you ever considered that you're a wonderful person and several people here would want to hug you if they could rn
based on what he said in On Authority it seems like he viewed it as more of a temporary necessity than intrinsically good
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon— authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough? Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
Hi, I made this meme.
That's splitting hairs. A revolution is also merely a temporary necessity, but since we can't get to communism without it I think it's also fair to call it a good thing. Memes should be straightforward; they're always going to be a simplification of nuanced political theory.
Yes Engels, pirates are very authoritarian too, since they can steer a ship together. Actually, everything is authoritarian so that's why anarchists are reactionaries and you're the smartest of bois
stop thinking now please
