this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
674 points (99.9% liked)

196

16566 readers
3538 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what is "authoritarianism" to you?

[–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 3 points 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.

[–] Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

well that's just childish isn't it

[–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

do you consider that a rebuttal?

[–] Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Discoslugs@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for posting this.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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