Sorry. Didn’t communicate effectively. I understand the difference. I just don’t see how societies can be organized without a form of authority. And if authority exists, at what point does it become authoritarianism, especially in larger communities and regions.
Again a non genuine response. Being anti-authoritarian does not mean rejecting authority completely.
Anarchists still recognize and vest authority in people. But their structures are very flat localized, and based in consent. Leninists and fascists concentrate authority and power in singular leaders and parties at a state level, who rule by fiat without consent.
It’s difficult to contemplate the valid points you raised after condemning my response as non genuine. I am not opposed to anarchism, in fact ( although I could be mistaken), I imagine communism is anarchism realized. It’s the transition from capitalism to socialism that derails this vision. How do we get there from here. We can’t just abolish the money, classes and hierarchies without chaos and suffering. There will have to be an authority during this transition. This authority will be considered authoritarian to the many millions of people it organizes. If you have a framework for how anarchism can maintain order and organize millions of people I’d like to read and understand it.
Non genuine was simply the kindest most nice way I had to put it. Whether I’m wrong or right in my perception of you as being someone more intelligent than the arguments you’re making. The fact is you are equating two different things. Authoritarianism has a relation to Authority absolutely. However you can have authority without authoritarianism. But not the other way around.
Communism absolutely would be and realization of some of anarchism’s ideals. But what does that have to do with portraying Authority and authoritarianism as being the same? And does it need to be pointed out that Marcus leninists are not communists. And never have been.
Maybe I’m not more intelligent than the arguments I’m making, but that shouldn’t invalidate my query. I was trying to elucidate how investment in authority could be perceived as authoritarian. Anarchism is a viable ideology and should not be dismissed. It is effective with groups and regions. But can it maintain and organize a society of millions in a country? That remains to be seen. There is a reason burgeoning socialist societies gravitate to Marxist-Leninist-Maoism. Because it has been done. There is a framework. Anarchism needs to show that it can organize a country to offer an alternative. I suspect, maybe capriciously, that if Anarchism was to govern a nation that it might defer to authoritarianism to maintain efficiency. I would like to find out.
Sorry. Didn’t communicate effectively. I understand the difference. I just don’t see how societies can be organized without a form of authority. And if authority exists, at what point does it become authoritarianism, especially in larger communities and regions.
Again a non genuine response. Being anti-authoritarian does not mean rejecting authority completely.
Anarchists still recognize and vest authority in people. But their structures are very flat localized, and based in consent. Leninists and fascists concentrate authority and power in singular leaders and parties at a state level, who rule by fiat without consent.
It’s difficult to contemplate the valid points you raised after condemning my response as non genuine. I am not opposed to anarchism, in fact ( although I could be mistaken), I imagine communism is anarchism realized. It’s the transition from capitalism to socialism that derails this vision. How do we get there from here. We can’t just abolish the money, classes and hierarchies without chaos and suffering. There will have to be an authority during this transition. This authority will be considered authoritarian to the many millions of people it organizes. If you have a framework for how anarchism can maintain order and organize millions of people I’d like to read and understand it.
Non genuine was simply the kindest most nice way I had to put it. Whether I’m wrong or right in my perception of you as being someone more intelligent than the arguments you’re making. The fact is you are equating two different things. Authoritarianism has a relation to Authority absolutely. However you can have authority without authoritarianism. But not the other way around.
Communism absolutely would be and realization of some of anarchism’s ideals. But what does that have to do with portraying Authority and authoritarianism as being the same? And does it need to be pointed out that Marcus leninists are not communists. And never have been.
Maybe I’m not more intelligent than the arguments I’m making, but that shouldn’t invalidate my query. I was trying to elucidate how investment in authority could be perceived as authoritarian. Anarchism is a viable ideology and should not be dismissed. It is effective with groups and regions. But can it maintain and organize a society of millions in a country? That remains to be seen. There is a reason burgeoning socialist societies gravitate to Marxist-Leninist-Maoism. Because it has been done. There is a framework. Anarchism needs to show that it can organize a country to offer an alternative. I suspect, maybe capriciously, that if Anarchism was to govern a nation that it might defer to authoritarianism to maintain efficiency. I would like to find out.