I'm kinda annoyed at this video because she took the question from an anarcho-communist and answered it like the asker was a liberal 🙄

::: spoiler rant
Like yeah actually, anarcho-communists will not support states and whatever other authorities people try to force on us, and this is a legitimate communist position no matter what condescending language this person uses to describe the words we use to talk about our principles. To a state-socialist the term "authoritarian" might be very mild, but for anarchists this is absolutely not a trivial assumption!

Like I don't even disagree with most of what she said, but when liberals are talking about "authoritarianism"... they're not reading anarchist literature. When liberals say word X and an anarchist says word X, it's not the same thing because liberals aren't even drinking the Flavor Aid, they're just eating the powder because they're too diarrhea-for-brains to read the fucking label and know that they have to mix it with water.

It would be like if I judged MLs as indistinguishable from liberals because you both support a strong state, which is obviously silly, but just as silly as this conflation of anarchists and liberals. And while I obviously have a world of disagreement with MLs, I at least respect their intellect, and I would appreciate it if y'all respected ours. And before you point to Y group of anarcho-liberals, liberalism is the monoculture in the West and so the MLs and literally all groups in the West also have annoying shitlibs in their ranks who need to be educated out of existence.
:::

I felt the author did a good general job explaining why Marxists tend to not put much value on the notion of the term "authoritarianism" to describe worker-controlled power in a negative light. The commenter asking the question to OOP stated that they use "tankie" to differentiate between "authoritarian" and "non-authoritarian" communism, but the idea that the use of state power by the working classes can be judged in a binary or even a gradiant is obfuscating the nature of the state in class society, that being as the solidified instrument by which one class retains power and oppresses the others.

When it comes to you personally, do you hold the view that all socialist states are authoritarian, by virtue of being states? If so, this is already answered fairly well by OOP (though not completely). Do you hold the view that there are "authoritarian" socialist states and "non-authoritarian?" If so, what is the actual, materialist difference at a structural level? States employ more drastic measures in order to protect class dominance depending on the circumstances the society is in, be it internal or extrnal pressures, class struggle, etc, not purely as the whims of individual leaders to exert greater or lesser state power.

What in particular do you feel was not addressed by OOP?

Please correct me if I misquoted her since I'm working from the video.

The term [authoritarian] has existed since the 1800's but it was largely considered a meaningless term. It basically just meant 'rules existed' and you were supposed to follow them.

That's is the primary reason for the anarchist-Marxist split.
Bakunin and Kropotkin used the term "authoritarian" to make a clear distinction between anarchists and Marxists.

From a political standpoint, this is hardly a well-developed political framework, right?

I suppose that anti-authoritarianism as a framework is hardly a well-developed framework, but anarchism, i.e. anti-authoritarianism plus anti-hierarchy (loosely speaking), is a well-developed framework, just as well developed as her Marxism. So if she was critiquing the notion of "authoritarianism" as a coherent ideology, i.e. that there are people running around who are "authoritarian-ists", then I would agree with her here.

Any country with laws fit the definition of 'authoritarian'.

Yes, precisely, that's why I support no country and advocate for their abolition. This is a "gotcha" for the liberal she's responding to, but not the anarchist who asked the question.

And the reality is that if you're looking to critique a political system somewhere, there are probably more accurate and precise terms you could use. Terms that describe actual political and economic models, like fascism.

But fascism is absolutely not the only system I want to critique. IMO we can also critique authoritarian power structures outside of formal politics, e.g. power dynamics in families, education, even (especially!) within anarchist groups, that aren't necessarily fascist or even capitalist.

Now onto what you asked:

I felt the author did a good general job explaining why Marxists tend to not put much value on the notion of the term "authoritarianism" to describe worker-controlled power in a negative light.

Actually I agree with you here, namely that she expounded the Marxist argument very nicely, but she could have done that while critiquing, or at least acknowledging, or at least just not painting over anarchist concerns. Like I actually wouldn't have said anything if she dunked on us because then at least we exist.

When it comes to you personally, do you hold the view that all socialist states are authoritarian, by virtue of being states?

All states are authoritarian, and socialist states are not special just because we slap a hammer and sickle (or a circle-A, or any other sticker) on them. Some are more authoritarian than others (e.g. AmeriKKKa, Pissrael), but I'm not exactly a fan of any of any state, even when they do the right thing.

But actually, my argument is that a lot more things that states are authoritarian, including some anarchist projects, and that authoritarian tendencies are something we all need to continuously root out of every aspect of existence.

States employ more drastic measures in order to protect class dominance depending on the circumstances the society is in, be it internal or extrnal pressures, class struggle, etc, not purely as the whims of individual leaders to exert greater or lesser state power.

States are meant to be permanent and unbounded. If you want me to consent to be a part of your group, literally no matter how small, even a chess club, you gotta have bounds on the authority I have to grant you as a member, and you gotta be dissolvable. And not just on paper, but in reality.

And I'm not even against "drastic" measures, we should be fucking destroying the bourgeoisie as hard as possible and if that makes me an authoritarian then I'm fine living and hopefully dying as an anarcho-hypocrite. Like I'm simply not interested in tolerating a future where we coexist with bourgeois nations for any amount of time, and IMO any project saying "we want to coexist with the capitalists" (e.g. CNT at the end of the Spanish Civil War) is an indicator that the project has failed.

Another issue is that, despite the terrible things I personally want to do with my hands to the bourgeoisie, it isn't in the best interests of the working class to actually be the most violent, most drastic versions of ourselves — in particular, in ways that pollute our future (i.e., establishing permanent, centralized, top-down, unbounded States). In my view, any communist project (anarchist, statist, or otherwise) is going to be polluted with the stench of the violence and terror that capitalists imposed on the world before it. We need to be constantly vigilant and work against those old haunts. One of those haunts is, in my view, the appeal to authority.

Thanks for responding! I'll gloss over the pre-separator portion, there's not much I can meaningfully respond to outside of agreeing that critique of authority is the major reason Marxists and anarchists have different means and ends.

Yes, precisely, that’s why I support no country and advocate for their abolition. This is a “gotcha” for the liberal she’s responding to, but not the anarchist who asked the question.

My biggest issue with this is that it draws no distinctions between worker controlled states and capitalist controlled states, and further ignores the problem of imperialism as the driving contradiction of the global state today.

Actually I agree with you here, namely that she expounded the Marxist argument very nicely, but she could have done that while critiquing, or at least acknowledging, or at least just not painting over anarchist concerns. Like I actually wouldn’t have said anything if she dunked on us because then at least we exist.

Fair enough, but in my view she generally has.

All states are authoritarian, and socialist states are not special just because we slap a hammer and sickle (or a circle-A, or any other sticker) on them. Some are more authoritarian than others (e.g. AmeriKKKa, Pissrael), but I’m not exactly a fan of any of any state, even when they do the right thing.

This, I take extreme issue with. I agree that all states are authoritarian, in that all states are the means by which one class oppresses others, but this itself isn't a problem. Socialist states aren't fundamentally, qualitatively liberatory for the working classes because there's a symbol of communism on the flag, but because the working classes are in charge of the state, and use it to uplift themselves and protect the gains of revolution. Bakunin's quote on the "people's stick" is similarly terrible, it obfuscates the real fact that socialism is objectively, materially liberatory towards the working classes, and that the use of authority to protect this is a good thing.

But actually, my argument is that a lot more things that states are authoritarian, including some anarchist projects, and that authoritarian tendencies are something we all need to continuously root out of every aspect of existence.

What gives rise to "authoritarian tendencies?" Hierarchy isn't inherently bad, in my opinion. Organizational structure often creates managerial positions out of necessity and efficiency, not out of a human desire to dominate, and at the scales of production and distribution that can most effectively satisfy the needs of everyone with the least amount of labor these become crucial for mitigating disaster and facilitating smooth logistics and production.

States are meant to be permanent and unbounded. If you want me to consent to be a part of your group, literally no matter how small, even a chess club, you gotta have bounds on the authority I have to grant you as a member, and you gotta be dissolvable. And not just on paper, but in reality.

States are not meant to be "permanent" or "impermanent." States are meant to uphold a given ruling class. The basis of the state is in class struggle, and when the basis of class is eliminated, so too does what we think of as the "state," as instruments of class oppression. To do so, we need to collectivize all of production and distribution, gradually. With equal relations to production and distribution, there is no class, and thus no basis for class struggle.

And I’m not even against “drastic” measures, we should be fucking destroying the bourgeoisie as hard as possible and if that makes me an authoritarian then I’m fine living and hopefully dying as an anarcho-hypocrite. Like I’m simply not interested in tolerating a future where we coexist with bourgeois nations for any amount of time, and IMO any project saying “we’ll coexist with the capitalists” (e.g. CNT at the end of the Spanish Civil War) is an indicator that the project has failed.

I think what's happening here is you're placing your ideals over what is materially achievable. There simply is no means to instantly destroy all of the bourgeoisie, unless you mean to nuke the world and hope an anarcho-primitivist society takes its place in the ashes. You cannot liquidate a class by killing them, but by sublimating the process of production and distribution, just like the bourgeoisie did when overtaking the aristocracy. The process of collectivization is gradual, not instang, and that means we will have to exist in the same world as the bourgeoisie, even if we spend that existence constantly struggling against them and trying to erode the basis of their existence through collectivization.

Another issue is that, despite the terrible things I personally want to do with my hands to the bourgeoisie, it isn’t in the best interests of the working class to actually be the most violent, most drastic versions of ourselves — in particular, in ways that pollute our future (i.e., establishing permanent, centralized, top-down, unbounded States). In my view, any communist project (anarchist, statist, or otherwise) is going to be polluted with the stench of the violence and terror that capitalists imposed on the world before it. We need to be constantly vigilant and work against those old haunts. One of those haunts is, in my view, the appeal to authority.

All societies are stamped with the old, but gradually work out those contradictions over time, dialectically. There isn't a fatalism in any future society by virtue of rising from capitalism. Further, socialist states are both top-down and bottom-up, it's both/and, not either-or, and the states themselves are transitional, not permanent. This idea of permanence itself is against reality.

I appreciate you answering, and I am not trying to be rude or mean, even if I sounded harsh on some of what I said. I do want to ask, above all else, have you studied dialectical materialism at all? Much of your analysis goes against how the world works in practice, and I think studying dialectical materialism would help greatly with reframing your analysis and giving you a deeper understanding of your own critique.

To add to that, hierarchy is absolutely necessary for any large scale organization. Math simply does not work in favor of flat organization because you end up with increasing communication overhead that scales linearly with the size of organization. The more people you have involved, the more difficult it becomes to make a decision.

Another problem is that each individual can only have so much knowledge in their heads. It's impossible to make meaningful decisions on subjects you're not versed in, making your contribution into noise. Hence, why effective organization requires creating groups of people who focus on specific subjects, and then creating interfaces between them that abstract over the internal details and focus on the functional aspects. And that naturally leads to the need for hierarchical organization.

Finally, there's a question of robustness. Hierarchies allow creating independent units that can compose together to build larger structures. Hierarchy is the structure that makes self organization and resilience possible at scale. A system needs to be resilient to shocks and able to adapt on its own. But if every single part is directly connected to every other part, any change causes chaos. As I noted above, the system ends up being overwhelmed with information.

Organizing the system into nested subsystems creates cells that talk to each other to do their job. They don't need to know the internal processes of other cells, and act as stable subassemblies. Each level can self-organize and maintain resilience within its own domain because it's not bogged down by what's happening elsewhere.

And that's how hierarchical structures reduce noise and delay within the system. Feedback loops needed for learning and adaptation can independently evolve within each subsystem, and a problem in one area doesn't immediately crash the overarching system. Here, the hierarchy ends up playing the role of a shock absorber, localizing issues so the whole structure doesn't fail.

I think a good way to look at hierarchies as connective tissue between components of large systems. The central control exists for coordination toward a larger goal as opposed to micromanagement. Hierarchy isn't about top down command as anarchists like to frame it. The purpose of the structure is to create the organized spaces where bottom up resilience and adaptation can actually thrive.