Is revolution authoritarian?

[TheWhiteRose]

i have been pondering this question for some time

from Engels 'On Authority'

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;


ps- PLEASE don't say it is an act of liberation, that does not prevent it from also being authoritatrian to the bosses

[Crustanarchy]

I think that this question is what is holding a revolution back. I think a revolution in a place like the U.S. wouldn't engulf the whole nation, but only a part of it; be it a city or a small town, if the people there rise up and take control you have to give others a choice to stay or go. It's a difficult question, but social change as radical as anarchism I believe can only be brought about by revolutionary processes be it mass civil disobedience or a violent overthrow. It's all about choice with me.
An anarchist revolution would look something like the Paris Commune, the Ukrainian Revolution (which was the most successful revolution imo). or the Spanish Revolution. In all of these revolutions, anarchist occupied a small part of the land as a whole. The CNT-FAI "controlled" much of northern Spain near Barcelona (this territory was established by the number of anarchist communes and collectives that were established after the overthrow of the government in the area). Nestor Mahkno and his Black Army established an anarchist area in Ukraine and successfully defended the place for eight years until the Soviet army came in and took over. My knowledge at the moment is minute, but if you want I can email or link essays on successful anarchist revolutions. But the point is that the whole nation wouldn't be "taken-over" by anarchists or revolutionaries, just the area where the want for the anarchist system is high.
Difficult subject. My head hurts.

[Casualty]

the difference is simply that an overthrow of the government to impose laws and doctrines on people is different then destroying an oppressive force that is keeping you from living your life to the fullest and taking away what is promised to you by an obsolete constitution

let's say the government was overthrown or rendered ineffective in its methods...there wouldn't be a corrupt dictator telling you what to do with your life afterward, but instead a change in social policy

the main difference is that an authoritarian act is one which a party's views are forced upon conquered people while an anarchist revolution would impose free will and freedom of choice - we may think we have it at the moment, but couldn't be further from it

[TheWhiteRose]

I got in a debate withsome communists about this and got my ass-kicked
I guess it is something of a philisophical question,so the means would be authoritarian but the ends libertarian. sticking a gun in someones face is certainly an exersise of authority
i don't dispute that the result would be libertarian, i also dont dispute that it is nessisary and indeed right, what i do wonder is : How do you determine when an authoritarian act is justifyable?

[Crustanarchy]

Hah.. Communists arguing that revolution is authoritarian! If anything they made it authoritarian. I guarantee that an anarchist revolution would use very-non authoritarian means whenever possible.

[|Y|]

I have a boss, they pay me OK wages, but otherwise I am under their authority and I have no independence, I depend on my boss.

Now, someone nice comes along and tells me of a way to make my living without having that boss, a way to have a place to live, to cloth myself, to feed myself, and to otherwise enjoy my life.

I quit working for that boss.

What is the boss going to do, force me to work for him?

Now, let's take it a bit further. I'm paying rent. Suddenly a lot of people look at the rental situation, see that they can make it on their own without relying on institutions which they must work for, and they decide, collectively, they do not any longer want to pay rent. I just stop paying rent.

What's the landlord going to do? Force me to pay the rent? If everyone else isn't paying rent, what sane landlord would think it was a good position to take?

I'm not doing anything against the boss or the landlord, I am merely refusing to be exploited by both for their own gain. They can, just like I can, go off and get the same resources I have to make my living. Why would they complain or feel as if some "authority" is coming down on them? It's not. They're free to do as they wish just as I am. But if they think they can get away with being authoritarian at that point, I think they're in for a surprise. And I think most sane people wouldn't try to flex that authority because it would clearly be a no-win situation.

[TheWhiteRose]

historically speaking, most revolutions are followed by civil war(counter-revolution). i think most of the owners would try to take back their property simply because no matter how well they could be provided for it would still be a step down from their normal life, also you are assuming that the rich are not simply killed out right as in the french revolution

[Crustanarchy]

But the French revolution established a new hierarchy, did it not?

[|Y|]

historically speaking, most revolutions are followed by civil war(counter-revolution). i think most of the owners would try to take back their property simply because no matter how well they could be provided for it would still be a step down from their normal life, also you are assuming that the rich are not simply killed out right as in the french revolution

First off, most "social revolutions" were hardly "revolutionary" at all. If the Union has control and the Brits don't, the "change" between both systems is extremely small. It's not really a revolution if the change is subtle, it has to be dramatic.

Technological revolution, that is, the kind that said we go from horse and buggies to cars, or that we go from ship travel to airplane travel, the kind that said we stop sending long letters and move to telegraph, then telephone, then internet, those happened with very little bloodshed on the scheme of things (ie, a war wasn't necessarily fought over the adoption of the car).

Owners would have no rhyme or reason to "take back their property." Firstly, who are they going to pay to do it? The police would see the social movement as a majority paradigm. The police didn't stop people from stopping using horse and buggies and starting using cars, now did they? Nope. The police cannot stop a large social movement anyway whatsoever. So who are our stupid landlords and large capital owners going to go to to get their way? Most people won't give a shit about their way of doing things anymore. And most of the richest and wealthiest people will simply say "ok, just leave me my piece and we're good." And be done with it.

[Doc Imbecile]

TheWhiteRose/NapoleonChe,

Revolutions are not limited to Engel's definition. Take |Y|'s revolution using technology, or the gradual revolution advocated by James Herod (I read Getting Free recently), or the market revolution the mutualists want... there are many sorts of revolutions that are not authoritarian.

[TheWhiteRose]

In Spain the landowners fought back, and they continue to do so in Chiapas. At this point the police are no longer a factor. I suspect that their will allways be some people who will side with the rich either because of propaganda, money, or religion etc. more over revolutions do not happen all at the same time with the same levels of intensity, so those factors would play a role.

[|Y|]

In Spain it was an armed insurrection that fought back, primarily led by those with power and control (spurred by promises of riches and so on to those who fought). Spain was not a true revolution in that nothing was inherently changed in how society functioned. People still worked in factories, people still did things the old way. If they no longer had to actually work in those factories, if they didn't have to expropriate the means of production and so on, then the argument would've been nil and we'd have anarchism today.

How many people go to jail for using open source and for pirating movies? Maybe 1 in a million? Maybe 1 in 10 million? It's a joke, and you know it. The police cannot and will not "fight back" when the prevailing, majority, plurality is saying "we are done with this capitalist shit."

[Doc Imbecile]

TheWhiteRose,

Dictionary.com's definition of authoritarian:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an /əˌθɔrɪˈtɛəriən, əˌθɒr-/Spelled Pronunciation[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-]
–adjective 1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
–noun 4. a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

What part of the definition applies to all anarchist revolutions?

Have you read Getting Free by James Herod? Where is his revolunationary style authoritarian? It'll be a little violent (less violent than the Spanish Civil War, and most revolutions), yes, but how will it be authoritarian?

[Crustanarchy]

The politicians in the White House and Capitol Hill don't think themselves authoritarian, but in my book and other people I know's books, authoritarian is simply using coercion to impose your will or whatever.

[non-platformist]

It all depends on what your definition of "authoritarian" is, and what you envision as the characteristics of a revolution are. There are plenty of examples of revolutions being authoritarian if all the revolutionaries are interested in is a change of rulers. Then there's no question about it being authoritarian. But what about a revolution that aims to abolish relations of obedience and domination? And merely saying that an anarchist revolution wouldn't encompass authoritarian methods is absurd; of course it would. But for me the crucial difference is that such methods would be used with those who would be engaging in active acts against the destruction of authoritarian relations. So if anarchists and our allies are creating new ways of interacting (which would presumably include collectives of all kinds, other voluntary arrangements, etc) and others were upset about the expropriation of social wealth (for example) and then decided to fight against that expropriation, we would of course defend ourselves and our projects from destruction, wouldn't we?