Is revolution authoritarian?

[Mike/R]

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

Engel's description defines the state, the preservation of the state, and the replacement of one state with another state, but not the removal of the state. Non-revolution has every feature which Engels ascribes to revolution.

[Yuda]

If you are talking about armed revolutions then of course they are authoritarian you are basically taking up arms and preparing to kill people who oppose you. It doesn't get much more authoritarian than that.

A peaceful revolution? I think we can disregard that as anarchists. We want to radically alter society, it's not as though we plan to go the chavez route and put a socialist face on capitalism which is something capitalists seem happy to live with. In any anarchist revolution they will be opposition that will need to be smashed or the revolution will fail.

It's how authority is used after a revolution that is of more importance.

[|Y|]

If you are talking about armed revolutions then of course they are authoritarian you are basically taking up arms and preparing to kill people who oppose you. It doesn't get much more authoritarian than that.

A peaceful revolution? I think we can disregard that as anarchists. We want to radically alter society, it's not as though we plan to go the chavez route and put a socialist face on capitalism which is something capitalists seem happy to live with. In any anarchist revolution they will be opposition that will need to be smashed or the revolution will fail.

It's how authority is used after a revolution that is of more importance.

Heh, the ends don't necessarily justify the means. A largely peaceful revolution is the only way it can realistically come about. Those who are not peaceful weren't peaceful to begin with, but the vast majority aren't going to hold on to untenable values that simply hold no weight.

It's like people suddenly holding hands and saying no to piracy and then blocking everyone else from pirating music, a totally and utterly ridiculous premise. I send pirated stuff to my friends regularly, and guess what, not one of them has complained or said that I'm a bad and evil person and so on. Only a few hundred thousand in the whole fucking world might even consider fighting back, and then they're not stupid enough to fail to recognize the utter futility of such a task. There are way more people who need help than there are who don't, and if we brought it to them they would happily oblige our systems.

Of course, there is a pretty large contengent in anarchist circles who romanticize about violence and how it is good and how it will achieve things (consisting especially anarcho-punk practishioners who give up the theory after a time), but hey, I'm in a very silent minority, what can I say. Ward Churchhills book and others' bullshit just helps the capitalists along. Every day you're learning about how to make bombs, you're spending time away from learning how to garden, or learning how to build homes or make clothing. And that's what the state wants. It doesn't want us to improve upon the current state of affairs, it wants us to go down worthless pathways that cannot achieve anything.

I consider violently expropriating the means of production somewhat authoritarian, though I can see it as justified, I do not consider it a realistic path toward anarchism at all.

[Doc Imbecile]

If someone climbed onto my back, and began biting me viciously, is resorting to the violent act of my pushing him off authoritarian? Personally, I don’t think so. My kind of revolution is about tossing the state and capitalism off our backs. We don’t push them as long as they stay off. Some piggy back riders will stay grounded, or learn to walk, like us, others will climb onto new backs, risking the chance of being pushed off again, as revolutions are contagious…

...or if they aren’t, which I doubt, maybe they’ll ride the new backs to conquer the old backs, as long as the old backs hav...uh... ah, whatever. I digress.

I hope you guys get my point. Sorry for using a metaphor. I'm bad, I know.

I just don't see defensive action = authoritarian action.

[Crustanarchy]

I agree with |Y| in ways; I believe revolution happens with individual want and desire and the individuals collectivize that desire and put it into action (like how any action happens in the first place).
Peaceful revolution... ehh. In today's day and age there WILL be counterrevolutionaries like conservative Christan/Catholic factions. If anarchist ally with state socialists and other statists then we will be backstabbed because they want their system to rule while we want ours to not rule but prosper and take hold so people can live their own lives.
On another note, it's grand how people think voting is so precious. You don't vote for POLICY... that's the huge thing for me right there (referendums are not paid attention to as shown by many examples). Who cares who is in office? I don't. I care what policies are put forth. Then again I really don't want a state so.. SMASH THE STATE!

[MilitancyFetish]

Then again I really don't want a state so.. SMASH THE STATE!

Yeeeah boyeee!

[asshole]

Hey, rose, is your screenname from that group in nazi germany?
off topic but this thread's old.

[trueness]

If you are talking about armed revolutions then of course they are authoritarian you are basically taking up arms and preparing to kill people who oppose you. It doesn't get much more authoritarian than that.

A peaceful revolution? I think we can disregard that as anarchists. We want to radically alter society, it's not as though we plan to go the chavez route and put a socialist face on capitalism which is something capitalists seem happy to live with. In any anarchist revolution they will be opposition that will need to be smashed or the revolution will fail.

It's how authority is used after a revolution that is of more importance.

Heh, the ends don't necessarily justify the means. A largely peaceful revolution is the only way it can realistically come about. Those who are not peaceful weren't peaceful to begin with, but the vast majority aren't going to hold on to untenable values that simply hold no weight.

It's like people suddenly holding hands and saying no to piracy and then blocking everyone else from pirating music, a totally and utterly ridiculous premise. I send pirated stuff to my friends regularly, and guess what, not one of them has complained or said that I'm a bad and evil person and so on. Only a few hundred thousand in the whole fucking world might even consider fighting back, and then they're not stupid enough to fail to recognize the utter futility of such a task. There are way more people who need help than there are who don't, and if we brought it to them they would happily oblige our systems.

Of course, there is a pretty large contengent in anarchist circles who romanticize about violence and how it is good and how it will achieve things (consisting especially anarcho-punk practishioners who give up the theory after a time), but hey, I'm in a very silent minority, what can I say. Ward Churchhills book and others' bullshit just helps the capitalists along. Every day you're learning about how to make bombs, you're spending time away from learning how to garden, or learning how to build homes or make clothing. And that's what the state wants. It doesn't want us to improve upon the current state of affairs, it wants us to go down worthless pathways that cannot achieve anything.

I consider violently expropriating the means of production somewhat authoritarian, though I can see it as justified, I do not consider it a realistic path toward anarchism at all.

Violently expropriating the means of production is about as authoritarian as defending yourself when someone is trying to take over your house and force you and your family out. The 'ownership' of the means of production by the capitalists was never legitimate to begin with. The capitalists are the ones threatening violence, since if the workers treat their labor as theirs and their boss' they'll call in the police. Any violence against this threat is defensive and not authoritarian.

[Severian]

There can be several views of this, all of which are in many ways correct. I'll try and sketch an idea of the situation.

Well, we can look at what a revolution itself is, for Anarchists: violently bringing about the abolition of the State and Capitalism. It is an uprising of the working class to destroy the Capitalist State and replace it with a society built on socialist-communist and Anarchist principles. Remember, it is an uprising... of the working class. As a whole.

Now then, revolution can thusly be viewed as an action that is by its very nature an authoritarian action: it is the violent destruction of class society, Capitalist society, and the imposition on the bourgeois of a classless and as a result of this stateless society, Anarchist society. So, yeah, we're barging in, taking over, and imposing our ideas: pretty authoritarian. However, there are several things that come to mind for me.

How else are we to bring about Anarchist society? Even if we use peaceful means, the bourgeoisie will not throw away its seat of power without a fight. The peaceful protesters would be walking into fire hoses and unjust murder. And what could we do about it? They could pin us as Terrorists or something and call it a crackdown on criminal dissent looking to overthrow the social order. And what could we say? We might not be criminals or Terrorists, but we're looking to do just that.

In this case, the ends can justify the means pretty well. In addition to the above thought, the revolution and its means can be justified. The violent removal of Capitalist interests and the replacement of people's interests is what's best and we all know it.

Anyone who calls revolution authoritarian doesn't know what Authoritarianism is. See, authoritarianism itself can be defined as when a government imposes authority on its people, rather than being an inoffensive centrist democracy or something like that. So, now, check out this part of the beginning of my post: I told you to remember that this is a revolution carried out by the workers... as a whole. In short, who cares if we're imposing "what's best" (referring to the above paragraph) on the bloodsucking State. In relation to the definition of authoritarianism, this wouldn't fit the criteria. It's an act of liberation, liberating the liberators.

Bottom line. Yeah, it might be authoritarian: but only towards those who are oppressing us. Without revolution we will not have freedom. Sorry, Hippies.

[Severian]

Comrade |Y|,

Heh, the ends don't necessarily justify the means. A largely peaceful revolution is the only way it can realistically come about.

I imagine this revolution of ours would be as peaceful as it can be. This is a logical route to take, of course. But, keep this in mind, my friend - It must also be as combative, forceful, and violent as it needs to be.

[Selkie]

While I agree that a small group overthrowing the rest of the nation is authoritarian, if and when a revolution in the U.S. happens it will only be because the vast majority is angry and very fed up, therefore not at all authoritarian.

[Anarchist]

Revolution can be authoritarian, but an Anarchist revolution isn't. You're being dominated by others. That's authoritarian. We want a revolution that stops this domination. We aren't trying to dominate others, just stop them from dominating us.

Revolution isn't inherently authoritarian. Pointing a gun in someone's face is only authoritarian if you are doing it to subject them to your will, not if you are doing it to stop them from subjecting you to their will.

The various Marxist revolutions have been authoritarian. They didn't just want to stop domination, they wanted to be the dominators themselves.

If you are talking about armed revolutions then of course they are authoritarian you are basically taking up arms and preparing to kill people who oppose you. It doesn't get much more authoritarian than that.

No, it isn't killing people who oppose you. During an Anarchist revolution, would the Anarchists kill someone who said "No, I think the state is a good idea"? No, not at all, even though they oppose them. It is only if they fight for the state's domination that they could get harmed by people defending themselves.

It's basically this: don't try to dominate me and I'll leave you alone. If you do try to I will fight back and defend myself. This is hardly authoritarian.

[BlutAusBeherit]

Anarchist makes a good point. The revolution should obviously be as peaceful as possible, but asking the authorities to give up their power, the only thing they have to distinguish them from us, is unrealistic. Authoritarianism knows no limits. While the government doesn't necessarily always try to stifle dissenters, in an "emergency situation", such as a mass revolt, they will definitely employ all the power they have. It's not like a police state is completely unheard of, and I could easily see it happening throughout the united states. Just look at California. We need to be armed. Whether we use those arms is purely circumstantial.

[Noleaders]

the fact is if the conditions are right for a revolution then there's a conflict whether or not one, or an attempt at one happens.

People who say "oh revolution is imposing your authority on someone" aren't living in the real world. A good way to describe it is the point of political ideology is to decide who should get what in this situation. Both sides are hierarchical and authoritarian to some degree but "neither side" isn't a choice thats available because "neither side" would be disguised support for the statists.

[Bakunin-Kropotkin]

You should not view the revolution as authoritarian, There is nothing authoriatarian about it at all. The revolution, in the case of Anarchism, is supposed to overthrow authority with equality and freedom. Therefore it cannot be authoritarian because it is imposing it's will on the people, it will be the act of freeing the people.