Is revolution authoritarian?

[Jawn Disease]

an anarchist political revolution will not occur without a change is consciousness (or social revolution). Political revolution without social revolution simply will never work. The vast majority of the population would need to be on our side. If they were on our side the revolution would not be authoritarian because it would be based on solidarity. If they were not on our side the revolution would either 1) fail or 2) be very very bloody

[leadhead]

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

If you were an alien indifferent to the commings and goings of mankind, then yes...from a completely objective perspective that would be correct.

However, because it is YOU that is on the buisness end of an authoritarian society, then the correct perspective is an action of defense. You are defending your ideals which you know to be valid from extinction.

If I am the target of a home invasion, I am not going to think..."well, I cant really say I own this property as no law of nature says my stuff is my own and he is hungry so he has a valid reason to point a gun in my face." No. I am going to go for my shotgun and defend myself.




That is not to say though that a revolution is the only way anarchy could happen. While it is the most likely way. If masses of people just stopped voting, started making their own money and trading it back and forth, stopped going to work etc...that would be a peaceful manner in which it could take place.

[Garnier]

For goodness sake people what's the point of the question 'is revolution authoritarian'?

an anarchist political revolution will not occur without a change is consciousness (or social revolution). Political revolution without social revolution simply will never work. The vast majority of the population would need to be on our side. If they were on our side the revolution would not be authoritarian because it would be based on solidarity. If they were not on our side the revolution would either 1) fail or 2) be very very bloody

We have some cca. 7000 years of civilisation. If the consciousness of the vast majority of people would ever change don't you think it would have by today? For consciousness to reach the vast majority there has to be free society.No free society no mass consciousness. Everything else is just awaiting the 'capitalism with human face' to bless us.

Is it authoritarian to stand for what we believe in the face of the mass slaughter of today?
Which revolution waited for the majority to wake up? None.
I know there isn't a straightforward solution to this. Take Jules Bonnot and his gang for instance. If they waited for the mass wake up they'd spent their lives as capitalist slaves. They didn't wait and fight. They died. If they didn't fight at least they would be alive.
Tough choice i admit.

[Garnier]

Where has peacefull methods freed anyone? Gandhi? If post-colonial India is deemed 'liberty' that's cute.

'I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.'

Edgar Allan Poe, (bullseye like usual.)

[leadhead]

For goodness sake people what's the point of the question 'is revolution authoritarian'?

an anarchist political revolution will not occur without a change is consciousness (or social revolution). Political revolution without social revolution simply will never work. The vast majority of the population would need to be on our side. If they were on our side the revolution would not be authoritarian because it would be based on solidarity. If they were not on our side the revolution would either 1) fail or 2) be very very bloody

We have some cca. 7000 years of civilisation. If the consciousness of the vast majority of people would ever change don't you think it would have by today? For consciousness to reach the vast majority there has to be free society.No free society no mass consciousness. Everything else is just awaiting the 'capitalism with human face' to bless us.

This is essentially the Catch 22 we are stuck in. That free society isnt going to happen until that consciousness reaches the vast majority. Run or fight is step 2, pulling your head out of the sand is step 1.

[Garnier]

There's a book 'Anarchist' by Ian Bone that deals with the mindset of revolutionaries & the question when is the right time. His characters are old anarchists, ex-angry-brigade and ex-may of 68' people who are all terminaly ill and have dropped all the rationale and are starting a revolution that ends up with victory of anarchy. Sort of people having no tommorow to look forward to and commit their remaining days to combat.Including a number of last stand heroics obviosly inspired by Peter the Painter,Bonnot,Ned Ludd & co.
In a sense this is what is happening in Chiapas,Saharawi,Somalia,Bougainville,Algeria and all the other places where state has been challenged. People entirely devoid of tommorow ready to make or break.
Sadly in the west we had been provided with many toys to distract & entertain us and so the state has bought itself internal peace for the time being.Majority of the people in scandinavia are state-worshipers and regard the state as a mesianic entity. However bizzare it may sound perhaps the worst a government is,there could be more adherents to anarchy.

[Guest]

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

your question is a valid one, but it shows your ignorance of anarchist thinking. your question also assumes that all revolutions are those achieved by a small clique. a truly anarchist revolution would absolutely need to be a decentralized storm of autonomous action, it would have no hierarchy. in its very essence it could not be the act of a few people as anarchism is about absolute democracy. the only way you could label a revolution anarchist is if it were an actual social revolution, anarchist revolution means the removal of hierarchy in terms of state and private tyranny. it would by default not be an anarchist revolution if it any way was not a movement of the people. anarchism is not a set position, it is constant vigilance in support of bottom up democracy and anti-authority.

[Guest]

I got in a debate withsome communists about this and got my ass-kicked

lol. yes my friend, you were speaking to Trotskyists, Leninists and the like. the problem with Leninism is it IS an elitist strain of thinking. It presumes that the working class is incapable of emancipating itself, and that they (the lowly masses) require the direction of the vanguard party.

here's a taste of Lenin's elitist scumbaggery:

"Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships between all the various classes and strata and the state and the government - the sphere of the interrelations between all the various classes." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 112]

Lenin is basically saying that the workers need to be instructed rather than be independent, that the only people qualified, are those at the center of government (meaning himself).

don't let those commie bastard bolsheviks bring you down man, we have a better program.

[Guest]

my man Bakunin shed some light:

"Idealists of all sorts, metaphysicians, positivists, those who uphold the priority of science over life, the doctrinaire revolutionists - all of them champion with equal zeal although differing in their argumentation, the idea of the State and State power, seeing in them, quite logically from their point of view, the only salvation of society. Quite logically, I say, having taken as their basis the tenet - a fallacious tenet in our opinion - that thought is prior to life, and abstract theory is prior to social practice, and that therefore sociological science must become the starting point for social upheavals and social reconstruction - they necessarily arrived at the conclusion that since thought, theory, and science are, for the present at least, the property of only a very few people, those few should direct social life; and that on the morrow of the Revolution the new social organisation should be set up not by the free integration of workers' associations, villages, communes, and regions from below upward, conforming to the needs and instincts of the people, but solely by the dictatorial power of this learned minority, allegedly expressing the general will of the people." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 283-4]

[Guest]

I view revolution as more of a surgery. Forcibly removing the cancer that plagues our civilization and is slowly and painfully killing it.
When a surgeon is faced with a patient dying of cancer, he doesnt debate the ethics of removing the cancer and possibly injuring the patient; he operates. if he does nothing, the patient dies and the whole thing becomes moot.
A nonviolent revolution is never going to work as long as the powers that be hold complete control of the media. The first act of the revolution must be to either cut off the mainstream media from broadcasting, or liberate it completely. Then, the people would have access to the unaltered truth and finally be able to see the light. Otherwise, we would simply be massacred or ignored.
The violence must be minimalized, but not non-existent. Several short, fiery bursts of well-placed violence would liberate the average person and allow them to hold their own future in their own hands.

[Guest]

Also,
In accordance with the FBI investigation thread,

DEAR FBI:
I meant absolutely nothing I just said.
ya happy?

[Zazaban]

Oh, and if the MI6 were watching this, I'd tell them that it we're in fact planning a comic festival based on this and we plan to donate all the proceeds to Comic Relief... Yeah.