you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 8 months ago (14 children)

The Zapatista territories in Chiapas come to mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (11 children)

    They enforce/enforced their authority often violently against the Mexican government, cartels, and the US.

    Authoritarian is a useless buzzword for liberals to paint countries/movements they don't like as immoral.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it's truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (9 children)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    I think you're on the right train of thought but missing a key aspect. I'm with MLs that without some sort of organized counter-authority, existing power structures will overrun the revolutionary forces. But that authority needs to be fully accountable to the people it serves, otherwise it will become disembodied and "institutionalized" in the more specific sense, leading to a power structure that justifies its own existence instead of deriving the justification through the people. MLs, to me, are missing this power analysis. They seem to try to argue that an authoritarian communist-party-run government has this accountability to the people by the fact that...they serve the people? That's not enough. You need to organize your revolution around accountability, around the idea that institutional power must always be justified by the will of the people and not the other way around. The Zapatistas understood this, which is why they built their governance around consensus-building and have since actively removed institutional power as it no longer served the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Please educate me about how authoritarian socialist countries ensure and maintain accountability to the people (or point me to where I can research myself)! I'd love to be wrong about this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 7 points 8 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Thank you! I will read these.

    Side note, I think knowing that you put both the Zapatistas and the CPP in the same category of "authoritarian socialism" is helping me understand your perspective better. I think you're wrong, but I can at least understand where you're coming from, so thank you for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    What does this have to do with anything? None of this word salad even approaches the point we were talking about. The Zapatista movement is "authoritarian" just like every governing body that has been or is (who they serve is irrelevant to being or not being "authoritarian"). Authoritarian is a useless buzzword used mostly by liberals to smear movements and countries they don't like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    Clearly we're not getting anywhere. Read some anarchist theory if you want to understand this "word salad" 💕

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I understand what you're saying it's just not relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Challenging and limiting institutional power is not relevant to conversations about avoiding authoritarianism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    They enforce their authority on others, by force when necessary they are "authoritarian". Being accountable to their supporters in their areas doesn't change that. Until their is a global overthrow of class society by necessity their will be power structures where one class has authority and another doesn't. All governments/movements/classes that have been or are, are "authoritarian".

    This renders authoritarian a useless term for analysis and as such has relegated it to being used to paint groups/movements/governments as evil or immoral should they stand outside liberal sensibilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    If you wield force to protect your class interests (which is inevitable while there is a capitalist and a working class), then there is nothing that prevents the accusation of "authoritarian" against you, regardless of how "decentralized" you create your structures.

    Not only will capitalists call you authoritarian for fighting to defend your interests, its extremely common for anarchists to accuse even other anarchist groups of being more "authoritarian" than their own. Its a meaningless term in a world with irreconcilable classes and class conflict.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)