Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism: do they exist?

[Ares Land]

I know of the anarchist property vs. possession distinction, but tbh it feels more trouble than it's worth.

I quite agree. I think one of the ways human society makes ethical progress is in the limitation of what can be treated as property, so it's probably more practical to speak of "banning the ownership of workplaces" for example, than it is to "ban private property", which is comparatively less precise and less expressive.

Yeah, you put it better than I did.

[Travis B.]

I know of the anarchist property vs. possession distinction, but tbh it feels more trouble than it's worth.

I quite agree. I think one of the ways human society makes ethical progress is in the limitation of what can be treated as property, so it's probably more practical to speak of "banning the ownership of workplaces" for example, than it is to "ban private property", which is comparatively less precise and less expressive.

Yeah, you put it better than I did.

The thing is that workers' ownership and self-management of capital by itself still leaves the door open for landlordism in the more general sense.

[Raphael]

I quite agree. I think one of the ways human society makes ethical progress is in the limitation of what can be treated as property, so it's probably more practical to speak of "banning the ownership of workplaces" for example, than it is to "ban private property", which is comparatively less precise and less expressive.

Yeah, you put it better than I did.

The thing is that workers' ownership and self-management of capital by itself still leaves the door open for landlordism in the more general sense.

Hate to defend Torco, but he was talking about "banning the ownership of workplaces", not about transferring said ownership to workers.

[Travis B.]

Yeah, you put it better than I did.

The thing is that workers' ownership and self-management of capital by itself still leaves the door open for landlordism in the more general sense.

Hate to defend Torco, but he was talking about "banning the ownership of workplaces", not about transferring said ownership to workers.

I presume Torco meant the abolition of private property rights w.r.t. workplaces, i.e. their replacement with the possession of capital by whoever, i.e. the workers, uses it. However, to me that does not go far enough, because it still leaves the door open for landlordism with regard to rental properties and like.

[Torco]

I agree that it doesn't go far enough. but halfway north gets you further than full steam ahead to a vaguely defined endpoint.

though gradualism is still better than nothing: capitalism sans owned workplaces is better than capitalism with it, just like capitalism without slaves is better than capitalism with slaves.

edit: also i think it's reasonable to assume that no single model will or could replace the for-profit LLC: some might become worker owned coops, others might become state-owned enterprises, or city-council-owned enterprises, or other things.

[Travis B.]

I agree that it doesn't go far enough. but halfway north gets you further than full steam ahead to a vaguely defined endpoint.

though gradualism is still better than nothing: capitalism sans owned workplaces is better than capitalism with it, just like capitalism without slaves is better than capitalism with slaves.

I don't think it's a vaguely-defined endpoint, but I do agree that gradualism is better than nothing. This is part of why I do not believe in rejecting electoral politics -- which to me is a form of accelerationism -- even though I believe that the state cannot simply 'give' socialism to the workers, as if the workers have not organized themselves to claim control over capital any attempt to 'give' them control will fall flat on its face and probably quickly revert to capitalism.

edit: also i think it's reasonable to assume that no single model will or could replace the for-profit LLC: some might become worker owned coops, others might become state-owned enterprises, or city-council-owned enterprises, or other things.

I personally am open to hybrid models, where outside parties such as consumers have a stake in a given cooperative rather than being solely worker-owned- and managed. However, I do not support pure state ownership of capital, for the reason that the state is liable to merely take the place of the capitalist, with little actually changing for the workers other than their masters.

[Torco]

I don't think it's a vaguely-defined endpoint, but I do agree that gradualism is better than nothing. This is part of why I do not believe in rejecting electoral politics -- which to me is a form of accelerationism -- even though I believe that the state cannot simply 'give' socialism to the workers, as if the workers have not organized themselves to claim control over capital any attempt to 'give' them control will fall flat on its face and probably quickly revert to capitalism.

maybe vague is not the right way, but i think the meaning of the distinction between private and personal will cause more confusion, and will enable more right wing lies, mostly cause people already have a conception of private property, and that common sense conception includes people's socks and pillows.

and it's a good old ouroboros: it's true you need an organized working class, but for that you need a plan. i think concrete legal reforms (banning owning workplaces, and also owning too many houses, or houses you don't live in, or this and that and the other) are probably better ways to formulate that plan than terminology from the nineteenth century. it's like when people say "burgeois". it's like... okay, it's useful exegetically, when you're discussing minutiae of books, but for regular folks all they hear is "i'm very socialist, i like north korea, and stalin did nothing wrong" or whatever else they've been told about communists.

I personally am open to hybrid models, where outside parties such as consumers have a stake in a given cooperative rather than being solely worker-owned- and managed. However, I do not support pure state ownership of capital, for the reason that the state is liable to merely take the place of the capitalist, with little actually changing for the workers other than their masters.

anarcho-communism is all well and good, but it's remarkably... you know, it has very few hitpoints and is way too vulnerable to the mind control spells of the final boss, you know? maybe after the age of total capitalist planetary hegemony it'll fare better.

[Travis B.]

I don't think it's a vaguely-defined endpoint, but I do agree that gradualism is better than nothing. This is part of why I do not believe in rejecting electoral politics -- which to me is a form of accelerationism -- even though I believe that the state cannot simply 'give' socialism to the workers, as if the workers have not organized themselves to claim control over capital any attempt to 'give' them control will fall flat on its face and probably quickly revert to capitalism.

maybe vague is not the right way, but i think the meaning of the distinction between private and personal will cause more confusion, and will enable more right wing lies, mostly cause people already have a conception of private property, and that common sense conception includes people's socks and pillows.

The distinction between private property and personal possessions, and what a personal possession even is (people might not realize that their house is a personal possession) is more theory than anything. Things can be presented to the public in a manner of opposition to private ownership of capital and to landlordism if that is more tactically effective.

and it's a good old ouroboros: it's true you need an organized working class, but for that you need a plan. i think concrete legal reforms (banning owning workplaces, and also owning too many houses, or houses you don't live in, or this and that and the other) are probably better ways to formulate that plan than terminology from the nineteenth century.

I fully recognize that going "... then the working class will rise up and collectively overthrow the capitalists" is not a winning plan. If anything, if we are to have any hope of getting anywhere, the best plan is probably to act within the existing social organizations, including groups like unions and parties, and gradually use them to organize the working class (note that I am using the socialist definition of 'working class' here) and convert people to the cause of socialism from within. Yes, that means that one might have to settle for gradual change. And yes, here in the US that means working with people like Democrats. Creating your own little purist leftist organizations is a guaranteed recipe for getting nowhere in helping bring about actual social change.

Once we get closer to actually bringing about socialism, probably the best approach at that stage will be to aim to bring about dual power through existing workers' organizations. Rather than simply overthrowing the established structures, which is almost certain to fail to achieve the goals we seek, we will render them irrelevant and powerless, and eventually simply discard them.

it's like when people say "burgeois". it's like... okay, it's useful exegetically, when you're discussing minutiae of books, but for regular folks all they hear is "i'm very socialist, i like north korea, and stalin did nothing wrong" or whatever else they've been told about communists.

Note that the people that go "I'm very socialist, I like North Korea, and Stalin did nothing wrong" do actually exist to this very day; I got banned from r/Socialism101 by those people for alleged 'liberalism', and that subreddit is absolutely overrun with those types. People would completely earnestly call themselves 'Stalinists', and when the fact that Communists were some of the main victims of Stalinism was pointed out, either insist that they were corrupt and hence deserved it, or that it was just a minor footnote in the history of the Soviet Union that ought to be ignored.

I personally am open to hybrid models, where outside parties such as consumers have a stake in a given cooperative rather than being solely worker-owned- and managed. However, I do not support pure state ownership of capital, for the reason that the state is liable to merely take the place of the capitalist, with little actually changing for the workers other than their masters.

anarcho-communism is all well and good, but it's remarkably... you know, it has very few hitpoints and is way too vulnerable to the mind control spells of the final boss, you know? maybe after the age of total capitalist planetary hegemony it'll fare better.

Then we don't call it "anarcho-communism". I would be perfectly willing to call the system I outlined in this thread to be a variant of democratic socialism, or amongst fellow leftists a variation upon council communism but with a mixed rather than strictly communist economy, which is probably a more honest assessment than calling it anarcho-communism anyways.

[zompist]

Things can be presented to the public in a manner of opposition to private ownership of capital and to landlordism if that is more tactically effective.

On the whole I think your ideal system is pretty good. However, I feel like "landlordism" is a repetition of the old left-wing horror of minor capitalism. You've already accepted a market, so I think a more nuanced view of landlords might be in order.

Is it really terrible if a family who own a house rents out a room or a floor in it? They are not a property management corporation or an absentee landlord; it's in their interest to keep the house in good shape; it may be useful extra income for them. Perhaps more importantly, it can greatly increase the housing supply, which means housing costs are lower and less construction is needed.

A good system will protect both landlords and tenants. E.g. we're renting half a house right now. They owners actually sold it— but the local law protects our lease until it's up. I'm not happy that we have to move again, but I'm happy that we can't be forced to move early.

I'd also point out that if you make this sort of thing illegal, people will just find ways to do it under the table. Oh, that's my cousin living in the upstairs room.

Can people not run a B&B?

I'm happy to put some upper bound on how many units people can rent out. But if you really want to eliminate apartment buildings, you'd better have a huge commitment to building housing, and socialists don't have a good track record here. Eliminating a market abuse doesn't mean that a socialist alternative springs up from the soil.

The US has a huge housing shortage, partly from the NIMBYism I described earlier, partly because affordable housing has been decimated. People disapprove of buildings full of SRO units; boarding houses are out of fashion. Getting rid of landlords means that you made the state rather than the market responsible for housing.

[Travis B.]

Things can be presented to the public in a manner of opposition to private ownership of capital and to landlordism if that is more tactically effective.

On the whole I think your ideal system is pretty good. However, I feel like "landlordism" is a repetition of the old left-wing horror of minor capitalism. You've already accepted a market, so I think a more nuanced view of landlords might be in order.

Is it really terrible if a family who own a house rents out a room or a floor in it? They are not a property management corporation or an absentee landlord; it's in their interest to keep the house in good shape; it may be useful extra income for them. Perhaps more importantly, it can greatly increase the housing supply, which means housing costs are lower and less construction is needed.

A good system will protect both landlords and tenants. E.g. we're renting half a house right now. They owners actually sold it— but the local law protects our lease until it's up. I'm not happy that we have to move again, but I'm happy that we can't be forced to move early.

I'd also point out that if you make this sort of thing illegal, people will just find ways to do it under the table. Oh, that's my cousin living in the upstairs room.

Can people not run a B&B?

I'm happy to put some upper bound on how many units people can rent out. But if you really want to eliminate apartment buildings, you'd better have a huge commitment to building housing, and socialists don't have a good track record here. Eliminating a market abuse doesn't mean that a socialist alternative springs up from the soil.

The US has a huge housing shortage, partly from the NIMBYism I described earlier, partly because affordable housing has been decimated. People disapprove of buildings full of SRO units; boarding houses are out of fashion. Getting rid of landlords means that you made the state rather than the market responsible for housing.

If any landlordism were to exist, I would say it should be limited to cases in which the landlords personally are responsible for the upkeep of the property ─ and not someone they hire to maintain it for them beyond things like plumbing that naturally would be handled by specialists ─ or they physically occupy the property for a significant percentage of the year (e.g. maybe at least 35% of the days of the year). This would cover cases of people renting out rooms in houses that they themselves live in, or cases of people living in a home part of the year and renting it out the rest.

About large apartment buildings, those are a case where frankly I would be for expropriating them from the management companies and reorganizing them as housing cooperatives run democratically by their residents. And yes, I know housing cooperatives aren't perfect, but they are better than the management companies and like.

[Travis B.]

That said, the thing about the "left-wing horror of minor capitalism" is that from the worker's perspective oftentimes "minor capitalism" really isn't any better than "big capitalism" ─ petit bourgeoisie can be just as oppressive as the plain old bourgeoisie. Yes, petit bourgeoisie do do real work, unlike the regular bourgeoisie, but that does not necessarily change the situation from the viewpoint of those under them (and indeed sometimes regular bourgeoisie can be less oppressive in that they are further away from the workers who are insulated by layers of professional managers).

Edit: And yes, I have worked in both very large and very small companies, and actually the very small companies I would say had more oppressive work environments than the larger companies.

[zompist]

Edit: And yes, I have worked in both very large and very small companies, and actually the very small companies I would say had more oppressive work environments than the larger companies.

So have I, and I'd say they can both suck, or they can both be all right. They tend to suck in different ways. The small business owner can be far more conservative and personally demanding than the rich CEO. On the other hand the business owner is likely to be an actual worker and to deeply understand the business; the CEO may know nothing but "management."

I understand that people are describing ideal systems here. Still, we have a long way to go to get there. Making it clear that you want to get rid of small business owners is throwing away a large chunk of the public, a far larger class than the plutocrats.

[rotting bones]

I think we should ask people what they want and help them achieve their goals. You could describe this as supporting an authority I like, but only in the sense that anything can be described as anything else.

everyone agrees with this until you ask which people, and which goals. politics, in a way, boils down to just those questions.

They really do not. There are a lot of people who think voters are idiots who need a benevolent dictator with an iron fist. Personally, I agree that voters are idiots. That's why I think they should have all the power. This might sound like trolling, but it's not. The economy is inherently irrational. Therefore, any rational plan is necessarily oppression. I agree with the libertarians on this. However, given that money is a social system that gives you the power to command the labor of others, I think replacing money with votes is obviously less oppressive and more stable.

[äreo]

Edit: And yes, I have worked in both very large and very small companies, and actually the very small companies I would say had more oppressive work environments than the larger companies.

So have I, and I'd say they can both suck, or they can both be all right. They tend to suck in different ways. The small business owner can be far more conservative and personally demanding than the rich CEO. On the other hand the business owner is likely to be an actual worker and to deeply understand the business; the CEO may know nothing but "management."

I understand that people are describing ideal systems here. Still, we have a long way to go to get there. Making it clear that you want to get rid of small business owners is throwing away a large chunk of the public, a far larger class than the plutocrats.

Agreed overall. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with large managed firms, or small ones, or worker-owned coöperatives for that matter. A bigger issue to me is the ideology a lot of firms operate under, which is focused on growth for the sake of growth, the accumulation of dubious credentials, and a denial of basic human nature (namely, that we are not machines, and having room to fart around and not be locked in 24/7 tends to improve our work ethic, not to mention that it is better for our overall flourishing as individuals and as a species).

To bring it back more to the original question, I think the problem with "authoritarian" versus "anti-authoritarian" is that by some reasonable definition of the word, authority as a phenomenon is impossible to escape and will be reinvented no matter how it is deconstructed. Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.

Caesar didn't dare take the title of rex, but his name ended up a synonym for it. The 20th Century saw Chairmen and General Secretaries with powers an ancient tyrant might only have dreamed of. More locally or to the point, a trendsetter in fashion can be said to have a kind of authority, as can a gifted writer or speaker, as can an accomplished practitioner of this or that sport. Authority can be evil or it can be good, it can be strong or it can be weak, it can be implicit or explicit, it can last a long time or it can be as ephemeral as this week's TikTok microtrend. Some people are really good at wielding authority (my great-grandfather, I am told, had a great gift for making you deeply afraid of disappointing him, without ever raising his voice or his hand, and the things that disappointed him were things you knew in your heart were wrong in the first place). Other people are quite awful at it (of which the present political situation furnishes no shortage of examples). But I find it hard to deny that as a general fact of human existence, some people will have some ability to direct the attention and actions of other people.

Now if people have the tools with which to provide for themselves and their communities (i.e. "direct access to the means of production"), they are less likely to end up beholden to the worst kinds of authority. Ditto if they are not beset by learned helplessness, which I think is a key feature of contemporary life and a big contributor to political radicalization. And "tradition" and "progress" are both quite capable of inducing learned helplessness or helping us break out of it.

[Raphael]

A bigger issue to me is the ideology a lot of firms operate under, which is focused on growth for the sake of growth, the accumulation of dubious credentials, and a denial of basic human nature (namely, that we are not machines, and having room to fart around and not be locked in 24/7 tends to improve our work ethic, not to mention that it is better for our overall flourishing as individuals and as a species).

A-fucking-men! Preach!

To bring it back more to the original question, I think the problem with "authoritarian" versus "anti-authoritarian" is that by some reasonable definition of the word, authority as a phenomenon is impossible to escape and will be reinvented no matter how it is deconstructed. Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.

Caesar didn't dare take the title of rex, but his name ended up a synonym for it. The 20th Century saw Chairmen and General Secretaries with powers an ancient tyrant might only have dreamed of. More locally or to the point, a trendsetter in fashion can be said to have a kind of authority, as can a gifted writer or speaker, as can an accomplished practitioner of this or that sport. Authority can be evil or it can be good, it can be strong or it can be weak, it can be implicit or explicit, it can last a long time or it can be as ephemeral as this week's TikTok microtrend.

All good points.

Some people are really good at wielding authority (my great-grandfather, I am told, had a great gift for making you deeply afraid of disappointing him, without ever raising his voice or his hand, and the things that disappointed him were things you knew in your heart were wrong in the first place).

Based on my experiences going to school, I suspect that often, the difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher comes down to having or not having that particular talent.

Now if people have the tools with which to provide for themselves and their communities (i.e. "direct access to the means of production"), they are less likely to end up beholden to the worst kinds of authority. Ditto if they are not beset by learned helplessness, which I think is a key feature of contemporary life and a big contributor to political radicalization. And "tradition" and "progress" are both quite capable of inducing learned helplessness or helping us break out of it.

Never thought of it that way, but now that you mentions it - good points.

[Ares Land]

The distinction between private property and personal possessions, and what a personal possession even is (people might not realize that their house is a personal possession) is more theory than anything. Things can be presented to the public in a manner of opposition to private ownership of capital and to landlordism if that is more tactically effective.

"People want to own stuff", as Frank Zappa supposedly said. I don't think people are wrong to want stuff.
People owning a home, or a car, or savings or even, I don't know, a bar or a bookshop is decidedly not a problem.

As you mentioned, you can introduce the private property / personal possession distinction at this point. But it's high-level theory; there's not much and how you could actually work it out; as in, how do you handle that in court, or if you don't believe in courts, what are the rules so that the inevitable conflicts are handled fairly in whatever way seems appropriate.
There's little consensus on how personal possession even is in very concrete terms. You include houses, but others would disagree. (According to The Dispossessed, Le Guin definitely would.)

That said, the thing about the "left-wing horror of minor capitalism" is that from the worker's perspective oftentimes "minor capitalism" really isn't any better than "big capitalism" ─ petit bourgeoisie can be just as oppressive as the plain old bourgeoisie. Yes, petit bourgeoisie do do real work, unlike the regular bourgeoisie, but that does not necessarily change the situation from the viewpoint of those under them (and indeed sometimes regular bourgeoisie can be less oppressive in that they are further away from the workers who are insulated by layers of professional managers).

Edit: And yes, I have worked in both very large and very small companies, and actually the very small companies I would say had more oppressive work environments than the larger companies.

I agree, and there is something of a difficult edge case. I don't think there are huge problems with one-person businesses, or tiny businesses run amiably by a family. After twenty employees is about the ideal case for co-ops.
Between that there are probably edge cases that are difficult to answer. Say you go to the trouble of opening a bookshop which may be a highly personal project; if you hire someone to help out, it's not fair that they get an equal say in how the store is run; them getting no say at all, or being exploited isn't fair either.

But there's no guarantee that some co-ops won't be abusive either! And for that you need two things: a healthy job market so people can change if it comes to that, and labor laws and courts so conflicts can be resolved.

That's incidentally one reason why government (or local council) jobs would be useful. I'm of the view there's always something of common interest to be done; plus it could serve a useful function as an employer of last resort.
Keeping in mind that co-ops by nature have an incentive not to hire, so in my view they can be a large part of a healthy economy, but not the entirety of it.

(Okay, I've strayed very far from the initial topic of authoritarianism. Sorry about that!)

[Raphael]

"People want to own stuff", as Frank Zappa supposedly said.

Unlike Zappa himself, however, the vast majority of people are never going to own all that much - at most, perhaps, a not-too-big house and the patch of land it's on, and, under the current economic system, if they're middle class, some small investments. Leaving aside the last of these, I think it would be perfectly plausible to allow private property in personal belongings and maybe small (in the sense of "smaller than an apartment block") houses, but ban it for anything more economically significant.

(Okay, I've strayed very far from the initial topic of authoritarianism. Sorry about that!)

Hey, pretty much this entire thread so far has been about two off-topic discussions, first the one about reparations, and now this one. I guess I'll have to live with that.

[Ares Land]

"People want to own stuff", as Frank Zappa supposedly said.

Unlike Zappa himself, however, the vast majority of people are never going to own all that much - at most, perhaps, a not-too-big house and the patch of land it's on, and, under the current economic system, if they're middle class, some small investments. Leaving aside the last of these, I think it would be perfectly plausible to allow private property in personal belongings and maybe small (in the sense of "smaller than an apartment block") houses, but ban it for anything more economically significant.

I don't disagree with that. I'd be in favor of a highly progressive wealth tax and inheritance tax. It could work out to something close to what you propose.

[Travis B.]

I think people here are getting tied up in the definition of 'private property' -- I myself have been using it specifically in the socialist sense of the term, i.e. title to capital one does not use or land one does not live on or work, and not the sense most people seem to have. I am not suggesting that a socialist council republic would expropriate people's homes out from under them! Much to the contrary, I am suggesting that such a society would give people at least partial* control over their own homes.

* Partial in that if more than one person lives in a home, they would have to share it with the other people who live there.

[Travis B.]

"People want to own stuff", as Frank Zappa supposedly said.

Unlike Zappa himself, however, the vast majority of people are never going to own all that much - at most, perhaps, a not-too-big house and the patch of land it's on, and, under the current economic system, if they're middle class, some small investments. Leaving aside the last of these, I think it would be perfectly plausible to allow private property in personal belongings and maybe small (in the sense of "smaller than an apartment block") houses, but ban it for anything more economically significant.

I don't disagree with that. I'd be in favor of a highly progressive wealth tax and inheritance tax. It could work out to something close to what you propose.

A highly progressive wealth tax and inheritance tax would be useful to effectively expropriate the plutocrats' holdings without explicitly expropriating them, by making them too expensive to hold onto (because the value of one's holdings would be factored into such taxes, so one would be forced to sell them off to pay for the tax).