“I am not waving it away, I am lowering its status to be within the same realm as concerns that are secondary in capitalism.”
You can’t just decide ownership matters less after capitalism by fiat. That’s idealism. Ownership isn’t a preference. It’s the material anchor of class power. The point of proletarian state power isn’t to wish authority away. It’s to use authority to socialize production, break imperial chains, and create the conditions where class distinctions become obsolete. You don’t get there by lowering the status of property relations. You get there by transforming them.
“Any group with authority over these matters that can have solidarity within the authoritative group will serve as a ruling class that gains from exploiting the working class.”
This conflates function with class. Yes, bureaucrats can degenerate. That’s a real contradiction. Mao wrote extensively about the risk of a “new bourgeoisie” emerging from within the party. But the solution isn’t to abandon proletarian authority. It’s to deepen mass line, criticism-self-criticism, recall mechanisms. The AES experiences show that proletarian authority can break imperial dependency, socialize surplus, and expand human development. That isn’t authority becoming a class. That’s authority being wielded to transform the conditions that make class possible.
“If the singular working class as a concept had more teeth than nationality I would expect it to, well, take a bigger bite out of history. For French revolutionaries to abolish slavery…”
The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. Of course bourgeois revolutionaries didn’t abolish colonial slavery out of “solidarity.” That proves the class character of that revolution, not the impossibility of proletarian internationalism. The Paris Commune, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese revolution, the Vietnamese revolution, the Cuban revolution, these show proletarian internationalism in practice. It’s uneven, contradictory, contested. But it exists. And it exists because imperialism creates a shared enemy, not because workers spontaneously feel nice to each other.
“No, we should become anarchist… complex social structures with far less authority already exist from sociocracy to decentralized guerilla cells.”
“Anarchism”(I’ve read anarchist theory and debated principled anarchists; in practice, when faced with real revolutionary tasks (smashing the bourgeois state, defending against counter-revolution, coordinating production at scale) they end up adopting positions functionally close to MLs, because material conditions demand it. The “authority is inherently tyrannical” line is tyranny of bedtime idealism that collapses on contact with actual struggle.) treats authority as the problem. But authority isn’t the problem. Class power is. You can’t dismantle the bourgeois state with decentralized cells. You can’t break imperial chains with sociocracy. The material task of revolution is to seize state power, socialize production, and defend the revolution against counter-revolution. That requires coordination, discipline, and yes, authority. “Anarchism’s” refusal to confront this is why it has repeatedly failed when faced with real revolutionary situations.
“But where you expect administrators to make such improvements to their personal and (sub)class’ detriment, anarchy keeps the power to make these changes with the people…”
This sounds good but is abstract. Who are “the people”? How do they coordinate at scale? How do they defend against counter-revolution, imperial invasion, economic sabotage? The mass line is a method for tying leadership to the masses through concrete practice. But it requires a vanguard, a party, a state form capable of wielding power. “Anarchism’s” distrust of all authority leaves it unable to answer these questions.
“We are able to be anarchist (or state communist) even within capitalism…”
You can build prefigurative spaces under capitalism. That’s great, but prefiguration isn’t revolution. The bourgeois state won’t be voted away or out-organized by parallel structures. It has to be smashed. And what replaces it has to be capable of holding power, not just avoiding it.
You see authority as inherently dangerous, so you want to minimize it. I see authority as a social relation, so I ask: which class wields it, for what end, and with what mechanisms to prevent ossification? One approach leads to moralism. The other leads to strategy.
You can’t just decide ownership matters less after capitalism by fiat. That’s idealism. Ownership isn’t a preference. It’s the material anchor of class power. The point of proletarian state power isn’t to wish authority away. It’s to use authority to socialize production, break imperial chains, and create the conditions where class distinctions become obsolete. You don’t get there by lowering the status of property relations. You get there by transforming them.
This conflates function with class. Yes, bureaucrats can degenerate. That’s a real contradiction. Mao wrote extensively about the risk of a “new bourgeoisie” emerging from within the party. But the solution isn’t to abandon proletarian authority. It’s to deepen mass line, criticism-self-criticism, recall mechanisms. The AES experiences show that proletarian authority can break imperial dependency, socialize surplus, and expand human development. That isn’t authority becoming a class. That’s authority being wielded to transform the conditions that make class possible.
The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. Of course bourgeois revolutionaries didn’t abolish colonial slavery out of “solidarity.” That proves the class character of that revolution, not the impossibility of proletarian internationalism. The Paris Commune, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese revolution, the Vietnamese revolution, the Cuban revolution, these show proletarian internationalism in practice. It’s uneven, contradictory, contested. But it exists. And it exists because imperialism creates a shared enemy, not because workers spontaneously feel nice to each other.
“Anarchism”(I’ve read anarchist theory and debated principled anarchists; in practice, when faced with real revolutionary tasks (smashing the bourgeois state, defending against counter-revolution, coordinating production at scale) they end up adopting positions functionally close to MLs, because material conditions demand it. The “authority is inherently tyrannical” line is tyranny of bedtime idealism that collapses on contact with actual struggle.) treats authority as the problem. But authority isn’t the problem. Class power is. You can’t dismantle the bourgeois state with decentralized cells. You can’t break imperial chains with sociocracy. The material task of revolution is to seize state power, socialize production, and defend the revolution against counter-revolution. That requires coordination, discipline, and yes, authority. “Anarchism’s” refusal to confront this is why it has repeatedly failed when faced with real revolutionary situations.
This sounds good but is abstract. Who are “the people”? How do they coordinate at scale? How do they defend against counter-revolution, imperial invasion, economic sabotage? The mass line is a method for tying leadership to the masses through concrete practice. But it requires a vanguard, a party, a state form capable of wielding power. “Anarchism’s” distrust of all authority leaves it unable to answer these questions.
You can build prefigurative spaces under capitalism. That’s great, but prefiguration isn’t revolution. The bourgeois state won’t be voted away or out-organized by parallel structures. It has to be smashed. And what replaces it has to be capable of holding power, not just avoiding it.
You see authority as inherently dangerous, so you want to minimize it. I see authority as a social relation, so I ask: which class wields it, for what end, and with what mechanisms to prevent ossification? One approach leads to moralism. The other leads to strategy.