I'm not "disrespecting" the refutation, I just said I didn't think it was a particularly compelling argument. Further, you were the one that told me I must not be looking hard enough before I had even said I didn't think Anark's video was particularly good. It's certainly long, but thankfully I don't need to point out why the whole video isn't great, but just respond to Anark's pinned summary:

To those who say the video is too long, you're right. I'm sorry. It can be debunked with just the following statements:

-Necessity is not authority

This is just redefining what authority is. Engel's arguments are about the necessity of some hierarchies, something anarchists took issue with and he responded to.

-Organization is not authority

See point 1.

-Authority is a structural relation based in monopolization of power

See point 1 and 2, but then we get into the question of monopolization of power, which is the only meaningful point made by Anark. Engels isn't talking about removing power from the working class, but recognizing necessary roles with hierarchy baked-in, which he gave examples for. Anark draws a distinction here, though, and minimizes the impact of class struggle and democracy.

-Authoritarians need to learn about how power works

Kinda teeters into idealism here.

Overall, not really impressed with Anark's argument, it's mostly him pretending Engels was arguing against a strawman and inserting Anark's own definition of authority.

Yes, I dip, because I very clearly rile people in here up and I am not in the mood to enable in the usual hexbear pile-on. And yes, if you remain in defense of some argument I, and every other anarchist, considers laughably bad and many-time refuted, I will treat you as irrational.

Okay? Go for it, if you want to do that rather than try to have an actual conversation, that's your choice, but you shouldn't be surprised if that very behavior is what returns it to you.

load more comments (61 replies)