Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society
Historicially, classes have been created or destroyed in order to create more or less centralized authority-driven decision making, and societies with less centralized authority have called ones with more centralized authority “authoritarian”.
Feudalism, dictatorship and even economic subjugation are called authoritarian by less authoritarian states.
In practice, the criterion for “authoritarianism” is however far back on that scale makes your current political center have anxiety about their ability to keep their current privileges from the authority.
But in theory you can see that the social organisation with the least authority possible would be an anarchist one, designed to dissolve class hierarchy when possible (e.g. abolition of private property) and apply anti-authoritarian safeguards if not (e.g. teach children how to take class action against adults, and make it easy for them to do so).
While such a society will still accumulate authority, it is designed to process it like any other waste product.
This means “authoritarian” is as meaningful as “filthy”. We can never be fully clean, but someone who chooses not to bathe to the standards of their time can be called filthy, and those standards can improve over time.
Your framework sounds nice in the abstract, but it doesn’t hold up against the concrete reality of how the term functions today. “Authoritarian” isn’t applied based on some neutral scale of centralization. It’s very clearly deployed selectively as a moral weapon by the Euro-Amerikan ideological apparatus to delegitimize any state or movement that resists imperial integration or challenges capitalist property relations.
If the criterion were truly about concentration of coercive power, the United States (with the world’s largest incarcerated population, extrajudicial drone programs, domestic surveillance architectures like COINTELPRO and it’s successors, and an executive branch that operates beyond legislative or judicial restraint on the whims of the president) would be the paradigmatic case. Yet it rarely (never) receives the label in mainstream discourse. Why? Because the term isn’t neutral.
On the historical point: classes aren’t created or dissolved to adjust the “level” of authority. They emerge and transform through shifts in the mode of production and the intensification of class struggle. The bourgeois revolutions didn’t aim to “spread” or “centralize” authority. They smashed feudal state forms to erect new ones that secured the dictatorship of capital (parliamentary democracy, rule of law, private property enforcement) all presented as “freedom” while materially consolidating a new class rule. The question was never how much authority, but authority for whom and against whom.
Anarchist models that treat authority as a contaminant to be minimized misunderstand the state as a neutral tool rather than an instrument of class power. In a world still structured by antagonistic classes, the relevant distinction isn’t between “more” or “less” authority, but between authority that reproduces exploitation and authority that dismantles it. The proletarian state, like any state, exercises coercion, but its historical task is to render itself obsolete by abolishing the class relations that make coercion necessary.
In it’s modern usage the term obscures more than it reveals. As it’s not meant to be a useful tool for analysing states, power or history, but a bat to beat those who don’t get in line.
That’s what I said; the center defines the standard. The US is authoritarian by social-democratic standards.
They emerge and transform through shifts in the mode of production and the intensification of class struggle.
“Class struggle” is not a one-dimensional variable, and the mode of production is to a significant extent a choice made by those within the system. A revolution has degrees of freedom for who is in its circle of solidarity.
Anarchist models that treat authority as a contaminant to be minimized misunderstand the state as a neutral tool rather than an instrument of class power.
State communists mistake the state/vanguard as a neutral outsider rather than a material entity. Authority left to fester will shape the material conditions to enshrine the authority at the cost of those without authority.
Social democrats tend not to call the US authoritarian (I have yet to see it). They’re too busy negotiating their cut of imperial plunder, welfare states built on extracted surplus and “human rights” rhetoric that conveniently ignores sanctions and coups. If “the center defines the standard,” then the standard isn’t about coercion; it’s about loyalty to capital (as I already pointed out). The label only sticks to those who break ranks (refuse to bend the knee to the EuroAmerikan hegemony).
On mode of production as “choice”: this is idealism, pure and simple. Putting the cart before the horse. Ideas don’t shape the material base; the material base shapes ideas. Capitalism didn’t arrive because someone imagined it. Feudal relations broke because they could no longer contain the productive forces, guilds choked industry, serfdom blocked labor, divine right couldn’t manage global accumulation. Socialism isn’t a fairy tale we opt into. It becomes necessary when capital’s own contradictions (overproduction, immiseration, ecological rupture) can no longer be managed within private ownership. And solidarity isn’t moral selection or simply who we like or don’t like. It’s determined by objective interests. The Chinese revolution for example united workers, peasants, and the national bourgeoisie not because of abstract ideals, but because all three had material stakes in smashing imperialist and feudal domination.
On the vanguard: have you read Lenin? Mao? The entire point is that it is NOT neutral. The vanguard is explicitly the organized, conscious detachment of the proletariat, an instrument of class rule, just like the bourgeois state, but inverted. The difference isn’t the existence of authority; it’s which class wields it, for what end, and whether its practice is tied to mass line feedback. To conflate proletarian dictatorship with bourgeois state power is to erase the question of class content.
Authority isn’t a substance that “festers.” It’s a relation, grounded in who controls production, who allocates surplus, who defends or transforms property forms. You can’t analyze it like a moral contaminant. You have to trace it to its material base. When authority serves to socialize wealth, decommodify life, and break imperial chains, it isn’t reproducing domination, it’s creating the conditions where coercion itself becomes obsolete.
Historicially, classes have been created or destroyed in order to create more or less centralized authority-driven decision making, and societies with less centralized authority have called ones with more centralized authority “authoritarian”.
Feudalism, dictatorship and even economic subjugation are called authoritarian by less authoritarian states.
In practice, the criterion for “authoritarianism” is however far back on that scale makes your current political center have anxiety about their ability to keep their current privileges from the authority.
But in theory you can see that the social organisation with the least authority possible would be an anarchist one, designed to dissolve class hierarchy when possible (e.g. abolition of private property) and apply anti-authoritarian safeguards if not (e.g. teach children how to take class action against adults, and make it easy for them to do so).
While such a society will still accumulate authority, it is designed to process it like any other waste product.
This means “authoritarian” is as meaningful as “filthy”. We can never be fully clean, but someone who chooses not to bathe to the standards of their time can be called filthy, and those standards can improve over time.
Your framework sounds nice in the abstract, but it doesn’t hold up against the concrete reality of how the term functions today. “Authoritarian” isn’t applied based on some neutral scale of centralization. It’s very clearly deployed selectively as a moral weapon by the Euro-Amerikan ideological apparatus to delegitimize any state or movement that resists imperial integration or challenges capitalist property relations.
If the criterion were truly about concentration of coercive power, the United States (with the world’s largest incarcerated population, extrajudicial drone programs, domestic surveillance architectures like COINTELPRO and it’s successors, and an executive branch that operates beyond legislative or judicial restraint on the whims of the president) would be the paradigmatic case. Yet it rarely (never) receives the label in mainstream discourse. Why? Because the term isn’t neutral.
On the historical point: classes aren’t created or dissolved to adjust the “level” of authority. They emerge and transform through shifts in the mode of production and the intensification of class struggle. The bourgeois revolutions didn’t aim to “spread” or “centralize” authority. They smashed feudal state forms to erect new ones that secured the dictatorship of capital (parliamentary democracy, rule of law, private property enforcement) all presented as “freedom” while materially consolidating a new class rule. The question was never how much authority, but authority for whom and against whom.
Anarchist models that treat authority as a contaminant to be minimized misunderstand the state as a neutral tool rather than an instrument of class power. In a world still structured by antagonistic classes, the relevant distinction isn’t between “more” or “less” authority, but between authority that reproduces exploitation and authority that dismantles it. The proletarian state, like any state, exercises coercion, but its historical task is to render itself obsolete by abolishing the class relations that make coercion necessary.
In it’s modern usage the term obscures more than it reveals. As it’s not meant to be a useful tool for analysing states, power or history, but a bat to beat those who don’t get in line.
Great post comrade. We need a /c/bestoflemmy community to highlight comments like this.
Thank you always happy to hear when people find my contributions informative/useful.
That’s what I said; the center defines the standard. The US is authoritarian by social-democratic standards.
“Class struggle” is not a one-dimensional variable, and the mode of production is to a significant extent a choice made by those within the system. A revolution has degrees of freedom for who is in its circle of solidarity.
State communists mistake the state/vanguard as a neutral outsider rather than a material entity. Authority left to fester will shape the material conditions to enshrine the authority at the cost of those without authority.
Social democrats tend not to call the US authoritarian (I have yet to see it). They’re too busy negotiating their cut of imperial plunder, welfare states built on extracted surplus and “human rights” rhetoric that conveniently ignores sanctions and coups. If “the center defines the standard,” then the standard isn’t about coercion; it’s about loyalty to capital (as I already pointed out). The label only sticks to those who break ranks (refuse to bend the knee to the EuroAmerikan hegemony).
On mode of production as “choice”: this is idealism, pure and simple. Putting the cart before the horse. Ideas don’t shape the material base; the material base shapes ideas. Capitalism didn’t arrive because someone imagined it. Feudal relations broke because they could no longer contain the productive forces, guilds choked industry, serfdom blocked labor, divine right couldn’t manage global accumulation. Socialism isn’t a fairy tale we opt into. It becomes necessary when capital’s own contradictions (overproduction, immiseration, ecological rupture) can no longer be managed within private ownership. And solidarity isn’t moral selection or simply who we like or don’t like. It’s determined by objective interests. The Chinese revolution for example united workers, peasants, and the national bourgeoisie not because of abstract ideals, but because all three had material stakes in smashing imperialist and feudal domination.
On the vanguard: have you read Lenin? Mao? The entire point is that it is NOT neutral. The vanguard is explicitly the organized, conscious detachment of the proletariat, an instrument of class rule, just like the bourgeois state, but inverted. The difference isn’t the existence of authority; it’s which class wields it, for what end, and whether its practice is tied to mass line feedback. To conflate proletarian dictatorship with bourgeois state power is to erase the question of class content.
Authority isn’t a substance that “festers.” It’s a relation, grounded in who controls production, who allocates surplus, who defends or transforms property forms. You can’t analyze it like a moral contaminant. You have to trace it to its material base. When authority serves to socialize wealth, decommodify life, and break imperial chains, it isn’t reproducing domination, it’s creating the conditions where coercion itself becomes obsolete.
I love your writing comrade, and excellent points
Thank you 🫡