----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian O. Sheppard x349393" <bsheppard at bari.iww.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: re: war and the state (was milton, etc.)
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>
> > It seems you are not so much opposing what Engels says as quibbling
> > with his use of the word "authoritarian," since you don't oppose the
> > use of force in self-defense or to "root out wage slavery."
>
> Force as self-defense is of course justified. It isn't authoritarian to
> defend yourself.
>
> See, I believe words mean things, and that they are not endlessly elastic,
> to be shaped to their users' wishes as individual need dictates. Engels'
> essay posits there is nothing
> wrong with what he calls "authroritarianism" if it is in the right hands. My
> position is that if what he calls "authoritarianism" means the working
> class ending wage slavery, then this is not an "authoritarian" act at
> all.. It is the use of force, to be sure - but a use of force as self-defense.
> Corporations certainly believe that to defend oneself from them is to act
> "authoritarian." It isn't. Words have definitions. And Authoritarianism is
> an important phenomenon that should be understood well.
>
> The danger in Engels' piece, which was quoted only in part, is that it
> paves the way for people to openly, and in fact proudly, act with
> a heavy hand over others. For ex, Lenin in "The Immediate Tasks of the
> Soviet Government," stating, ""Today, however, the same revolution demands -
> precisely in the interests of its development and consolidation, precisely
> in the interests of socialism - that the people unquestioningly obey the
> single will of the leaders of labour."
>
> Brian
=================
So authoritarianism is a malleable and continuously contestable concept. As is the notion of self-defense. Polysemy's revenge.
Ian