First, A quote on authority/authoritarianism by Frederick Engels 

"Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear."

 

Now, a definition is only an explanation of a word, but as a Dialectical materialist, a definition when met with context and various condition can change and have multiple definitions. Authoritarianism is the focus. It's a word that most avoid, misinterpret, or associate in the wrong context to justify their anti-authoritarianism view. 

 

Authoritarianism can be and is a good thing, as well as it is absolutely necessary to utilize when being a Marxist (Leninist, Stalinist, and the like) but it is also a word attached to the right wing capitalist context as well so we need to separate these in order to guide those who will read this.  

 

Let's begin. 

 

Now, first we have to establish the context and where authoritarianism is used on both left and right, as well as we would have to assign the Attractive force (Right wing Capitalist in all 3 forms) and the Repulsive energy  (Proletariat). Now that we have that,  we need to look at the roles in which they apply their authoritarian nature. Capitalists (fascists and Imperialist alike) as an attractive force, use a direct and torturous force in their means to gain Capital and concentrate it with means of child labour, Exploitation, etc. Now, With the Leftists and more specifically the Marxists, we are met with a huge difference.  

 

The definition I provided from Engels is again the base for both context of the left and the right.  With that reminder, We have to address left authoritarianism and it's context. Revolution is authoritarian by its definition especially as a social "energy" transfer of power from the Right to the left. Marxists use authoritarianism maintain the Heat (revolution) and as it spreads through the world,  control of motion....now, we look at the fact of when energy starts it's motion,  it needs force to maintain its energy. 

 

Now with that said, it looks bad on a general social scope since the lines of left and right authoritarianism have been blurred to a point where a mention by new age leftists are scared of the association as well as the common man. Will this change the scope? I will hope a few take this and spread it,  but I continue. 

 

For all of us screaming for revolution....We need to realize that this is authoritarian action by its base definition and context when applied to a left scope. Again, I quote Frederick Engels: 

 

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

 

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."

 

Now, there are arguments that this is a two-fold nature between authoritarian and libertarian which in a sense it is,  since libertarian is the doctrine of free will. I would argue that it's a two fold nature as a process as In we need a strictly authoritarian revolution and structure, then as the Dictatorship of the proletariat the natural progression towards Libertarian society  (Communism). The reason is as Engels pointed out and as Vladimir Lenin, Babeuf and other Marxist-Leninist leaders have shown...the revolutionary movement is purely authoritarian, as it uses violent means to shift the power from the Attractive to the Repulsive, and then when the DOTP Is installed it stays at the authoritarian level until the proletariat mature to a point where the DOTP starts to break down. Under revolution and socialism,  our enemies need to remain suppressed until the threats of capitalist uprise is gone, The State is no longer needed and we can finally achieve The doctrine of free will as a whole (which my new Dialectic Equations Essay will also explain). 

 

My conclusion is this, at present, the people are scared of using the the word authoritarianism because the lines are blurred. The point of this is to show why we shouldn't be scared of it and should actually embrace it. It's dialectical to shift the context to its proper application and use the word as a synthesis. I embrace authoritarianism due to this stand point and hopefully others will at least see that this isn't a word that shouldn't be avoided though it's the most important in the shift to communist society. 

 

I hope this helps.  Thank you.  

Comrade Staricka.