barsoap

Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It’s the qualifier.

Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said "you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes" they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for "fruit salad" (there's no botanical definition of "fruit salad", it's a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.

On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down "fruit" to "tropical fruit" or "temperate fruit" and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to "banana" and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.

Basically you’re arguing against the state, which we sure both want.

You are aware that communism, too, not just anarchism, is a stateless society?

(Side note: In the ole socialist definition of "state". Both still qualify for the modern political theory definition of state which bogs down to "a people, a territory, a type of governing system (organisation)". Gotta be careful with that one it often gets confused).

I think that without a state you cannot abolish the existing forces that give rise to class society as it’s not a even playing field between labour and capital.

Indeed, without state power labour would have the upper hand. You saw that in the Russian revolution where workers very quickly formed soviets and kept things running. Then the Bolsheviks re-established state power, deliberately destroying horizontal worker organisation with hierarchical structure, and everything went to shit.

Then, going back a tiny bit:

The abolishion of class society, meaning one class is not subjugating it’s will on another, be it capitalist or a socialist state bureaucrats.

How do you envision a state without state bureaucrats?

Only the proper application would be of the building the restaurant and how noone likes to do the actual work of building it as everyone is free not to do it.

How do you come to the conclusion that nobody likes building things? Doubly so if there's a couple of people around who like cooking for the community who could really use a nice place to provide their services?

There's actually interesting modern polls around this, made in the context of UBI: The overwhelming majority say that if they received UBI, they'd still be working about as much. Maybe get another job, maybe cut down hour a bit, maybe take a sabbatical to do learn a new trade and switch there, but overall the wheels would keep churning at about the same speed. Meanwhile, the same overwhelming majority, when asked what other people would be doing, said "they'd stop working". That kind of mind-bug is a mixture of capitalist realism and hierarchical realism, the notion that people need to feel the whip to be motivated to be productive. That without imposition of force, humanity as we know it would cease to exist: We'd lose our zest, our creativity, our ambition, our love for one another, everything. That humanity is an inherently asocial species, held together by the powers that be. That we need to be domesticated to be ourselves.

He’s proving the existence of authority (with a definition thats wide/encompasses the libertarian framework).

He's not using that definition anywhere in his article.

If you know think about going for the "but Engel's definition is broader, therefore, his argument is still valid" boy oh boy I suggest you study logic. That's not how widening and narrowing works.

Say, cooks. They say: "These things are fruits, and with them we can make fruit salads". Botanists say "These things are fruit, our category is wider, it includes tomatoes, therefore, you can make fruit salad with tomatoes".

Yes but than the plan of action takes form of authority. Which is the point that Engels makes.

It is an extension to the libertarian notion of authority that Engels makes.

Suppose you and your comrades are are at a party conference in another city, and, in a wild bout of anti-authoritarianism, you're talking among yourselves which restaurant to go to instead of following party orders. Maybe it's just an oversight, the responsible buerocrat didn't do their job. Anyway the obstacle is not insurmountable, the choice is not very contentious, some people have preference, one's a vegan, but in the end you all agree that Mexican is a perfectly fine choice.

Then, out of nowhere, a KGB agent appears saying "Now it would be a shame if someone changed their mind about eating Mexican and would need to be sent to Gulag, would it, after all, we can't have a decision without subsequent imposition of authority".

Then noone is required to take the delegate serious.

The delegate is taken just as serious as the council they represent. They are, after all, the representative of that council. If you ignore what the delegate says, you're ignoring what the council says. But the authority is that of the council, not of the delegate.

The definition of anarchists

Council communists have a compatible definition, btw. It's only Bolsheviks and their descendants who disagree because they can't stand workers actually having a say in things, see the Trotsky quote before. That is authoritarianism. You can't declare it away by playing semantic games.

He’s not misunderstanding what constitutes authority.

in a libertarian framework.

Can you read?

So how can you organize anything if noone tells anyone what to do? People just suddenly know?

You talk to other people and agree on a plan of action? Have you ever, in your life, interacted with people?

That even if the authority is granted, it’s an authority.

One example doesn't even grant any authority: A delegate has no authority.

If you OTOH now try to pull semantics and say "but by being convinced by other people of a joint plan of action, they have authority over you", or "A delegate has the authority to do as they're told by their council" then you're doing the "holding up a stone thing": You make authority such a broad term that not just organisation, but physics itself is impossible without it. Or, in different words: It's playing dumb. You hear what Anarchists are saying, including their definitions of authority, of distinguishing power-to against power-over, and say "but the stone has authority over you that's silly"!

Read the paragraphs directly before: Engels refers to "arguments as these", so we can safely assume that the example he gives there is representative. What's his example? Safety in railway operations.

That, indeed, is not a job for a delegate, a person chosen by council to represent the council in a bigger council, a political position which comes with no authority, but one of a safety commissioner, a person who was entrusted with, granted authority, by a council to enact necessary safety procedures for the common good. The railway safety commissioner would be choosen by the railway workers. Someone they trust to be a stickler to details and procedure.

Both, btw, are recallable on the spot should they abuse their positions, or turn out to not be suitable for other reasons.

This is not a mere "changing of names", the tasks are completely different in character and the levels of authority could not be any more different. What Engels seems to be incapable of conceiving is that an e.g. city council doesn't have authority over a neighbourhood council. That the delegates the neighbourhood councils choose come together in a city council and then precisely not dictate to the neighbourhood councils what they're supposed to do. That's your brain on hierarchy.

So, yes, Engels concludes that he's right. And thereby proves that he either a) didn't understand what the anti-auths were telling him or b) didn't care, as authoritarians are prone to do when challenged on the necessity of there being rulers.

As to "labour cannot be organised without hierarchy" in general: It's long been proven false. There's a gazillion of examples in which it has done. There are, right now, armies out there operating without hierarchy that are fighting both Cartels and ISIS, very successfully so. If armies can be organised like that, surely it does work for ice cream factories. Stick to materialism, please, your idealist claim doesn't become true by repeating it.

On Authority is one of my absolute favourites because it's so ludicrously bourgeois. "Oh, you Anarchists", quoth Engels, "All you amount to is saying that a stone falls down when let go, and that having to hold it up so that it doesn't fall down, to have to bow to that authority, is oppressive".

Maybe, Friedrich, your workers don't mind dealing with the necessities and physical processes of yarn and cloth manufacture, what they mind is not being able to fire your ass for saying excessively over-reductive shit like that.

The right-wing view is "morally superior, upstanding, decent, hard-working" vs. "godless, naive, degenerate traitors and smelly hippies".

Unless you are advocating for a Communist regime along the lines of the Soviet Union or Maoist China, you aren’t really “far left”.

If you do that you definitely aren't, authoritarianism and far-left are mutually exclusive.

Council communists and Anarchists generally qualify for far-left status. (Or, differently put, council communism is methadone therapy for Marxists who don't yet dare make the jump to syndicalism).

Software tends to be written against an operating system or slightly more high-level API, not against an instruction set. We're not in the 1960s, any more, compilers exist.

Even back during the x86 to x86_64 switchover people didn't re-write software, we mostly just cleaned up legacy code, removing old architecture-dependent tricks that wouldn't work in 64 bit mode and hadn't been necessary to achieve proper performance for a couple of hardware generations, anyway.

There's always going to be exceptions but if your calculator app needs more work than a recompile you did something wrong. Possible sources of nastiness in otherwise well-written software include anything that relies on manual memory layout, mostly alignment issues (endianness isn't an issue x86 vs. ARM) and very occasionally some inline assembly for the simple reason that inline assembly has become exceedingly rare. I say "well-written" because there's e.g. C code out there hitting so much undefined behaviour that it compiles on exactly one compiler and runs on one architecture but even then it's a case-by-case call on whether to rewrite or clean it up. I'd tend towards rewrite in Rust but there's conceivable exceptions. Also you should've fixed that shit up years ago.

I wanted to say "look at the label but it should be fine" but then I did a quick google double-check and depending on whether you get US or EU results you get quite different answers: US 350 to 780W, EU 100 to 300W. Refrigerators have quite lower numbers but we wanted a fridge so let's look at small refrigerators with proper fridge compartment (four stars, -18C), like... a Beko TSE1284N b100, 240 bucks not fancy not shoddy (Beko in a nutshell, honestly). Damn, why are they only listing kWh/24h and kWh/a. Whelp. No pictures of rating plates anywhere. Oh. According to Amazon "50W", according to another trader 90W connected load, which makes sense if we understand those 50W as consumption load (or whatever those things are called in English).

So, yeah, look at the label and you should be fine. Don't get that fridge though it's 220V.