Prunebutt
the most useful definition of authority is the imposition of the will of one class over another
No, that's Engels' lackluster definition (actually, Engels' definition was worse, since he claimed that laws of physics were "authority". Authority is structural monopolization of power. What you're describing is more on the line of "violence".
even anarchists must be authoritarian towards capitalists.
Only with a wrong understanding of "authority".
The argument between Marxists and anarchists is one of collectivization vs horizontalism
Those concepts are not contradictory. You can't "horizontalize" something without collectivizing it.
but in both cases you can't eliminate class overnight, and as such the working class must oppress the capitalist class to keep it in check.
The moment the capitalist class can be "oppressed", it seizes to be the capitalist class.
Marxists would argue that the system, even if horizontal, would still be considered a state assuming class isn't abolished
How such a "horizontal state" would be possible with classes is something no Marxist has ever been able to explain to me. Also, you're not speaking on behalf of all Marxists. Just MLs, maybe.
and class cannot be abolished entirely without full collectivization of property globally.
I'll go tell all those socialist regions that just abolished the bourgeoisie within their regions. /s
Don't you know? He saved the world from... umm... any communist who could have become dangerous to his position. /s
"On authority" debunked squat except any notion of Engels' credibility as an essayist.
What do you mean exactly? Socialism or the transitional society?
For MLs, socialism is when the dictatorship of the proletariat is established and the state is run by "the proletariat" in order to lead to communism. Anarchists (ever since Bakunin) would point out that this would make them stop being the proletariat, but rather a class of bureaucrats. Also, means ends unity would dictate that this will not lead to a stateless society.
For me, "socialism" means worker control of the means of production.
The anarchist transitionary period is way harder to describe, since
- There are too many anarchist flavors for a consistent "prediction" or what have you
- The anarchist approach is generally less theleological. Therefore, they "predict" less and think that the people in the transitional period need to find out the rules of said society when they get the most feedback for it, i.e. when it's happening.
- I haven't put too much thought into how this would go about, to be honest.
However, the most important part is IMHO that the revolutionary cells working for communism are structured with horizontal hierarchies.
Most anarchists agree that there is need for some kind of transitional society. Just not what tankies call "socialism".
Stalin in S tier? Lol.
Why is there blood? Does Batman slap Robin bloody? 😧
Not for their AI plans they don't. 🤑🤑🤑 /s