The kulaks posed immediate physical danger of starving the Soviet people from their lack of cooperation. The landlords were actively suppressing the peasants.
Who makes said rules?
The rules come from the constitution voted upon by the people.
Who carries out the trial? Are they members of a hierarchical state with more power than the individual on trial? If so imo that is authoritarian
Tell me how would an anarchist society enforce laws then? And how would an anarchist society ensure every individual would have equal power?
As it is already been said in this thread self defence is not authoritarian.
Glad you agree that the gulaging of kulaks or the extermination of landlords is not authoritarian.
anti clerical violence in anarchistic Catalonia for example is not generally considered authoritarian because they were spontaneous acts undertaken on the agency of the perpetrators rather than being systematically carried out by a hierarchical organisation
So your violence is good because its done in a supposedly spontaneous manner, but violence by MLs is bad because it is more organized? Murdering people without a trial, without following any pre-defined rules(a.k.a no rule of law) is not authoritarian. But executing people after a trial, in accordance with rule of law is authoritarian?
Well, actually that's the point of my question. I wanted to show anarchists that authoritarianism implies some kind of moral judgement where some actions are authoritarian and some aren't. And since morals are inherently subjective, that means authoritarianism itself is a subjective term.
So now the question becomes, why is it OK for anarchists to use authoritarian methods to deal with reactionaries? Why was it OK for the Catalonian anarchists to execute priests, implement discipline in the factories etc? I don't disagree with what the Catalonian anarchists did, but it strikes strange that no one sees it as example of authoritarianism. Whenever anarchists were in messy situations, they used violence and subjugation as much as MLs do.