Skip Navigation
Anarchism @lemmy.dbzer0.com
алсааас [she/they] @lemmy.dbzer0.com

What are some good resources I could read to inform myself on the Anarchist/Anarcho-Communist definition of "Authority"?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/54566460

Books, pamphlets, manifestos, you name it/whatever. Please just leave out terminally online "bread"tubers, thank you.

Ideally from a few reputable Anarchist to get a better picture. The literature doesn't have to be exclusively about authority, but should mention it in relative detail.

Edit: Since I rightfully got called out on the following sentence in another thread as being demeaning of online educators work

Please just leave out terminally online "bread"tubers, thank you.

I should maybe clarify that I meant people like Contrapoints who have delightfully little to do with any kind of leftistm, let alone Anarchism

10 comments

  • While it's generally ok to study the anarchist perspective on any topic, I would caution against getting caught up in "definitionalism" and related absolutisms. Language is vague. There are no fixed definitions or meanings. There are no magic words. It can be counter-productive to insist on certain definitions or absolutist slogans. It's more about understanding your audience and their definitions, then building bridges and establishing clear communication based on mutual understanding.

    • My specific goal with this was to understand the mainstream anarchist/ancom definition of a central point of anarchist thought.

      I would very much disagree that definitions are not important (but would differentiate between clear definition and semantic arguing).

      Like in Marxism how people define socialism can be a categorically opposed group of people.
      Without definitions, words have no meaning and theory becomes useless. And without revolutionary theory there cannot lasting revolutionary praxis!

      TL;DR: We should be clear about our goals and our enemies. Since I wanted to genuinely understand a crucial part of anarchist thought, I very much am interested in definitions.

      Edit: Political economy is a science (even if a "soft"/social one) and the scientific method of analysis requires clear terms.

      Of course we are also talking about Philosophy here, but even there, useful discussion cannot be had without consensus of basic definitions.

    • Will give this a read too, thanks.

      Also I meant "no 'bread'tube" in the sense of: I don't want to hear Contrapoints (or Philosophy Tube as well unfortunately 😔) or any other masquerading liberals opinion on this and am not interested in watching a video essay.
      (See post edit)

      I'll gladly read this piece by Andrewism :)

  • I think you might find this text interesting. It offers a simple yet precise take on how authority should be viewed in anarchist spaces: No Rules, No Rulers

    Here are some quite descriptive quotes:

    [1]

    The existence of rules can only be fully understood by exploring how rulers came to be. The introduction of private property is seen as a pivotal moment in the origin of rule. As a few individuals began to accumulate wealth under this new system, social hierarchies formed, and those at the top of this hierarchy appointed authority figures and armed them with a monopoly on violence to protect their property and enforce rules on their behalf. This wealthy minority accumulated increasing wealth by dividing the land among themselves before coercing those who once lived off the land freely into their servitude. They accomplished this by directing their governments to enact laws that criminalized living off the land without the landowner’s permission, effectively compelling everyone who did not own land to work for landowners in order to survive.

    [2]

    “Norms” necessitates “abnormality”. The existence of a “norm” logically creates a non-norm, or a deviation. The problem isn’t the deviation itself, but the negative connotation and social consequences associated with being labeled “abnormal.” The word “abnormal” is often pathologizing, othering, or stigmatizing.

    [...]

    The argument that rules can exist without rulers is as nonsensical as the idea of a court existing without a justice system. In the absence of a governing body, rules become mere suggestions, lacking any true power or authority, and thus cease to be rules. The practical reality is that any attempt to establish and maintain a system of rules will naturally lead to the formation of a body responsible for their creation and enforcement, thereby establishing a form of governance.

    • Ziq should be more famous for the history of toxic behavior they've displayed in every anarchist space they've participated in, including in their role as the ruler of Raddle․me. Their use of sockpuppets to manipulate and bully has discredited and disgraced Raddle․me and should be the primary reason for their notoriety. Any notoriety as a source of anarchist theory is due to their own tireless self-promotion rather than the strength of their ideas. Their writing is intentionally obtuse, relying on idiosyncratic re-definition of words to create clickbait titles. They make poorly supported claims that are either wrong or communicated more clearly by better people.

      When I encounter someone sincerely recommending their writing, I suspect more sockpuppetry.

      • To be honest, I wasn’t aware of Ziq’s background. Thanks for pointing it out—I’ll be more careful if I read any other texts by them. Still, I find that text interesting. It seems to me that the text expresses ideas influenced by anarchist thinkers like Max Stirner, as well as concepts close to post-left anarchy.

  • I'm also curious about this, because the definition that tankies use is surely not right, but I don't have receipts

10 comments