Anarchism co-exists with Authority

[Political_Chucky]

On a comfortable night, being relaxed helps me think(at least I think so) about potentially different aspects in learning whether or not authority might be necessary in certain scenarios, which many liberals or right wing nuts seem to accuse us of being against. So in trying to argue with that point, Anarchism isn't about being against total authority, just in an exploitative manner. One instance I believe is with young kids and their parents. Of course, young children need guidance in their life, so undoubtedly parents are going to prepare them for the world and tell them to do. When a parent is suppose to let go with this authority is undetermined and can only be told in an abstract manner and that might lead to children to rebel. Teachers, also a form of guidance, implement this manner in the same way, without the emotions and caring of their own personal feelings. In that sense students will not always take kindly to their teacher unless they are also free and willing to hear its students in discussions and empathize and help the student.
In social situations, most people who aren't subject to sorrow or misfortunes will allow themselves to either become dominant and explicit. Confidence in society with the social norms to allow oneself to be free to be dominated such as giving permission for one person to do things without asking allow people to show their trust in one another. Being subjected in this case also shows people your trust as you allow one to "invade" ones territory, or social territory in this sense.
Authority does have a purpose in society, but allowing it to coexist with exploitation demands it in these cases to be eradicated from certain situations.

Was using information from http://changingminds.org/index.htm

A little semi not so professional essay.

[Potemkin]

I'm not really sure what to make of this post. I wouldn't say that authority co-exists with anarchism, but that authority can justifiably appear within an anarchist society, though it is not always present.

In relation to anarchism and authority, Noam Chomsky's definition of anarchism is the forced justification of authoritarian relationships in society. His example is the one used above, about the child/parent relationship as being a probably justified authoritarian relationship in certain instances.

Specifically, he gives the example of a parent and child walking along the sidewalk. I would say there's nothing authoritative about this relationship at this point. Suddenly, the child darts into the street. The parent grabs the child by the arm to keep them out of the street and away from danger. Is this an authoritarian relationship? Chomsky would argue that it is, but it is a justified authoritarian relationship in that instance. He sees anarchism as constantly demanding justification for all authoritarian relationships in society, from our relationship to the state, to the parent's relationship to the child. All those that are not sufficiently justified (which he would argue the state is not justified) must be eliminated.

There's another related issue here, which is that of power. Murray Bookchin, especially in his later writings, would argue that one of the problems anarchists have is dealing with power. We can, at least to a large extent, eliminate authority, but (Bookchin would argue) we can never eliminate power -- it will always exist. The question is whether that power is in the hands of the people, working for liberatory ends, or in the hands of a few, working to dominate others.

Further, Bookchin would argue that anarchists often deny that power exists, or refuse to take power, even when it has been won by the people. He cites the CNT in Spain as an example (see "Anarchism and Power in the Spanish Revolution"). (http://www.communalism.org/Archive/02/ap.print.html)

Hopefully this helps.

[kiki75]

Coexist:
1. To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
2. To live in peace with another or others despite differences, especially as a matter of policy

I see your point, OP. Most people call it consensual living, if I'm understanding you correctly.

[jaxik]

Humans are a unique breed of people in that we have an ability to communicate on a higher level. This gives us a higher sense of awareness as we learn the abilities to read our environment and are overall paranoid of it. We believe it is necessary to harm others to achieve our goals through war and violence. The only possible way that anarchy can truly be achieved is through solitude. as long as there are more than one human in one place, they will always argue, they will always love, they will always feel the need to be better than others. As long as humans coexist with one another in a modern society, we will never be free of authority as those with power feel the need to keep us from harming each other. Laws will always be made and people will always break them. The need for authority will always be there to maintain a "civilized" society. The only way to ever achieve true anarchy is through solice.

[Diagoras]

...The only way to ever achieve true anarchy is through solice.

Normally I wouldn't consider just saying "not really" a justified rebuttal, but given that you are banned... I will. Authoritarian relations are not a necessary aspect of the human condition.

To the OP:

Anarchism is not opposition to all authority. It is opposition to hierarchical social organization and exploitation in general. However, there is some authority that is quite justified, especially because of what can be considered its "transparent" nature. The parent grabbing a darting child is an excellent example. Another is that of scientists. They have an "authority" in their particular field. They have specialized knowledge that takes time and dedication to acquire, and operate in a self-correcting method from peer review, and so some deference is generally paid by non-scientists to their conclusions. However, if you wanted to challenge the basis for their claims, you certainly could examine all of the justifications and evidence for their theses to see if it seem justifiable that this person has proper authority in declaring/teaching/whatever. The basis for their authority is "transparent"... it is open for review and justifiable in itself, unlike the authority of the state/police/etc, whose claim to authority is non-consensual and based on an assertion of authority of position or office... essentially arbitrary and maintained simply through force.