Authority

[BIXX]

Basically, what is authority, what authority is legitimate or illegitimate?

It seems simple at first but it seems that a good amount of us just use traditional ideas (such as that of the child and the street) and say that authority is acceptable, but we (often) don't consider what authority is, and if that is actually an excercise of authority.

(Didn't know where to put this- felt like theory or philosophy, so I took a guess. Go ahead and move it if you feel it is necessary).

[Marshal of the People]

Good question. I have been wondering the same thing, and you'd right about it all depending on the definition used. I am interested to see what other people will say on this topic.

Personally I don't think that any authority is legitimate. I view saving someone's life not as a use of "legitimate" authority but the fulfilment of your duty and obligation as a citizen and as a human.

[BIXX]

Good question. I have been wondering the same thing, and you'd right about it all depending on the definition used. I am interested to see what other people will say on this topic.

Personally I don't think that any authority is legitimate. I view saving someone's life not as a use of "legitimate" authority but the fulfilment of your duty and obligation as a citizen and as a human.

I'm more of this opinion but for slightly different reasons. But yeah, I've always felt no authority was legitimate.

Further problems: what if someone wants to kill themselves? Is saving them an act of authority or something else (again my stance is that it is something else. But then of course we run into questions of the circumstances of the suicide, and what your reasons for saving them are.

Also, what is legitimacy?

Again, food for thought. I have my own ideas on this whole thing but I have never writtme them out to give them a test run.

[A Psychological Symphony]

Basically, what is authority, what authority is legitimate or illegitimate?

It seems simple at first but it seems that a good amount of us just use traditional ideas (such as that of the child and the street) and say that authority is acceptable, but we (often) don't consider what authority is, and if that is actually an excercise of authority.

(Didn't know where to put this- felt like theory or philosophy, so I took a guess. Go ahead and move it if you feel it is necessary).

There is no legitimate authority.

As for a child, why must he/she be handled authoritatively? I believe the role of a parent should be more of a guide than an authority figure. There are ways to teach your child that a street is not the place to play without barking orders.

[BIXX]

I'm surprised that the two responses so far are so close to my own ideas.

Would either of you mind telling everyone your working definition of authority?

[Marshal of the People]

I'm surprised that the two responses so far are so close to my own ideas.

Would either of you mind telling everyone your working definition of authority?

Authority is used to control people. A person with authority has the means to control and exploit and usually does.

[A Psychological Symphony]

I'm surprised that the two responses so far are so close to my own ideas.

Would either of you mind telling everyone your working definition of authority?

I believe authority is where a person or group has power over a person or people that they've made into their subordinate(s). Pretty much any hierarchy has an authority figure

[Marshal of the People]

I believe authority is where a person or group has power over a person or people that they've made into their subordinate(s). Pretty much any hierarchy has an authority figure

I also agree fully with that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think "authority" is maybe too vague out of context. I agree that some imposed authority is hierarchical and usually used in order to maintain exploitation or control. This authority might be legal authority or a boss/manager and is "inorganic" in the sense that it is forced on people through armed men (legal authority) or because of inequality and not having access to production.

But authority can also be organic and "earned". I willingly would give a doctor authority to diagnose me... Their view would have more organic authority than a guy who said I should cure myself with prayer or someone who tried to diagnose me from reading about symptoms on the internet (the info might be good, but they would lack the experience and skills of a doctor). If I was out to sea and the boat began to sink, maybe someone who is more knowledgeable about protocol on the boat or shipping lanes would be more authoritative than me.

So I think really I'm against imposed authority that comes out of class rule, exploitation, and threat of violence. I don't really see any problem with organic authority that comes from trust and respect for someone's skills.

[Quail]

There is no legitimate authority.

As for a child, why must he/she be handled authoritatively? I believe the role of a parent should be more of a guide than an authority figure. There are ways to teach your child that a street is not the place to play without barking orders.
Sometimes children so dangerous shit and you do have to shout "no" and/or leap over and physically prevent them from doing it. When they're young, children don't really understand the consequences of their actions so I can tell my son not to climb on the furniture because he'll fall off and hurt himself again, but he still continues to climb on and fall off the furniture. Perhaps a better example is vaccinations. Obviously a small child isn't going to want a needle stuck in them because they don't understand why it's so important, so the parent makes the decision for the child and takes them to be vaccinated.

Regarding the OP, legitimate authority is more of a mutual agreement. So if someone knows more than me about something, I would willingly allow them to take charge because it makes sense. Illegitimate authority generally requires violence and/or coercion because otherwise it would be irrational to submit to it. For example a boss has authority over their workers only because they need the money from their job to survive and it's hard to find another job. The police have authority only because they can get away with violence and brutality.

[BIXX]

Regarding the OP, legitimate authority is more of a mutual agreement. So if someone knows more than me about something, I would willingly allow them to take charge because it makes sense. Illegitimate authority generally requires violence and/or coercion because otherwise it would be irrational to submit to it. For example a boss has authority over their workers only because they need the money from their job to survive and it's hard to find another job. The police have authority only because they can get away with violence and brutality.


The type of authority that you and Jimmy Higgins are describing as legitimate (to me) would not be considered authority.

For example, if two people were working on an assignment and part of it was art related as well as something else (maybe writing) and person A was better at art, the expectation would be that A would do the art part, and B would do the other part. This does not strike me as authoritative, as neither person is submitting (either willfully of coercively).

The definition of authority I operate under is that authority is what allows someone to choose what you are and are not allowed to do, beyond the expectation of the parties involved.

I'm liking the conversation so far. I'm still interested in how people who believe there is no legitimate authority will answer the suicide question.

[helot]

Id pretty much agree with EchoShock.

I'm not convinced saving someone from injury/death or taking someone's advice because you recognise they're more skilled in a particular field than you can be considered a form of authority. The whole 'being an authority on X' and 'having authority' to me just looks like a peculiarity of language as they are not the same form of social relations. This of course doesn't mean that forms of domination are necessarily absent just that these particular forms of behaviour are not excercises of authority in and of themselves.


Personally, i'm leaning towards authority being an institutionalised form of particular power-dynamics that are invariably unequal.

[Fakeblock]

How do anti-authoritarian communists reconcile their rejection of all authority with their advocation of revolution? It seems to me that one can only advocate the suppression of one class by another, if one accepts, at the very least, some authority as legitimate.

I realise these points/criticisms are old and clichéd, but meh..

[BIXX]

How do anti-authoritarian communists reconcile their rejection of all authority with their advocation of revolution? It seems to me that one can only advocate the suppression of one class by another, if one accepts, at the very least, some authority as legitimate.



I realise these points/criticisms are old and clichéd, but meh..


Well, I am not a class-struggle anarchist (I am an individualist). I feel that what I see as revolution would be inherently different from a class-struggler's view.

I am not exactly sure where to go with the explaining beyond that point. I think that rebellion as an individual (fighting to free yourself) is able to be non-authoritarian as once you have destroyed that which oppresses you (which I see as primarily being structures and systems of all sorts) you are done with it, you don't oppress folks who struggled for it.

I don't know if that made sense. If you have any questions I'd be happy I answer.

[G4b3n]

Well, I am not a class-struggle anarchist (I am an individualist). I feel that what I see as revolution would be inherently different from a class-struggler's view.

I am not exactly sure where to go with the explaining beyond that point. I think that rebellion as an individual (fighting to free yourself) is able to be non-authoritarian as once you have destroyed that which oppresses you (which I see as primarily being structures and systems of all sorts) you are done with it, you don't oppress folks who struggled for it.

I don't know if that made sense. If you have any questions I'd be happy I answer.

Class struggle is not like God, you don't chose to believe in it or not, it is something that objectively exists whether we like it or not.

All revolutions are collective, there is no revolution at an individual level, our individual actions as a class is what makes a revolution. As for what authority is legitimate, this is authority that is imposed internally from the ground up, essentially the exact opposite of what exists right now. The bourgeois state imposes authority externally of the interests of working class communities from the top of the hierarchy. Upon smashing the bourgeois state with the use of force (which is authoritarian in and of itself, though it is a legitimate form of authority), it is our task to ensure that institutions of (not representative of but literally comprised of) the oppressed can exercise legitimate authority in suppressing the bourgeoisie and further acting in the class interests of the oppressed.

[helot]

How do anti-authoritarian communists reconcile their rejection of all authority with their advocation of revolution? It seems to me that one can only advocate the suppression of one class by another, if one accepts, at the very least, some authority as legitimate.

I realise these points/criticisms are old and clichéd, but meh..
It makes no sense. we're supposing an already existing society stamped with the mark of authority that sees domination and exploitation on a massive scale. How is it contradictory for anti-authoritarians to seek its destruction? The reverse would be contradictory.

Engels' polemic is playing with words.

If a cop was beating you would it be an exercise of authority to defend yourself? Would it be an exercise of authority to attack all authority? If it is then you must surely define 'authority' for us as it seems it'd have absolutely no meaning.

[BIXX]

Class struggle is not like God, you don't chose to believe in it or not, it is something that objectively exists whether we like it or not.

I never said it doesn't exist, just that it isn't how I struggle.




All revolutions are collective, there is no revolution at an individual level. If there was I would damn sure be down to give it a try, but overthrowing my boss probably wouldn't lead me to anything desirable.

Well, you obviously don't understand the individualist positions then.

First, read "My Iconoclastic Individualism".

The point is that right in the here and now, we can struggle for our own freedom. We can refuse to submit, and take joy in that. We can actively attack. (I guess I summed up the insurrecto opinion but they tend to intersect, especially as they go together very well).




As for what authority is legitimate, this is authority that is imposed internally from the ground up na, essentially the exact opposite of what exists right now.

Why should we have that "bottom-up" organization? Why not have horizontal informal organization.


Upon smashing the bourgeois state with the use of force (which is authoritarian in and of itself, though it is a legitimate form of authority).


I disagree that the struggle to destroy that which oppresses you is authoritarian (unless you intend to fill the power vacuum). If you keep the power vacuum open, and simply destroy the old system, then you simply end the authority- I doubt that is authoritarian.

[Fakeblock]

It makes no sense. we're supposing an already existing society stamped with the mark of authority that sees domination and exploitation on a massive scale. How is it contradictory for anti-authoritarians to seek its destruction? The reverse would be contradictory.

Engels' polemic is playing with words.

If a cop was beating you would it be an exercise of authority to defend yourself? Would it be an exercise of authority to attack all authority? If it is then you must surely define 'authority' for us as it seems it'd have absolutely no meaning.

You confuse the communist struggle with the anti-authoritarian one. While some communists may try to incorporate the latter in the former, the nature of communism means that they will invariably fail. Private property can only be abolished via authoritarian means.

[BIXX]

You confuse the communist struggle with the anti-authoritarian one. While some communists may try to incorporate the latter in the former, the nature of communism means that they will invariably fail. Private property can only be abolished via authoritarian means.


Prove it.

[Slavic]

Prove it.

Revolutionary violence and dismantling of state apparatuses are authoritarian actions. An authority is someone or something that dictates what is allowed and what isn't allowed in a system. This authority can utilize authoritarian measures to maintain said system either through willful submission from subordinates (mutually agreed authority), or through forceful acts (legal authority).

When you dismantle the current state apparatus you are effectively declaring your authority over it. You are stating, "The current state should not exists, and I shall exert authoritarian measures to subvert it". This is authoritarian because you are deciding what is allowed and what isn't allowed, and you have decided that the current state is not allowed.

[BIXX]

Revolutionary violence and dismantling of state apparatuses are authoritarian actions. An authority is someone or something that dictates what is allowed and what isn't allowed in a system. This authority can utilize authoritarian measures to maintain said system either through willful submission from subordinates (mutually agreed authority), or through forceful acts (legal authority).

When you dismantle the current state apparatus you are effectively declaring your authority over it. You are stating, "The current state should not exists, and I shall exert authoritarian measures to subvert it". This is authoritarian because you are deciding what is allowed and what isn't allowed, and you have decided that the current state is not allowed.


This doesn't apply to anti-system anarchists. Also, (at least in my conception of anarchism) I would only be attacking that which hurts me. This isn't deciding what's allowed and not allowed, it's defense.

(Though I disagree, I do like that you have actually put thought into this, unlike some)

[Future]

From the Anarchist FAQ:

A.2.1 What is the essence of anarchism?

As we have seen, "an-archy" implies "without rulers" or "without (hierarchical) authority." Anarchists are not against "authorities" in the sense of experts who are particularly knowledgeable, skilful, or wise, though they believe that such authorities should have no power to force others to follow their recommendations. In a nutshell, then, anarchism is anti-authoritarianism.

Anarchists are anti-authoritarians because they believe that no human being should dominate another. Anarchists, in L. Susan Brown's words, "believe in the inherent dignity and worth of the human individual." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 107] Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, and social breakdown.

In other words, then, the essence of anarchism (to express it positively) is free co-operation between equals to maximise their liberty and individuality.

Co-operation between equals is the key to anti-authoritarianism. By co-operation we can develop and protect our own intrinsic value as unique individuals as well as enriching our lives and liberty for "[n]o individual can recognise his own humanity, and consequently realise it in his lifetime, if not by recognising it in others and co-operating in its realisation for others . . . My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men [and women] who are my equals." [Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 30]

While being anti-authoritarians, anarchists recognise that human beings have a social nature and that they mutually influence each other. We cannot escape the "authority" of this mutual influence, because, as Bakunin reminds us:

"The abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we advocate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them. What we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official." [quoted by Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 51]
In other words, those influences which stem from hierarchical authority.

This is because hierarchical systems like capitalism deny liberty and, as a result, people's "mental, moral, intellectual and physical qualities are dwarfed, stunted and crushed". Thus one of "the grand truths of Anarchism" is that "to be really free is to allow each one to live their lives in their own way as long as each allows all to do the same." This is why anarchists fight for a better society, for a society which respects individuals and their freedom. Under capitalism, "[e]verything is upon the market for sale: all is merchandise and commerce" but there are "certain things that are priceless. Among these are life, liberty and happiness, and these are things which the society of the future, the free society, will guarantee to all." Anarchists, as a result, seek to make people aware of their dignity, individuality and liberty and to encourage the spirit of revolt, resistance and solidarity in those subject to authority. This gets us denounced by the powerful as being breakers of the peace, but anarchists consider the struggle for freedom as infinitely better than the peace of slavery. Anarchists, as a result of our ideals, "believe in peace at any price -- except at the price of liberty. But this precious gift the wealth-producers already seem to have lost. Life . . . they have; but what is life worth when it lacks those elements which make for enjoyment?" [Lucy Parsons, Liberty, Equality & Solidarity, p. 103, p. 131, p. 103 and p. 134]

So, in a nutshell, Anarchists seek a society in which people interact in ways which enhance the liberty of all rather than crush the liberty (and so potential) of the many for the benefit of a few. Anarchists do not want to give others power over themselves, the power to tell them what to do under the threat of punishment if they do not obey. Perhaps non-anarchists, rather than be puzzled why anarchists are anarchists, would be better off asking what it says about themselves that they feel this attitude needs any sort of explanation.

[BIXX]

Snip



That's all fine and well, but it seems you didn't answer with your opinion, but simply quoted a text which (unless I am missing something) didn't answer the question I specifically asked.

[Future]

That's all fine and well, but it seems you didn't answer with your opinion, but simply quoted a text which (unless I am missing something) didn't answer the question I specifically asked.

No, I share the opinion of everything written in what I posted. It's just that the authors of that can say it infinitely better than I can. Also, I think it answers your question just fine.

[BIXX]

No, I share the opinion of everything written in what I posted. It's just that the authors of that can say it infinitely better than I can. Also, I think it answers your question just fine.


Would you mind explaining how The Anarchist FAQ writers would suggest we deal with someone who tried to kill themselves?

[Future]

Would you mind explaining how The Anarchist FAQ writers would suggest we deal with someone who tried to kill themselves?

I don't know about the Anarchist FAQ writers, but I am completely in support of a free person's right to end their life if that is the course of action they want to freely undertake. Keep in mind also that Anarchists are not static ethicists; anarchists, socialists, and communists of all stripes subscribe to different ethical theories. Anarchism is not a strict ideology with unshakable doctrine. It is a dynamic framework based on general core principles that are logically derived.

I believe that we should try out best to keep suicide from being necessary for anyone in the first place and I support the providing of mental healthcare to troubled persons. I support discouraging suicide, but I cannot support becoming an authority and telling someone they can't end their life. That would go against everything I stand for. And I believe most anarchists would agree.

[BIXX]

I don't know about the Anarchist FAQ writers, but I am completely in support of a free person's right to end their life if that is the course of action they want to freely undertake. Keep in mind also that Anarchists are not static ethicists; anarchists, socialists, and communists of all stripes subscribe to different ethical theories. Anarchism is not a strict ideology with unshakable doctrine. It is a dynamic framework based on general core principles that are logically derived.

I believe that we should try out best to keep suicide from being necessary for anyone in the first place and I support the providing of mental healthcare to troubled persons. I support discouraging suicide, but I cannot support becoming an authority and telling someone they can't end their life. That would go against everything I stand for. And I believe most anarchists would agree.


I was more curious about saving someone from suicide- would this be considered "authoritative"? Would it be legitimate?

(I agree, though, that someone should have the right. However, that doesn't mean I won't try to convince them not to.)

[Slavic]

I was more curious about saving someone from suicide- would this be considered "authoritative"? Would it be legitimate?

(I agree, though, that someone should have the right. However, that doesn't mean I won't try to convince them not to.)

You phase this oddly. To save someone from suicide is a moralistic statement since the term save automatically implies that the act to be committed is not only wrong but warrants to be ceased. I'm sure you don't mean it in this way, its just the phrase instantly bugged me.

Anyways, saving someone from suicide is an authoritative action since you are dictating the state of another person. I don't think such action is legitimate since you are denying the individual the right to his body.

That being said, would I push someone out of the way of an oncoming train if I were to come upon such a situation; I would. That's probably because I value life and its hard for me to see someone destroy their own in front of me.

[BIXX]

You phase this oddly. To save someone from suicide is a moralistic statement since the term save automatically implies that the act to be committed is not only wrong but warrants to be ceased. I'm sure you don't mean it in this way, its just the phrase instantly bugged me.

The way I phrased it bothered me as well, but I couldn't come up with anything better at the moment.


Anyways, saving someone from suicide is an authoritative action since you are dictating the state of another person. I don't think such action is legitimate since you are denying the individual the right to his body.

Does this still apply if later the person is grateful?

I generally agree with you, and that talking someone down from suicide is far better than any other way, but there are times when I think suicide ought to be prevented physically.

Also, let us apply how the suicide affects loved ones to the situation. It would obviously affect them extremely negatively- would it be authoritative if one of those people were acting out of self-defense from that situation by preventing the suicide?


That being said, would I push someone out of the way of an oncoming train if I were to come upon such a situation; I would. That's probably because I value life and its hard for me to see someone destroy their own in front of me.


Agreed.

[Fakeblock]

Prove it.

What is there to prove? The act of expropriation is inherently an exercise of authority, as you're forcing the expropriated to submit themselves to the will of the expropriators. Unless all proprietors willingly hand over their property once asked nicely, but I think we all know that that's never gonna happen.

And this is the imo sufficient google search definition of authority that I'm using: "the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience."

[Comrade #138672]

Authority is authority, whether "legitimate" or "illegitimate". It is power (economical and political) that enforces it. In the end, this is the only thing that really matters. Often ideology is used to help legitimize an authority in the eyes of the oppressed. But, when the end is near, for example when an old ruling class is about to be overthrown by a new ruling class, the authority of the old ruling class is always seen as "illegitimate" by the rising ruling class and the oppressed, even when it was before primarily seen as "legitimate".

[cyu]

Authority is authority, whether "legitimate" or "illegitimate". It is power (economical and political) that enforces it. In the end, this is the only thing that really matters.


Reminds of http://i.imgur.com/Qj4ztM1.jpg from http://www.revleft.com/vb/your-favorite-political-t171310/index24.html

The civilization and justice of bourgeois order comes out in its lurid light whenever the slaves and drudges of that order rise against their masters.

[BIXX]

What is there to prove? The act of expropriation is inherently an exercise of authority, as you're forcing the expropriated to submit themselves to the will of the expropriators. Unless all proprietors willingly hand over their property once asked nicely, but I think we all know that that's never gonna happen.



And this is the imo sufficient google search definition of authority that I'm using: "the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience."


However, my goal, once again, is not expropriation of capital, but it's destruction.

And as has been asked many times in this thread, is it authoritative to defend yourself from being beaten by a cop?

I see destroying capital (and other means of oppression) as no different.

[Fakeblock]

However, my goal, once again, is not expropriation of capital, but it's destruction.

Would you agree that your goal entails depriving the exploiting classes of their private property? If so the point stands. If not it wasn't addressed to you. My posts were addressed to the anti-authoritarian *communists* on this forum.


And as has been asked many times in this thread, is it authoritative to defend yourself from being beaten by a cop?

No.


I see destroying capital (and other means of oppression) as no different.

You should. For one, capital is not a "means of oppression". Yes, wage labour is exploited by capital, but, in itself capital possesses no oppressive powers, nor does it exist to facilitate some ulterior purpose, unlike the police force, which represses the population in order to ensure the continued security of the wage labour-capital relation.

But the prime difference between the struggle against the cop and communism is that communism is necessarily offensive. The proletarian struggle doesn't end with the destruction of the bourgeois state, but with the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions to create the conditions for the forcible imposition of a new mode of social organisation.

[AnaRchic]

the forcible imposition of a new mode of social organisation.
Here is where Anarchists and Marxists differ significantly. As Anarchists, we don't seek to impose any mode of social organization on others. That would just make anarchists the new rulers, which we have no interest in being.

We advocate the self-emancipation of the working class, and the creation of voluntary forms of social interaction, the greatest expression of which is communism. But we do not seek to impose this on others. If the majority of people prefer, say, Mutualism, as an Anarchist I would have no problem with that. In an anti-authoritarian world I would imagine that many different forms of society would exist simultaneously and find ways to coordinate together for mutual benefit.

To the original point, Anarchists oppose coercive authority. There is a certain authority of influence that will always be with us. When you have a tumor you go to see a neurosurgeon, because he is an authority on such issues and procedures. However he does not exercise coercive authority. Coercive authority is the imposition of ones will upon another by force or the threat of force. Institutionally, this kind of authority manifests itself in hierarchy, which anarchists also oppose.

We oppose that form of authority that denies a human being his or her ability to think and act in accordance with their own inclinations and desires, the only limit to this being the equal right of others to do the same.

[neola]

Yet, there is still authority in anarchism though the system is non government. If I'm going to base it on universal definition of authority which means invention, opinion, influence or command. Then anarchism follows authority too. For the reason that the term is originated from Laozi which is taoist philosopher. Adopted by French Lawyer Maximilien de Robespierre. The mere fact that people is influenced by any ideas. The word authority is present on that.

[Sinister Intents]

Yet, there is still authority in anarchism though the system is non government. If I'm going to base it on universal definition of authority which means invention, opinion, influence or command. Then anarchism follows authority too. For the reason that the term is originated from Laozi which is taoist philosopher. Adopted by French Lawyer Maximilien de Robespierre. The mere fact that people is influenced by any ideas. The word authority is present on that.

There is no such thing as legitimate authority. EchoShock has provided a lot of good evidence of this in his posts, and the other posters here have provided good evidence of no legitimate authority. What you're saying is authority really isn't authority, and commands, such as saying something to someone to do for some reason isn't authority. Are you being forceful in your command? There is no legitimate authority, if you're commanding someone with force that makes you an asshole and they have no reason to listen to you or do what you say.

[The Feral Underclass]

There is no such thing as legitimate authority.

How do you imagine a battle to operate?

[Sinister Intents]

How do you imagine a battle to operate?

I imagine with brute force from revolutionaries, so then I guess they have legitimate authority there with the proletariat pushing against the bourgeoisie. This thread has me thinking, and I smoke too much weed. Is it really authoritative though to fight the bourgeoisie?

edit: Oh shit you have almost 20,000 posts TAT!

[The Feral Underclass]

I imagine with brute force from revolutionaries, so then I guess they have legitimate authority there with the proletariat pushing against the bourgeoisie. This thread has me thinking, and I smoke too much weed. Is it really authoritative though to fight the bourgeoisie?

edit: Oh shit you have almost 20,000 posts TAT!

That's not really what I meant. I wanted to understand how a battle would literally operate. During a skirmish in which a militia is attacking a convoy of soldiers, how do you imagine that battle will be a success if those considered the best tacticians are not permitted to direct the militia to success?

[Sinister Intents]

That's not really what I meant. I wanted to understand how a battle would literally operate. During a skirmish in which a militia is attacking a convoy of soldiers, how do you imagine that battle will be a success if those considered the best tacticians are not permitted to direct the militia to success?

Ahhhh I see what you're saying now, in this case I'm assuming both sides will have some 'authority' figure directing their actions. Who ever uses the best tactics and strategy will win the skirmish. Conflicts like these are generally over capital, means of production, natural resources and other such things though, right? What are they fighting over? Why are they fighting? Who is who politically?

edit: Okay so Psycho (I'm intentionally using an admin) is leading a bunch of revolutionaries in a struggle to take over a factory, would he really be a leader with authority though considering the views of socialists?

[Sea]

Most of people's working definitions of "authority" in this thread are completely arbitrary, and, as EchoShock expressed, this thread is not going anywhere until that changes.

That said, both the standard bourgeois definition as well as the "new and improved" definition of authority that seems to be in vogue among radicals do a very poor job at qualifying the concepts they pretend to describe. Both of these definitions imply such hogwash as "justice" and "ethics" that have no place in the mind of someone who is attempting to rid their thought process of the cobwebs of bourgeois indoctrination.

The probable consequences of an action should be considered when deciding whether an action is to be taken or not. One need not fetishize authority. Avoiding actions, whether collective or individual, that objectively benefit the oppressed on the basis of their being "too authoritarian" is nothing more than a silly prejudice that makes one a slave to a silly concept.

When people speak of authority, they are taking specific social occurrences and qualifying them (often arbitrarily) as involving authority or not. Authority, frankly, does not exist any more than does divine intervention. Capitalism exists. Class struggle exists. Coercion most certainly exists. Authority, however, is a concept that attempts to qualify various aspects of the former two things (the third flows directly from the first two) as well as arbitrary and unrelated things like the child and street, and falls flat on its face. The process of determining whether an action involves authority or not is one of divination.

[exeexe]

Basically, what is authority
Authority is when you do something because someone else told you to do so and you followed that command because you were afraid of the consequences that would follow which the authority can put on you because they have the authority.


what authority is legitimate or illegitimate?
Authority is illegitimate because it bind your reasoning behind your actions to punishment instead of free thinking. It dehumanize you and you get alienated between your thoughts and actions.

Authority also means that some people has more power at their disposal than others, or in other words, some people have lost their freedom to empower themselves.

And i think people should be free as long as they havent done anything bad!

[RyeN]

Authority is only a concept, and as such really doesn't exist until we create it. We have the freedom of choice to allow others "Authority" to influence us but ultimately the decision of how to act is ours. The evolutionary program of the right has been keeping people unaware of how flimsy the conceptual world really is. Its like an illusion that only exists because of the energy we as a society put into it. So a concept's power is really based the amount of energy the global consciousness puts into it. On an individual level though we are the authors of our own reality, and its all based on how we perceive our own experience and the actions we take in accordance with whats presented. Freedom really is just a state of mind, but it is also something that too many people have never had a chance to experience.

[BIXX]

Authority is only a concept, and as such really doesn't exist until we create it. We have the freedom of choice to allow others "Authority" to influence us but ultimately the decision of how to act is ours. The evolutionary program of the right has been keeping people unaware of how flimsy the conceptual world really is. Its like an illusion that only exists because of the energy we as a society put into it. So a concept's power is really based the amount of energy the global consciousness puts into it. On an individual level though we are the authors of our own reality, and its all based on how we perceive our own experience and the actions we take in accordance with whats presented. Freedom really is just a state of mind, but it is also something that too many people have never had a chance to experience.


There is so much idealist shit in this post that I don't know where to start. I guess I should at least make an attempt to explain how wrong you are before I say you're just wrong.


Authority is only a concept, and as such really doesn't exist until we create it.

Not exactly. It is a social construction, that has no material basis (by this I mean there is no inherent reason why authority should exist). However, due to the crystallization of social constructs and structures it has very real material effects. Through the crystallization process, it forms material power structures.

If it was as you say it is, we could simply wish it away. Instead, it now poses a very real threat to those that oppose it.


We have the freedom of choice to allow others "Authority" to influence us but ultimately the decision of how to act is ours.

Again, this implies that we could simply wish it away. And again, we cannot, as now authority holds a very real power over us.


The evolutionary program of the right has been keeping people unaware of how flimsy the conceptual world really is.

It's not just the right- in fact this process begins with civilization, before the right/left dichotomy existed, before capitalism, before reactionaries and revolutionaries. It happened the day the individual was subjugated to a "higher cause"- whether it be society, humanity, god, "the greater good", or what have you.


Its like an illusion that only exists because of the energy we as a society put into it. So a concept's power is really based the amount of energy the global consciousness puts into it.

We cannot wish away authority. While realizing that no authority is legitimate and no authority holds a material basis is incredibly important to my liberation, this doesn't mean that I am liberated.


On an individual level though we are the authors of our own reality, and its all based on how we perceive our own experience and the actions we take in accordance with whats presented.

We are not the authors of our own reality- reality is our author. It is the thing that molds all of us into the unique ones that we are.


Freedom really is just a state of mind, but it is also something that too many people have never had a chance to experience.

Freedom is more than a state of mind. If it was we would be free to do as we please by now, as there would be no reason for anyone to keep is from being free. But there is a reason to keep us from being free for the masters- it benefits them. We are not free to act, we are not free to love the way we want, we are not free to live the way we want. This isn't because I am simply imagining some authority that is restricting my freedom, but rather there is actual authority keeping me from living life passionately.

[Zoroaster]

I don't reject all forms of authority, like the police force that Parecon proposes, but most, like prisons and capitalism, should be destroyed.