Anarchists are not opposed to all authority

[abbielives!]

We simply ask that the authority prove it's legitimicy. and we belive that the burden of proof is on the authority.

[Led Zeppelin]

In that case you're Marxists in disguise.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 09, 2007 04:20 am
In that case you're Marxists in disguise.
Exactly.

[apathy maybe]

No, Marxists hold onto all the stuff about historical materialism, Marxian class analysis and so on. Anarchists aren't Marxists in disguise unless they actually agree with key Marxist ideas.

There are plenty of Marxists (autonomists) who are anarchists in disguise however.


We simply ask that the authority prove it's legitimicy. and we belive that the burden of proof is on the authority.Well, that is a bit simplistic.
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker." - Mikhail Bakunin

There are two sorts of authority, the authority of one who knows how to make boots, the doctor, the electrician and so on. Then there is the authority to tell someone what to do.
It is the second sort of authority that anarchists reject, and if you don't... Then are you really an anarchist?

If someone has the power to force someone else (and force various from actual physical force, to economic power or many other sorts of manipulation), then that is wrong.

Having knowledge is not something wrong, and neither is explaining, sharing or using that knowledge. In some cases (such as the doctor, or the boot maker), the knowledge is too complicated or fidily to impart quickly and easily. In such cases, the average person listens to the doctor or boot maker, as they should know what they are talking about. The doctor will goto the boot maker to have their boots fixed, and the boot maker will goto the doctor to have their health checked.

There isn't anything wrong with that.

[RGacky3]

We simply ask that the authority prove it's legitimicy. and we belive that the burden of proof is on the authority.

I somewhat agree, like I am not oppsed to a parent having authority over his/her children, but there are very very few cases where authority can be legitimised, generally speaking I am against authority (meaning innate authority, not directly given authority i.e. I'm learning how to ride a bike so I choose to listen to you who knows how to ride a bike so I can learn, thats not authority to me.)

[partizan604]

We simply ask that the authority prove it's legitimicy.

the question is : can any authority prove it's legitimicy?

if you answer:
a parent having authority over his/her children, but there are very very few cases where authority can be legitimised

i will tell you, that this is not an authority - this is the rule of life, nature rule - when old teach young. sometimes this is called respect.

then there is another question :
are anarchists opposed to respect?

and the answer is: no.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 09, 2007 04:20 am
In that case you're Marxists in disguise.


since we differ in structure, methods, goals, and strategy that is blatently false

An Anarchist FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secHcon.html
H.1.2 What are the key differences between Anarchists and Marxists?
H.3.1 Do Anarchists and Marxists want the same thing?

[BobKKKindle$]

Having knowledge is not something wrong, and neither is explaining, sharing or using that knowledge.

Would you not agree, though, that knowledge and expertise does not simlply extend to productive disciplines relating to the provision of a particular good or service, but also includes the ability to effectively manage and lead a political organisation or body of people in pursuit of a political objective - in other words, surely the vanguard party or a cadre is also a 'legitimate' authority in that their leadership/authority arises from proficiency in a particular role?

[apathy maybe]

Not really.

[BobKKKindle$]

What then, is the distinction between someone who acts with the intention of raising general political consciousness, even if it is in ways that could be considered trivial, such as posting pamphlets, and a 'skilled' worker such as a bootmaker? They are both 'authority' in that they both possess information and knowledge that entails proficiency.

[apathy maybe]

You mentioned leading. Can't you see where that is going? When you lead someone, you except them to follow. You can talk about knowledge all you want, but as soon as there is a situation where someone can give an order and expect it to be carried out... Then we may well have a problem on our hands.

I can't really be fucked explaining it much more then that, I have random other shit happening in my life so...

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:27 am
What then, is the distinction between someone who acts with the intention of raising general political consciousness, even if it is in ways that could be considered trivial, such as posting pamphlets, and a 'skilled' worker such as a bootmaker? They are both 'authority' in that they both possess information and knowledge that entails proficiency.
Well, the difference is quite big. About boot making: there aren't too many ways to make a proper boot, you may have different opinions on what you wnat from your boot, but there are basics on how to make a proper boot. You can even make different boots for different people.
When it comes to leading a country/organisation/community, there are thousands of ways to do so, almost everyone has a different opinion about that, there is no 'right' way to lead a country/organisation/community since everyone has different expectations.

[AmbitiousHedonism]

We simply ask that the authority prove it's legitimicy. and we belive that the burden of proof is on the authority.

What does that even mean? What is "legitimacy"? How can one ask authority to prove its legitimacy when it gets to decide what is legitimate and what is not?


but as soon as there is a situation where someone can give an order and expect it to be carried out... Then we may well have a problem on our hands.

What does it mean to give an order? If I phrase my order as a question, "Will you please wash the dishes?" is it still an order?

Anarchism is the rejection of arbitrary and coercive authority and the creation of social relations based on voluntary cooperation. That means individuals get to choose which orders, if any, they follow, regardless of another's claim of "authority."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by abbielives!@August 09, 2007 05:14 am
We simply ask that the authority prove it's legitimicy. and we belive that the burden of proof is on the authority.
How is that true?

[syndicat]

Anarchism is the rejection of arbitrary and coercive authority and the creation of social relations based on voluntary cooperation. That means individuals get to choose which orders, if any, they follow, regardless of another's claim of "authority."

Ultimately this is an individualist definition. Let's suppose you're born into a society. It isn't "voluntary" that you will have to obey its various rules or face the consequences of not doing so. Not hiring wage slaves is not "voluntary" in a society that has fought to destroy the class system. it is a basic rule that should be enforced against anyone who tries otherwise. that's because to not have such a rule is to allow class society/capitalism to re-emerge.

What we should reject, i suggest, is hierarchical authority, that is, authority concentrated into the hands of a minority who can then dominate the rest. also, opposition to any structure of oppression, since this presupposes some sort of hierarchical authority, even if it is exercised by a large group over a smaller one. Say a society discriminates against, or tries to enslave, some ethnic group.

another way of putting this is to define oppression as the denial of self-management. thus if there are decisions that only affect you, but others try to impose a decision on you, that is oppression, and if they do it to you, it is unlikely they will not do it to others.

what it comes down to, then, is that each person is to have control over decisions to the degree they are affected by them. denial of this will typically be based on an oppressive hierarchy of some sort, if isn't just a single case but is systematic.

but if a decision has collective affect on a community and you lose the vote/discussion on this decision because you are in the minority, that doesn't make you oppressed. thus the mere fact that a community enforces a decision against the will of some people doesn't by itself show that that society is based on oppression or some entrenched hierarchy.

thus if we consider the situation that comes out of a revolution, a transition period, there will likely be a vocal and sizeable minority who were in opposition. the fact that the working class imposes destruction of the class system on them does now show they are "oppressed". if someone wants to be a parasite or a boss but we don't allow it, that doesn't show they are "oppressed."

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:01 pm

We simply ask that the authority prove it's legitimicy. and we belive that the burden of proof is on the authority.

What does that even mean? What is "legitimacy"? How can one ask authority to prove its legitimacy when it gets to decide what is legitimate and what is not?



legitimacy depends on what you want, so an anarchist might answer differently than communist. it is up to the institution that exersises their authority to prove to us their legitimacy.

[redarmyfaction38]

WOW!
the way i see it, there will always be a compromise between individual freedom, whatever that is; cos as workers the only freedoms we enjoy are won by collective action; and the freedom of the mass to organise society in it's own interest.
in the end, it comes down to basics; whose side are you on?
ours: the working class and our way of life, or theirs: the capitalist companies sucking the life blood out of the nation, the people and the planet?
descriptions of "theological" adherence to various "philosphers" mean fuck all.
overthrowing the bourgeouisie is the means to a new society.
lets arge about nietsche and lenin or trotsky after the event. ;)

[Saint Street Revolution]

Anarchists are not opposed to all authority

Yes they are.

As in, police, the State, etc. that kind of authority.

Parents, Elders, etc. are a different story. I personally do not think of them as authority figures.