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

25 points · 10 comments · view on lemmy.world

10 Comments

onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 345d (1 reply)

it's breadtube, but Andrewism is still the first online source i've found to define 'authority' the way i and meatspace comrades have used it:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrewism-how-anarchy-works#toc2 (~5 minutes to read)

he references Bakunin, with some generative critique.

::: spoiler full citations

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

— Mikhail Bakunin, God and the state, Chapter 2


Expertise merely refers to one’s knowledge or skill in a particular field, but my understanding of CPR or ability to bake shortbread cookies does not make me an authority over you. Other than the conflation of force and authority, this is one of the most common confusions people have about anarchism, made worse by the fact that there are some anarchists who still use authority to refer to both command and expertise just because Bakunin did. Personally, I find that creates needless confusion. If you’re using the word authority to describe everything from slavery to knowing how to build a bridge, then why use the word at all? Just use the word expertise when you’re talking about expertise. Listening to medical advice isn’t a hierarchy. Having expertise doesn’t give me the right to command you unless I hold a position in a hierarchical power structure that grants me that authority. As Bakunin himself said:

...we ask nothing better than to see men endowed with great knowledge, great experience, great minds, and, above all, great hearts, exert over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted and never imposed in the name of any official authority whatsoever, celestial or terrestrial.

— Andrewism, How Anarchy Works » Dissecting Authority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU) :::

alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 345d

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 :)

TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 345d (1 reply)

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

Five@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 345d

JudgeSabo has decent receipts. Since Anarchism101 is unmoderated, I've posted it in AnarchismVsMarxism.

BlastboomStrice@mander.xyz · 4 pts · 344d

The an anarchist faq has a section for it, Section B.1:

technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 343d (1 reply)

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.

alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 343d

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.

n0p1lls@feddit.online · -1 pts · 344d (4 replies)
[ removed ]
Five@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 344d (3 replies)

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.

n0p1lls@feddit.online · 4 pts · 344d (2 replies)
[ removed ]
jaijai@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 315d

and thats just their background on raddle. they also have a decade long history of doing similar things in anarchist subs on reddit. def don't fall for the innocence act.

ChanceHappening@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 316d

it's depressing how quickly you fell in line with the smear campaign against me