Anti-Authoritarianism

[FridgeMagnet]

I don't believe he states that the 85% is based on any figures about psychopaths at all - I don't read it that way.

People challenging tobyjug on figures is of course fair enough but I've noticed a lot of cross-thread stuff recently, and that's why I'm a bit concerned. If it's something specific to here that you're questioning then fair enough.

 

[Groucho]

I don't believe he states that the 85% is based on any figures about psychopaths at all - I don't read it that way.

People challenging tobyjug on figures is of course fair enough but I've noticed a lot of cross-thread stuff recently, and that's why I'm a bit concerned. If it's something specific to here that you're questioning then fair enough.

It was this bit:

It is a precise figure, from data about psychopaths relative to the general population. Personally I would have thought 85% was on the low side..

So yes it is specific. If I have misunderstood then fine.

 

[rednblack]

i am definately not anti authoritarian, authority (backed up by guns and bombs, fists, boots, baseball bats, knives, and surface to air misiles) will have to be used to seize the property of the upper classes at some point...

 

[Groucho]

i am definately not anti authoritarian, authority (backed up by guns and bombs, fists, boots, baseball bats, knives, and surface to air misiles) will have to be used to seize the property of the upper classes at some point...

There isn't such a great conflict between revolution and opposition to authoritarianism. To impose the democratic will on the capitalist minority is a necessary blow against the authoritarian capitalist system. It would be a massive step towards a society without authoritarian state control, and in my earlier post revolution would certainly fall under the exceptional circumstances where democracy is enforced - because capitalists would be ready to fight to the death (well ours anyway).

I also support the authority of the picket line and see no conflict between that and saying that I am more anti than pro authoritarian.

 

[In Bloom]

i am definately not anti authoritarian, authority (backed up by guns and bombs, fists, boots, baseball bats, knives, and surface to air misiles) will have to be used to seize the property of the upper classes at some point...

Fighting against authority is not necessarily authoritarian, even with armed struggle.

Do you regard militant anti-fascism as authoritarian?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I think it's important to state exactly what's wrong with this concept of everybody submitting to authority only voluntarily. What's wrong with it is that if you don't want rules, if you want people to make do without them, then you have to have a pretty strong social ethic and that ethics must have, at the heart of it, the understanding that you do not readily do things that upset, distress or anger other people. If you do, there will be disputes, and hence, to resolve them, the requirement for authority to resolve them, with the expectation on all sides that this authority will be respected.

Now it's maybe just possible to believe that even in a complex and heavily-populated society, disputes will be relatively few because the habit of mutual respect and conflict resolution will be something we learn. I don't remotely think so, by the by, but let's accept it for the moment. However, as I say, we must have, at the heart of it, the conception of avoiding disputes by trying not to impose on or disturb other people.

Now, it strikes me that actually, a lot of people will not do this, a lot of people will not accept it or understand it and that prominent in their number will be "anti-authoritarians". Because in fact, the main instiinct of "anti-authoritarisn" is not to avoid disputes but to pursue them by insisting that they do what they want to do, that it is imperative that they be able to do what they want and that attempts to restrain them from doing so are "authoritarian". You can see this, as it happens, pretty much daily in this very place: "anti-authoritarians" insisting on their right to do their thing in their way. Whereas in fact, the only way voluntary association can work is if people are in the habit of not doing that, of deferring to other people, of backing down. In practive, "anti-authortarians" are the people who will disturb the social peace and fail to respect the social ethic.

"Voluntary association" is a non-starter, and one very good reason for this is the intransigence and propensity to disruption of the "anti-authoritarians". It's a point that they will never understand.

 

[In Bloom]

I think it's important to state exactly what's wrong with this concept of everybody submitting to authority only voluntarily. What's wrong with it is that if you don't want rules, if you want people to make do without them, then you have to have a pretty strong social ethic and that ethics must have, at the heart of it, the understanding that you do not readily do things that upset, distress or anger other people. If you do, there will be disputes, and hence, to resolve them, the requirement for authority to resolve them, with the expectation on all sides that this authority will be respected.

Or alternatively they could be mediated by a third party based on commonly agreed rules. Just a thought

Now, it strikes me that actually, a lot of people will not do this, a lot of people will not accept it or understand it and that prominent in their number will be "anti-authoritarians". Because in fact, the main instiinct of "anti-authoritarisn" is not to avoid disputes but to pursue them by insisting that they do what they want to do, that it is imperative that they be able to do what they want and that attempts to restrain them from doing so are "authoritarian". You can see this, as it happens, pretty much daily in this very place: "anti-authoritarians" insisting on their right to do their thing in their way. Whereas in fact, the only way voluntary association can work is if people are in the habit of not doing that, of deferring to other people, of backing down. In practive, "anti-authortarians" are the people who will disturb the social peace and fail to respect the social ethic.

Erm, leaving aside your pointless ad hominems, wouldn't being in the habbit of deferring to one another be the very definition of voluntary?

 

[redsquirrel]

One in six people are psychopaths? That's a pretty high proportion! And you count yourself among them, I see...

This pic is never going to get tired.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Or alternatively they could be mediated by a third party based on commonly agreed rules. Just a thought

Er, that ain't voluntary.

Erm, leaving aside your pointless ad hominems,

My what? How can that be ad hominem?

 

[In Bloom]

Er, that ain't voluntary.

It certainly aint authority.

My what? How can that be ad hominem?

Maybe ad hominem isn't exactly the right phrase, but your whole post is littered with irrelevant assertions that anti-authoritarians are irresponsible or selfish

the main instiinct of "anti-authoritarisn" is not to avoid disputes but to pursue them...In practive, "anti-authortarians" are the people who will disturb the social peace and fail to respect the social ethic...the intransigence and propensity to disruption of the "anti-authoritarians

None of which is, IME, true at all.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It certainly aint authority.

It certainly is. Prearranged rules which all parties concerned are bound to respect constitutes authority.

Maybe ad hominem isn't exactly the right phrase, but your whole post is littered with irrelevant assertions that anti-authoritarians are irresponsible or selfish

Scarcely irrelevant, seeing as my thesis is that the people most certain to render such a system unworkable are those most loudly advocating it.

 

[In Bloom]

It certainly is. Prearranged rules which all parties concerned are bound to respect constitutes authority.

Authority implies coercion backed up by force.

Scarcely irrelevant, seeing as my thesis is that the people most certain to render such a system unworkable are those most loudly advocating it.

Shame that its a load of balls really. The vast majority of anti-authoritarians do not believe what you characterise us as believing (that we should be allowed to do whatever we want regardless of the cost to others).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Authority implies coercion backed up by force.

Well, if one party subsequently defies the prearranged rules and the preagreed resolver-of-disputes, by what means were you expecting matters to proceed?

Shame that its a load of balls really. The vast majority of anti-authoritarians do not believe what you characterise us as believing (that we should be allowed to do whatever we want regardless of the cost to others).

You may or may not believe it, but you persistently behave as if you did. The "doing what you want" nearly always comes before "deferring to others": the complaints of others are nearly always interprested as "authoritarianism". But, like I said, the so-called "anti-authoritarians" never understand that.

 

[In Bloom]

Well, if one party subsequently defies the prearranged rules and the preagreed resolver-of-disputes, by what means were you expecting matters to proceed?

It would help if I had some kind of example.

You may or may not believe it, but you persistently behave as if you did. The "doing what you want" nearly always comes before "deferring to others": the complaints of others are nearly always interprested as "authoritarianism". But, like I said, the so-called "anti-authoritarians" never understand that.

I will admit that there is an element of that, particularly with the more lifestylist and individualist types and personally, I think that we'd all be better off without them, however, those people do not have a monopoly on anti-authoritarianism or on libertarianism.

Sidetrack: I remember being in Glasgow for the G8. Christ, some of the pricks involved in Dissent beggarred belief.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It would help if I had some kind of example.

I'm not sure what kind of example would help. OK. The community, let us in this instance say a housing co-op, agrees that music should not be played late at night. Some fuckwit plays Carmina Burana at three in the morning in the flat next to yours and - after having poitely knocked and being told that further knocking will result in the loss of your hand - you file a grievance with the elected Secretary of the co-op, the agreed authority under the constitution of that body. Secretary rules in your favour and requires fuckwit to desist. Three days later at two in the morning you are wakened by the sound of the Hallelujah Chorus...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I will admit that there is an element of that, particularly with the more lifestylist and individualist types and personally, I think that we'd all be better off without them, however, those people do not have a monopoly on anti-authoritarianism or on libertarianism.

No, they don't, and I'm not trying to describe a philosophy by the actions of its more unpleasant adherents - we can all play that game. But what in fact I am saying is that there's a level of disputatiousness and an insistence on being able to do one's own thing amoing the mainstream which I find entirely incompatible with any spirit of voluntary association and peaceful co-operation, and that half the problem is that the "anti-authoritarians" never recognise this and never realise how disruptive and difficult they can be for other people. (Which they ought to, perhaps, seeing as people are always telling them this.)

 

[888]

(re 2 posts ago) Things like that wouldn't be decided by some appointed secretary, but by meetings of the collective. Anyway, just as you freely associated with that annoying person, so can you (and the other members) freely dissociate from them, although if you're the only one annoyed by the music, you're fucked...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Anyway, just as you freely associated with that annoying person, so can you (and the other members) freely dissociate from them,

And how does one "freely" do that?

 

[FreddyB]

Based on experience of usually the only two people not running around like headless chickens when there is a emergency situation being my wife and myself , I am not one of the 85%.

You have to question how you've found yourself in enough emergency situations to be able to reach this conclusion.

Perhaps you're a walking disaster who would be best kept confined to your house. Wihtout internet access.

 

[888]

And how does one "freely" do that?

Well, you could refuse to cooperate with them on anything, and they'll find themselves ostracised.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And if as a result IB gets his door kicked in?

 

[Groucho]

There is a vast difference between Authority and Authoritarian. Authority can be gained through respect and need not be backed up with any kind of coersion. Authoritarianism implies excessive weilding of power over others.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Authority can be gained through respect and need not be backed up with any kind of coersion. .

Oh, please. What do you do when somebody decides to take the piss?

 

[888]

And if as a result IB gets his door kicked in?

Kick him out of the commune? Assuming this person refuses to apologise and/or repair it, or some other compromise can't be reached.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Which constitutes a coercive act which will conceivably have to be achieved with a measure of violence.

 

[Groucho]

Oh, please. What do you do when somebody decides to take the piss?

I was merely asserting that to be anti-authoritarian is not to be opposed to all authority (say the authority that a trained medical practicioner would have in the field of medicine).

Let's assume an egalitarian society where there is no coersive state. Democratic decisions should be respected by all. What if they are not?

Coersion should not be the norm but the exception. If a person or persons opt out of a decision they do not agree with but do not seek to undermine the majority they should just get on with it. Only where the actions of a few threaten the interests of the majority or to harm other people should action be taken. The level and type of action taken would depend on the seriousness of the issue. Anti-social people would be ostracised until they adjusted their behaviour.

The atomisation of individuals in our society, coupled with the cultre of selfishness fostered by capitalism creates the conditions in which anti-social behaviour flourishes.

I certainly agree with you that there are elements among 'anti-authoritarian' activists whose activities seem to be designed to obstruct progressive movements and to hinder democratic processes. I also strongly believe that a process of revolution will need organised defence against capitalists. Nor do I think that the conditions for an egalitarian society with no state can occur over night.

In the meantime it is impossible to opt out of the authoritarian society we live in. If I had your neighbour I would put a brick through their window!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

In the meantime it is impossible to opt out of the authoritarian society we live in. If I had your neighbour I would put a brick through their window!

Er, I should point out that this neighbour is purely nominal.

 

[888]

Which constitutes a coercive act which will conceivably have to be achieved with a measure of violence.

Who gives a fuck? No one's aiming for total ideological consistency here!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Coersion should not be the norm but the exception. If a person or persons opt out of a decision they do not agree with but do not seek to undermine the majority they should just get on with it.

That's going to be a harder determination than you might imagine.

Franly, I'd find it easier, more efficient and more conducive to the operation of a free society that we are assumed to stick to the agreed rules.

 

[Groucho]

Er, I should point out that this neighbour is purely nominal.

Just as well for them or they'd get a brickin'.