How do you think anarchists should emphasise not ruling, versus not being ruled?

Submitted by Majrelende in AskRaddle (edited )

Phrased another way: Should we be thinking as much of our ruling over others as the ruling of others over ourselves?

Most of us are not in positions of great authority, but perhaps we also carry on a small part of oppression of others.

Veganism is an ideal example of emphasis on not ruling. I can't think of any particularly analogous one on the side of not being ruled, except the more general concept of overthrowing oppressors. (Would a vegan cow eat farmers?) Feminism yes, but not from the perspective of a man. Antiracism yes, but not from the perspective of white people.

14

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa wrote

I don't rule over others, what's there to think about?

9

Majrelende OP wrote (edited )

You don't benefit from or assist any oppression of others at some point in your life?

9

subrosa wrote (edited )

Is that what constitutes rule?

The edits though, I should wait a bit.

7

subrosa wrote

I'm not sure why it would be a question of emphasizing one over the other when we want to abandon rule/government more generally. Oppression isn't desirable, but power imbalances do not constitute rule. My contribution to the oppressing forces/powers is largely a result of imposed means and ends, but that contribution itself is not rule or authority in any sense familiar to me.

I found Wilbur's Authority and Authority-effects helpful.

Best I got right now. It's a tricky question.

5

stagn wrote (edited )

It should be important emphasise not ruling, but in the most radical circles (including anarchists) there are the most sneaky forms of government.
With those who do not want to rule it makes sense to emphasise not ruling, why would I want to rule over a cow or an oak tree? So I try my best not to rule over other animals and wild.
But in the midst of people who think only on ruling (anarchists included), the only thing to do is to become ungovernable. They will never stop trying to rule.

9

lentils wrote

Taking a nihilist perspective I don't see ruling as immoral but I still find a lot of reasons to avoid doing it.

For instance I'm not directly oppressed by speciesism but I think all systems of supremacy are interlinked so enabling systemic abuse of non-human animals really helps preserve systems of oppression that do directly affect me and people I care about.

I also think that not ruling can be helpful for making friends bc even if you're not directly harmed by a specific oppressive system people who are won't want to interact with you if all you do is enable it to take place.

8

fortmis wrote (edited )

I'm allergic to being ruled, and in my experience, ruling is either uncomfortable or boring, and most often both.

8

fortmis wrote

As for your question, the two are inseparable! Anyone who says otherwise is living a lie!

8

rot wrote

do unto others

3