Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq wrote

Bakunin is crystal clear alright. He rejects all authority. What he doesn't reject is the expertise of specialists. That isn't authority. Someone being trained at a specific task is not a structural power unless you make it one. I wrote that essay so I wouldn't have to repeatedly spoonfeed you baby anarchists this incredibly basic shit.

Why are you still here anyway? You have your own little dengist circlejerk now where you can praise Xi and Kim to your heart's content. Every minute you spend making a mockery of anarchy here is a minute you could be spending polishing your cryptofash master's boot. Those boots aren't going to moisten themselves, so get to it already. You've got a ton of work ahead of you if you're gonna convince all those basic ass anlibs on chapo to cast away their anarchy in favor of third positionism.

7

Amorphous wrote

He rejects all authority. What he doesn't reject is the expertise of specialists.

Okay. Who are you to decide that? Why do you just get to tell me what words mean? Why is it that when Bakunin says "What is authority?" (or in the original French, "Qu'est-ce que l'autorité?") you get to decide he doesn't actually mean authority? Why do you get to decide that the word "autorité" as Bakunin used it does not translate to authority in English?

Sorry, but you're wrong. When Bakunin wrote, "S'ensuit-il que je repousse toute autorité? Loin de moi cette pensée." this was not poorly translated into English to mean something it did not originally say. What Bakunin said was that he does not reject authority. That is very clear in both French and English.

We can argue all day about different kinds of authority and what that might mean fully in context. But the point is that this is an argument held between anarchists for as long as anarchism has existed. To say that "anarchists reject ALL authority" is just outright wrong. There are so many different ways of viewing the concept of authority under an anarchist lens, and the only reason I'm a "fake" anarchist in your eyes is because I don't bow down before you and tell you every single interpretation you make is right.

−2

suma OP wrote (edited )

Are you this person's alt? Because you're both equally bad at concern trolling. Bakunin explained exactly what he meant in the rest of the text that you're conveniently choosing to ignore so you can keep your troll going. Not that anyone here gives a flying fuck what that bigot thought or what any anarcho-collectivist thinks with their spiteful "you have to work to eat" rhetoric.

Anarchy literally means against archy. If you're going to use words to describe your politics, learn what they mean.

7

Amorphous wrote

Are you this person's alt?

Nope. Aren't you an admin or something? You should have access to the kind of information which can help you confirm that.

Bakunin explained exactly what he meant in the rest of the text that you're conveniently choosing to ignore so you can keep your troll going.

Sure, but he called that authority. And that's what I mean. We can argue all day about what "authority" is and what it means, but at the end of the day, that still means that there are interpretations of the term "authority" which many anarchists do not reject. It is shortsighted, over-simplifying, and nothing short of wrong to say that anarchists necessarily "reject ALL authority."

To talk about a different kind of authority many anarchists do not reject, think about the idea of a revolution. Violence is a very raw exercise in authority. I don't know your stance on the idea of violent revolution, but you cannot tell me that all revolutionary anarchists are fake anarchists too.

Not that anyone here gives a flying fuck what that bigot thought

That's a fair point. I agree that he sucked and also that we shouldn't necessarily take his word as golden. But he was an anarchist, and an influential part of anarchist theory even into the modern day. My point was that you cannot say "anarchists reject x" and also acknowledge Bakunin as an anarchist if he very explicitly said, "I do not reject x." I was trying to get a feel for how honestly you guys were arguing, or whether it was in good faith. (The answer was no, clearly)

what any anarcho-collectivist thinks with their spiteful "you have to work to eat" rhetoric.

And about this I completely agree as well. I don't agree at all with the idea that needs should be withheld from people in order to make them work. As far as the old communist saying goes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," I take both those parts to be separate and only the latter absolute. Everyone should have their needs taken care of to the best of the ability of the community, and those who are able should work to help out their comrades too, but I think that there will be few enough people who "cheat" the system (for lack of a better way to phrase it) that it won't be necessary at all to try to enforce this.

−2

[deleted] wrote

4

Amorphous wrote

Am I wrong?

−2

[deleted] wrote

2

Amorphous wrote

Stop linking me walls of text and explain your view ffs. If the statement I made is wrong, explain how. What is authority? It feels to me like authority is a buzzword you use to just always be right. If you're not right, then authority doesn't mean that. I'm tired of it, so just tell me your definition of that word.

−3

[deleted] wrote

4

Amorphous wrote

You're linking me some fucking responses to a text I have no interest in instead of actually replying to what I'm saying.

−3

ziq wrote

Lmao so you can link to bakunin's wall of text (apparently without even reading past the headline) but when someone links you to text you bite their head off for it? How can you stand yourself?

4

Amorphous wrote

(apparently without even reading past the headline)

I quoted text from like 14 paragraphs in you clown lmao

−4