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

  • n0p1lls@feddit.onlineEnglish
    12·
    14 days ago

    I think you might find this text interesting. It offers a simple yet precise take on how authority should be viewed in anarchist spaces: No Rules, No Rulers

    Here are some quite descriptive quotes:

    [1]

    The existence of rules can only be fully understood by exploring how rulers came to be. The introduction of private property is seen as a pivotal moment in the origin of rule. As a few individuals began to accumulate wealth under this new system, social hierarchies formed, and those at the top of this hierarchy appointed authority figures and armed them with a monopoly on violence to protect their property and enforce rules on their behalf. This wealthy minority accumulated increasing wealth by dividing the land among themselves before coercing those who once lived off the land freely into their servitude. They accomplished this by directing their governments to enact laws that criminalized living off the land without the landowner’s permission, effectively compelling everyone who did not own land to work for landowners in order to survive.

    [2]

    “Norms” necessitates “abnormality”. The existence of a “norm” logically creates a non-norm, or a deviation. The problem isn’t the deviation itself, but the negative connotation and social consequences associated with being labeled “abnormal.” The word “abnormal” is often pathologizing, othering, or stigmatizing.

    […]

    The argument that rules can exist without rulers is as nonsensical as the idea of a court existing without a justice system. In the absence of a governing body, rules become mere suggestions, lacking any true power or authority, and thus cease to be rules. The practical reality is that any attempt to establish and maintain a system of rules will naturally lead to the formation of a body responsible for their creation and enforcement, thereby establishing a form of governance.

    • Five@slrpnk.netEnglish
      52·
      14 days ago

      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.onlineEnglish
        3·
        14 days ago

        To be honest, I wasn’t aware of Ziq’s background. Thanks for pointing it out—I’ll be more careful if I read any other texts by them. Still, I find that text interesting. It seems to me that the text expresses ideas influenced by anarchist thinkers like Max Stirner, as well as concepts close to post-left anarchy.