I need you to define the word “authority” in that case. I’ve given my definition, so what is yours and how does it differ, please? Because I already addressed the fact that an imbalance doesn’t create a hierarchy, and your description of imbalance does not fit my definition of authority.
Power imbalance doesn’t automatically create the conditions for domination. For that you would need both expertise and monopoly.
And the solution to a misunderstanding isn’t to concede the definition of the word “state” but to educate. The state is any entity that has a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in a region. That applies regardless of the system of government that rules it.
Your definition isn’t a definition, it’s just a collection of categories that gives no useful information.
We don’t need to be dominated in order to clean up our garbage. And the state is often really bad at collecting garbage, so just teach people that.
Authority is a power imbalance in a social relationship. It does not, in itself, imply domination or monopoly or expertise it happens each time two people are not on eye level regarding something, cannot, for whatever reason, relate to each other as complete equals. If you find yourself having it and are keen on proper praxis then you take on the responsibility to lift the other up as you are capable to do. I think for that reason alone I think it’s important to recognise it as authority, so that we are careful when using it, which, in the end, is unavoidable.
We don’t need to be dominated in order to clean up our garbage. And the state is often really bad at collecting garbage, so just teach people that.
Garbage collection is a non-issue over here, it just works. Couple of neighbouring municipalities own the company and it’s run on an at-cost basis with decent wages. If, suddenly, an anarchist revolution were to happen I’m quite sure the general arrangement would carry over.
…and I took that as an example precisely because (over here) it just works, it’s a baby you wouldn’t want to throw out with the bathwater. I’m reasonably sure that wherever you’re living, you can think of such an example.
That definition of authority is so immediately, obviously wrong that I don’t even know where to start dealing with it.
It’s so uselessly broad. I literally said at the start that authority isn’t just any inqeuality, and you didn’t address it. You should have if you thought that was wrong, because that’s literally the definition of the thing that we’re talking about.
I would like to see you justify this incrsdibly broad definition. If you want to see my justification for my definition, I would invite you to look it up in any dictionary.
I literally said at the start that authority isn’t just any inqeuality, and you didn’t address it.
First of all that condition is as arbitrary as any other and you have no more authority to impose it than I do imposing mine. Secondly, I did address it: I limited the term authority specifically to social relations. Between people. Engels doesn’t.
I would like to see you justify this incrsdibly broad definition.
I already did:
If you find yourself having it and are keen on proper praxis then you take on the responsibility to lift the other up as you are capable to do. I think for that reason alone I think it’s important to recognise it as authority, so that we are careful when using it, which, in the end, is unavoidable.
In other words: It’s important to call bootmaker’s authority authority so that anarchists, bootmakers or apprentices or passers-by, are careful around that topic. Like a candle it’s not a thing that’s bad per se, but a thing which should not be left unattended. Eyes need to be on it.
It’s not about force or having authority to define something, this is about being able to have a real conversation, and you left the main term undefined except in your own mind, and then when I asked you for it you gave an absolutely wild definition that makes no sense and which I can’t find anybody else using, and yet you still called it “the” definition and not “your” definition.
If nothing else that means you’re not someone it’s worth trying to talk to, because you’re not even trying to communicate effectively. I don’t care if you have your reasons, they’re not good reasons but I feel like in the spirit of this conversation I just shouldn’t fucking bother to explain why, because based on precedent you’ll just insist I’m wrong for your own inscrutable reasons and carry on as you were, and if I try to wrest those reasons out of you they’ll be nonsensical. Also you’re not worth trying to convince because you’re not somebody anyone else will listen to for long before they realise you’re completely full of shit.
I need you to define the word “authority” in that case. I’ve given my definition, so what is yours and how does it differ, please? Because I already addressed the fact that an imbalance doesn’t create a hierarchy, and your description of imbalance does not fit my definition of authority.
Power imbalance doesn’t automatically create the conditions for domination. For that you would need both expertise and monopoly.
And the solution to a misunderstanding isn’t to concede the definition of the word “state” but to educate. The state is any entity that has a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in a region. That applies regardless of the system of government that rules it.
Your definition isn’t a definition, it’s just a collection of categories that gives no useful information.
We don’t need to be dominated in order to clean up our garbage. And the state is often really bad at collecting garbage, so just teach people that.
Authority is a power imbalance in a social relationship. It does not, in itself, imply domination or monopoly or expertise it happens each time two people are not on eye level regarding something, cannot, for whatever reason, relate to each other as complete equals. If you find yourself having it and are keen on proper praxis then you take on the responsibility to lift the other up as you are capable to do. I think for that reason alone I think it’s important to recognise it as authority, so that we are careful when using it, which, in the end, is unavoidable.
Garbage collection is a non-issue over here, it just works. Couple of neighbouring municipalities own the company and it’s run on an at-cost basis with decent wages. If, suddenly, an anarchist revolution were to happen I’m quite sure the general arrangement would carry over.
…and I took that as an example precisely because (over here) it just works, it’s a baby you wouldn’t want to throw out with the bathwater. I’m reasonably sure that wherever you’re living, you can think of such an example.
That definition of authority is so immediately, obviously wrong that I don’t even know where to start dealing with it.
It’s so uselessly broad. I literally said at the start that authority isn’t just any inqeuality, and you didn’t address it. You should have if you thought that was wrong, because that’s literally the definition of the thing that we’re talking about.
I would like to see you justify this incrsdibly broad definition. If you want to see my justification for my definition, I would invite you to look it up in any dictionary.
First of all that condition is as arbitrary as any other and you have no more authority to impose it than I do imposing mine. Secondly, I did address it: I limited the term authority specifically to social relations. Between people. Engels doesn’t.
I already did:
In other words: It’s important to call bootmaker’s authority authority so that anarchists, bootmakers or apprentices or passers-by, are careful around that topic. Like a candle it’s not a thing that’s bad per se, but a thing which should not be left unattended. Eyes need to be on it.
It’s not about force or having authority to define something, this is about being able to have a real conversation, and you left the main term undefined except in your own mind, and then when I asked you for it you gave an absolutely wild definition that makes no sense and which I can’t find anybody else using, and yet you still called it “the” definition and not “your” definition.
If nothing else that means you’re not someone it’s worth trying to talk to, because you’re not even trying to communicate effectively. I don’t care if you have your reasons, they’re not good reasons but I feel like in the spirit of this conversation I just shouldn’t fucking bother to explain why, because based on precedent you’ll just insist I’m wrong for your own inscrutable reasons and carry on as you were, and if I try to wrest those reasons out of you they’ll be nonsensical. Also you’re not worth trying to convince because you’re not somebody anyone else will listen to for long before they realise you’re completely full of shit.
Goodbye.