The freedom and authority

Article by Sameh Saeed Abbood

   The relationship between freedom and authority is similar to that between land and water: just like the water may cover the coast in the tide, and the coast could take over the water in the ebb: also is the relation between freedom and authority: if freedom is the self defining of actions with what it implies from the freedom of will in deciding this action or that, then the authority is the external definition for actions with what it implies from restricting the will of doing actions, to those who practice the authority.

     This authority that is separate from those it's practiced upon, is what's rejected and hated by Anarchists who fight for erasing it from all the social interactions among humans. And thus believes that all social relationships should be organized only according to the free will of people involved in it, and consequently this will establish borders to the freedom of each and every one of them: an authority, but a one that is not separated from them, for they were the ones who established or accepted these borders that limits their freedom when they took part in collective relationships voluntarily. And they still are free to get out and separate from this group if it contradicts with their " free will" at any time.

      Managing this collectivity depends on direct democracy, which means that any member has the right to discuss any matter concerning the group, and is free to make a decision about it. So every group sets its own rules, which regulates its activities and punishes those who do not obey the rules, which they either made or accepted with membership, and also to solve the disputes that might happen among members.

        In such a social organization, which is a result, of united free wills, authority merges with freedom, and unauthoritative doesn't mean chaos and absence of social organization, in every existing or even not yet existing society without any exceptions.

       When the person is born, a number of his future actions are predetermined by his genetics and hormones and lots of other factors, after this the separate social authority starts determining more of his actions not only by allowing or prohibiting and awarding or punishing but also by going to the extreme of forming all his social conscious by the hands of "the social taming institutions" which includes the family and all other social relationships, the school, religion, culture and so on...

     So conscious is socially formed, and thus the external social authority previously determines his freedom, so that even when he's deliberately choosing what to do, factors other than his biological components interfere like traditions, beliefs, knowledge and experiences, we think that we are free to choose among available alternatives, we think we, re free willed, while the truth is what determined our actions is a bundle of biological determinants, external social authorities we didn't take part in choosing or making.

      Anarchism aims at creating a society where individual freedom is maximized not only by its unification with authority, but also by diminishing the effects of social authorities on this freedom, which definity means the freedom to search for facts, for every person, phenomena, rule, though and institution could be doubted, critisized and over -ruld.this also implies bearing the responisbility of contradicting specially, and of defernding personal freedom genarally.

       Anarchism also aims at destroying the idea of some"so-called"people special ruling other; in what so every way except children and mentaly-unstable people of course, becouse freedom is highly connected to responisbility, for it means you could be honest or lying, trustwarthy or not, but you have to bear the consequences of being a liar: no one will beleive you, of being lazy: you, ll be expelled from the world of active people. Thus bearing the responisbility resulting from freedom would be strongest rule in dealing with other people. The human will wouldn't accept lying, treasion, laziness, violence and theift as bases for behavior among them, so the groub will face it without any need for authority either by punishment, treating or even by expelling from the society. For values are social necesities to keep the social bord. Whis no need for subduing authorities to keep it as authoritatives claim, while the truth is that these authorities originally are the reason behind vices and behind taming the conscience in a way of practising dispotism which forms laying, hypocracy, violence, cowarchness and an abuse which leads to theift, robbety and deceiving.

        Authority among people stands on materialistic basis, seperate from both the will and conseious of those who practice it. Tyrany is not a behavior volue that could be explained by well-behaving or bad- behaving, morals may only interfere in what the authority is used for. While the authority itself comes from controlling the sources of materialistic authority and monopolyizing it by the hands of those who practise the authority and depirive those whom the authority is practised upon. It's not difficult to understsnd or notice, the one who owns the food could make the one who's hungry to do what the first wants or else he won't give him the food, Also the one who's stronger whether physicaly or by owning weapons controls the weaker or that who don't own a weapon to defend himself, and the weaker will surrender to ensure his safety. For as long as you don't know the way, you'll follow the one who shouts "he knowes'. These are the materialistic roots of authority, and you can't establish social relationships without dectatorship, unless all those who are involved equal controlled thre three sources of power, for if one of them controlled something more than the others, his dispotism would be unavoidable. And though all these facts are clear, yet political powers keep saying that freedom, equality and prosperity are all acheivable without destroying the seperation between who controll sources of authority and those who don't.

      For the truth is that there's no freedom as long as there's private ownership for the means of production, and also there's no freedom with the government owning these means. There's no freedom as long as with there's institutions monopolyzing means of violence such as police and army, or monopolyzing means of knowledge, also there's no feedom with claiming owning or presintation any of the truth or belif or collective idintity ...etc, whether by individuals, institutions, or elites whether political, religious, cultural or social.

        And the most important subdueing authoritative authority is the state.this institution took many forms of practising authority all were rejected by anarchists, and thus the institution was rejected with it's range from dectatorship with many forms to democracy. For whatever the institution is, it contradicts with the real individual freedom, even the democratic, which is the best among them, and thus all these forms are different ways to practise political, social and economic subdueing, among those who're deprived from the sources of materialistic authority.

      And becouse the state represents abstract collective idintities, then those who rule it are real people from bureucratics and politicians, who try to protect the interests of those who own the resources, incase they're not the ones who own.

     Humans knew the stat when they were divided to social -classes according to their relation with the sources of materialistic authority; who owned or controlled or managed the sources created the state to defend their interests in the face of the deprived classes and to organize the process of using depressing them.

     When the means of violence and knowledge were the reason behind controlling the factors of production, practicisng. Authority was autocratic and dectatoric, as in bureacratic and feudal societies, where those who control means of violence: military people, or knowledge: priests, or truth and idoeology and supporters: politicians and burecratics. Thought when controlling the factors of production guranteed controling violence and knowledge, those who controlled these means practiced their authority in differend ways, from which democracy came in the first place to solve the competition between them away from using violence, conspiracy; and other things used between priests, politicians and military people to solve the previously mentioned competition.     

        And democracy has developed in capitalist societies, where those who owned factors of production, also domenated the means of violence and knowledge, and share the surplus in production among them. And those who took part in the democratic process increased by oppoving the right to vote for all the people in the 20th century after it was restricted only to capitalists, bureacratics, military people and priests; which was very similar to the development of bourgeoisie democracy in the 19 th century except for some differences.

       And the representative democracy which accompanied capitalism as a production type, is the most form of practicing authority to achieve high levels of individual rights and freedoms, and so it's the most dangerous type to effect the conscious of subdued masses because it given to them an illusional feeling of freedom which is not given to them by dictatorship which deprive them even from this formal right. And thus democracy has gained the form of the role model wanted by the majority, and proclaimed by almost all political elites, for no one anymore declares tyranny as his target, except extremest right-wing and authoritative left-wing who worship authority and state, and who became neglected in the political life of most of the countries under the ongoing circumstances, but this doesn't prevent the possibility that new social circumstances might bring them back to the centre of this life wheather from the left or the right.

      And though democracy might be under some circumstances a temporary target, but we must not forget the fact that it is only a freedom illusion, which has nothing to do with the real freedom fought for by anarchists, for analyzing it shows it's only a form of practising separate arrayant authority on the majority, even in its best models practising human rights and freedom, switzerland, which was one of the oldest citadels of anarchists in the19 th century.

       And bourgois democracy, which is based on the idea of representation, is a fake, which doesn't guarantee at all the represerntation of interests and needs of those being represented or claimed to be represented .The whole thing is that every few years, people vote to choose those who'll practise authority on them. This process is definitly misleading becouse elections is controlled by propaganda, mony, access, presure groups and interest groups, which make it all look like a hilarious play. For those who have mony, have propaganda means andthus have the right to write the end to this play in the way that most suits their interests, and repeating the show every few years.

     And even if we assumed more free circumstanc for the electoral process, how is the voter supposed to decide what will suit his interests, when he lacks for the necessary information to make a decision, And even if the information were available he'll lack for rhe time to study every aspect concerning his interests whether in a direct or in an indirect way - in a central state which manages a large, complicated society, whose population counts in millions. And haw is he supposed to determine the right policy for some certain ongoing circumstances in details. So actually, any voter who, ll finds himself in this deceitful subdueing impasse, he'll either take a nagative position towards the whole process, which is an action taken by an increasing proportion of the population in all the countries after the trick is uncoverd ;or let himself be the afected by the mob's propaganda, which makes use of the unenlightenment which is done on purpose by the ruling and owning elites, and in the end choose a representative to take the burdens and responsiblities of making his decisions instead of him ,as if the voter gave up mis freedom to this representative all through the time the later is remaining in power .so that the voter only praceses his freedom to choose a new representative every few years,supposing an accurate representation of the majority which is impossible.

  We mentioned that the social organization in the unauthoritative society, is based on the agreeing wills from those involved in it from the buttom to the tob.individuals form groups, groups from unions and so on which gurantees self -generation for all the human activities without centralization. And all the individuals equaly keep all the political authority in their hands inside the groups they formed, but they authorize from among them specialists to deal with aspects which needs the knowledge and experience of experts, or to negotiate the the unification with other groups or unions for wider interests and activities. And the people keep at all the time the right to monitor those commissioners and ask them and take back the authorization if they didn't do their jobs in the right way. And the authorities of the commissioner are not political, but organizing, technical and administrative; for the commissioners abide by the political will of those who commisioned them, also they shouldn't get any material or moral advantages for the job they do which is their obligation towards their groups.

        I propose for a more organized commissioning process and to protect it from the vices of the electoral process, that the authority is not given to the one who asks for it, so that every individual is a candidate and voter at the same time in matters that doesn't need experts while in matters needing experts all experts are candidates, and the one who gets the acceptance of the biggest number becomes the commissioner according to the unifed acceptance of wills.