you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 9 months ago* (14 children)

Yeah as soon as the word "force" comes into play, he's not an anarchist.

A lot of anarchy depends on the concept of equity. If someone in particular is against the equity of his peers, then that individual would likely be kicked out of the collective for violating that tenet.

More than likely, the racist/homophobic individual was never allowed to join the group. If that racist/homophobe was a child raised in the anarchist society and held these views as an adult, then the real question becomes why did that individual form those beliefs if they were intolerable to the group. Action needs to be taken there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    I don't think he ever said "force" explicitly, but he seemed to be in favor of bullying anyone who didn't agree with him, so what's the difference?

    Also, what would anarchists do if there's a whole group of racist homophobes? What if the racist homophobes outnumber the anarchist commune? How is ostracizing them going to address that?

    We don't need to imagine how a child raised in an anarchist society could grow up to be racist; we already live in a world where racists exist and there's no practical way of bringing about an abrupt halt in that generational pattern. Describing a society that has already been anarchic for generations is merely an abstraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (7 children)

    If the group of racist homophobic people outnumber us, how did we form our collective? They weren't anarchist to begin with. They aren't entitled to our resources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Because the world is more complex than simply one community forming an anarchist collective and then suddenly all groups of people are involved some harmonious syndicalism where everyone agrees on a basic set of standard social norms and ethical behavior.

    You might form an anarchist commune, and maybe a few miles away a remnant of the Hells Angels forms a white supremacist commune based on their own organizational structure. If they decide they want to attack and take your resources, you need a viable means of common defense. Which implies some form of social organization.

    If there's an overarching government, if it's well-designed and effective, with the correct goals and priorities, then it should at a bare minimum protect against basic things like violence, theft, extortion, racketeering, abduction, and human trafficking.

    And if your commune is powerful enough that it decides to be the one to enforce those norms, then it is a de facto government, no matter how decentralized you try to make it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    You can organize a response. The response does not need to remain organized after it's accomplished what it's purpose was.

    Also no institutions in existence prevent violence, theft, extortion, abduction or human trafficking. They can only respond to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    what if they just take the resources since they're stronger and greater in number?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Anarchists aren't pacifists.

    They would do what any collective would do against an invasion at that point. Shoot back. If they are greatly outnumbered, then, unfortunately that society collapses. Hopefully there are survivors who can spread the word amongst other collectives to improve the changes for the next one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    You don't think there should be some overarching institutions that protect against violence in order to prevent the biggest, strongest, meanest organizations with the most firepower from taking over and becoming the dominant force?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    No, though some aspects are shared.

    Liberalism has very different views in terms of economics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    that's true, I don't agree with liberal economics

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    To me, at least, you sound a lot more anarchist than you might realize.

    I recommend reading up on some - Dorothy Day, Lucy Parsons, Noam Chomsky, Robert Wolff.

    Remember it's a philosophy, not a method of government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 9 months ago*

    I have pondered anarchism, but I believe it will always descend into feudalism, totalitarianism, or the formation of a government by those who seek power. Anarchism will only be possible through an extreme apocalypse, it's impossible so long as those who remember how things were still exist.

    Ultimately I choose not to label myself as anything, it's all distractions. The only thing that truly matters to identify is class, everything else is pointless.

    I'll consider reading more of it, but for now I'm reading the Quran, then the hadiths, then the Satanic Verses.

  • source
  • parent