47
[Question]What radicalized you? (static.wikitide.net)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Honestly, I don't consider myself radical. I'm definitely frustrated with the world, but I'm not into tribalism -- I don't do -ist's & -ism's. I try to focus and talk about specific mechanisms, and my frustration largely derives from the world's refusal to address those real issues. The us-them tribalism is a self sabotaging distraction.

Like, here's something that will upset a lot of people: Cops and Anarchists have a lot of overlap. Neither are monolithic groups - both have bad actors that cause problems. Both have large portions who want to protect their communities. Both are willing to due so with violence. Both have a strange fixation on "bad-ass"-ery and skulls. Both have large groups of people they don't trust (the "feds" or the "criminals"), which as groups are kinda a social fictions (individuals are just individuals). Both justify their ideology by appealing to theory (legal theory or anarchist theory). Both think they're smarter than the other, but both have well read members and complete morons. Both have a tendency to ignore both the law and theory in favor of the practical.

I'm sure that's an upsetting comparison for some people, but I don't think it does us any good to fight about whether and to what extent it's true. It's far more productive to use that comparison to build bridges, make peace, and cooperate on specific mechanisms that will make the world a better place. For example police want legitimacy and a lot of anarchists don't think the current voting system gives legitimacy, both should thus want to move to ranked voting with lottery options, recall mechanisms, and randomized districting. Almost everyone wants free speech, but doesn't want money in politics. We should agree on taxing both political advertising and donations at insane rates and using those funds for publicly funded elections. Most people want the cheaper services that come from cheaper housing if not the cheaper housing itself, so it should be easy to make laws mandating a fraction of dirt cheap condos be made in proportion to new large houses -- that'd fix a big part of the the affordability crisis.

I don't really believe it's about who's in control because most the policies I just listed are things that could be implemented at the local level for essentially free and would dramatically improve the lives of people in that area, but I've not heard of anywhere even close to those policies. As far as I can tell most people will fight like cats and dogs for every scrap of power, but don't actually know what to do with it once they have it (even if they are well intentioned).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Neither are monolithic groups

    Cops are universally, by means of their position as enforcers of the bourgeois social order, monsters, hence why ACAB stands for "all cops are bastards". There literally is no good cop. They are an evil monolith. Obviously anarchists are against the bourgeois social order. Of course there are monsters who identify as anarchists, but these are people in conflict with the anarchist project. By contrast, monsters within the police are aligned with the intended monstrousness of their system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Enos Strate, monolith of evil.^/s^

    While systems and institutions have an extremely strong effect on society, projecting the perceived net-effect of an institution onto the intent of every individual participating in that institution is absurd, and your implied true version alignment isn't any better. Who get's to say what the true version or goal of institution is? Setting aside the net-effect questions from questionable evidence of what society would look like without some variation of these institutions, people are unique inherently multifaceted individuals. They have their own intentions that rarely aligns perfectly with the institutions they cooperate with. While I certainly understand taking issue with some or many specific actions cops are known to take, the idea that they're all constantly possessed by the specter of the policing institution is just silly. The idea that there is some more true evil version is laughable. Don't let the specter of your own ideology possess you and convince you of such nonsense - don't be an anarchist spook.

    I urge you to step back from tribalism and ideology and view people as individuals, even if you find their flaws glaring acknowledge they have their own deeply complex lives. You don't have to forgive their actions, but focus on what's useful. Rather than letting your self be possessed by ideology and fixating on the flaws and cracks of the ideologies that sometimes possess them, focus on what you have in common and how you can use that to build parallel communities, systems, and institutions that will make a better world. What's the point in generating conflict and driving people away? Will starting fights with cops help you make the world a better place? On a practical level, what good does it do to conjure opposing ideological specters? Surely it's better to work together where you can and steer clear where you can't?

    Perhaps there are instances where it's appropriate to demonize someone for a specific action they've taken, but do it consciously as targeted tactic to remove especially egregious and obvious threats, never as blanket ideology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    While systems and institutions have an extremely strong effect on society, projecting the perceived net-effect of an institution onto the intent of every individual participating in that institution is absurd, and your implied true version alignment isn't any better.

    I don't have to project anything onto anyone. Cops and their "unions" speak their intentions all the time, and it's always vile.

    I urge you to step back from tribalism and ideology and view people as individuals, even if you find their flaws glaring acknowledge they have their own deeply complex lives.

    I'm not being tribalist, e.g. I acknowledge the possibility that individual police officers can do decent things outside their police jobs, and even that police officers can change for the better (by quitting their jobs and working to undo the harm they've done). I'm being, openly and assertively, collectivist in my analysis of police. Policing is a collective institution. It's not just a bunch of shitty individuals running around being assholes (although it certainly includes a lot of that.) It's their net effect, their superadditivity in the space of "doing the legwork for the bourgeoisie", that makes collective analysis work here.

    What's the point in generating conflict and driving people away?

    Safety. Police are dangerous individuals and need to be deradicalized before being allowed in safe spaces.

    Will starting fights with cops help you make the world a better place?

    Yes unironically, we need to fight them like they are an occupying military, because that's what they are.

    On a practical level, what good does it do to conjure opposing ideological specters?

    It's not just ideological, as cops are mostly too ignorant to internalize a complete ideology. If by "ideological spectres" you mean "lines in the sand", then yeah I actually do think it sometimes helps to draw lines in the sand, in particular to separate ourselves from dangerous people, like police.

    Surely it's better to work together where you can and steer clear where you can't?

    We literally cannot work together with police on a single issue. We are diametrically opposed. And even if ideologically we found common ground (which we won't, but just for the sake of argument), police are dangerous to be around.

    Perhaps there are instances where it's appropriate to demonize someone for a specific action they've taken,

    For example, joining a policing organization

    but do it consciously as targeted tactic to remove especially egregious and obvious threats, never as blanket ideology.

    That's what we're doing, but you reject our perspective for some reason.

    Please, I beg you, read at least the first few chapters of Our Enemies in Blue by Kristian Williams when you get the chance. Policing is such a vile institution and I seriously doubt you would be writing like this if you understood its history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    Yeah, no, this is at best, a misrepresentation of both, the anarchists' beliefs, and the police's function.

    The idea of anarchy is that NO authority should exist. No legitimacy can ever justify power over your fellow humans' lives, nothing can EVER legitimize a politician's power to harm. And politicians, among other things, have undeniable power to harm.

    The function of police, in all real measurements, is to protect ownership. That's all they do.

    You said that there are many policemen who are in the force, in order to protect their communities. By all scientific measures, policing fails miserably in every single metric on that. They don't reduce or prevent crime at all. Their only function when not corrupt, is to move in after, and remove the freedom, and later ownership (capital) of the offending party. A process, proven to not reduce crime or protect people, and occasionally shown to aggravate it.

    I understand your "Both Sides" argument sounds appealing, and, on some level, in my soul, I deeply wish it was true. Many leftists do.

    But unfortunately, I think you don't really understand what either side is really standing for, yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Police and anarchist have different relationships with violence. Police centralize violence on behalf of rulers against workers. Anarchists decentralize violence on behalf of the community against rulers. I'm opposed to making bridges with rulers and those that do violence on their behalf.

    The aim of anarchy is no rulers. Without rulers the community guesses at six inches. The community discusses six inches while respecting individual autonomy. Somehow the topic of ice cream flavors is discussed. Consensus is built that vanilla is one of the flavors. Six inches is a matter that can wait for the next discussion.

    That may seem ridiculous, but it was fun to write. Anarchy is communal and individual. Humans work together in the absence of the threat of violence and a ruler dictating their lives.

    No rulers, but common units of measure are acceptable. Metric is base 10, like fingers, so that is neat. Imperial isn't base 10, unlike fingers, but six inches can still measure something. We can build cool things without getting whipped as long as we communicate details like unit of measure used along the way.

    Stop getting whipped by rulers and the police doing violence on their behalf even if they insist it is only six inches.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent