you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

Family is an institution. Community is an institution. Punishment is an institution. Therefore the act of shaming and excluding someone in isolation from the community as punishment for wrong doings is an institution. I guess we have different definitions of authoritarianism, that the edicts of punishments in aboriginal Australia & Nigeria fit your definition of authoritarianism.

Also why did you bold ADR?

so like a third party doing this, instead of the folks affected by the wrong doing?

re institutions

A prison (no matter how rehabilitative or how well managed with democratic oversight) is still an institution that perpetuates authority (of the guards over the inmates for example), and quite obviously coercion.

Then aboriginals still coerce punishments in isolation and shaming as imprisonment.

contradiction of trying to formulate an institution that enacts coercion in a supposedly anarchistic system?

I think this is paradox you can't seem to realize. At what point is wrong doing rehabilitation and reparations coercion, and when is not? The paradox here is how much solidarity and intersection you trying uphold. Unless you think wrong doings shouldn't be coerced at all.

No coercion needed when the community just refuses to engage with the person until they right their wrongs.

What if the wrong doing was coercions in itself: Like rape, murder, subjugation. How do ostracize and exile a rapist, murderer, and subjugator to cease these coercions on the community?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Coercion != institutional coercion. Spontaneous self defense is an obvious example of coercion that isn't institutional, as in an established practice. If someone punches you in the face, you don't stop to think about what the established customs and practices dictate should be done, no, you punch back. A community kicking someone out because they can't behave, while it would probably end up becoming established practice in time, is not established in that sense before it has become a habit for the community. Humans form institutions all the time, that is unavoidable because problems will pop up that require solutions, and then applying those solutions will become habitual because that's more efficient than thinking every problem over from first principles. That's why anarchism is a never ending struggle with no end and the anarchists within that society would have to start raging against the exile-machine when it starts to exile people who shouldn't be exiled (like maybe people who disapprove of that institution). But setting out to build organized institutions of coercion even before a problem arises that would require a coercive solution that would afterwards become established practice, is backwards. The people who build this hypothetical society should cross that bridge when they get there and hopefully enough of them will realize to constantly keep a sceptical eye on any of those practices so that they don't become too established so as to cause unnecessary harm by sheer inertia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment