feddit.org

report

[ - ]

9 points

5 months ago

This is legit my biggest thing with anarchists. Rules without rulers, and such. Okay. So there’s someone violating the rules / laws / social contract / acceptable behavioral norms. What now?

report

Ranger@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM

[ - ]

6 points

5 months ago

Direct action.

report

AVincentInSpace@pawb.social

[ - ]

4 points

5 months ago

So every single person in the world should be a vigilante?

No way that can end poorly.

report

[ - ]

4 points

5 months ago

Not just that. But what if two anarchists disagree with each other? Who wins? The one who is willing to escalate the highest? My neighbor doesn’t like my native wildflowers, so we yell at each other until someone pulls a gun?

report

Transporter Room 3@startrek.website

[ - ]

7 points

5 months ago

If you’re both batshit insane, sure.

Of course normal people just have polite conversations.

report

[ - ]

4 points

5 months ago

Fortunately for us, everyone on earth has totally rational responses to all situations. And we all agree: we want things to be good, and not bad. And it’s very obvious what things are which!

The thing about the flowers is obviously trivial. There are other matters where a violent ‘direct action’ is obviously warranted.

There are a million things in the middle that are nuanced and difficult and entirely susceptible to ‘person who threatens the most escalation wins’ outcomes.

report

Ranger@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM

[ - ]

4 points

5 months ago

Maybe if people had to be responsible for the violence they outsource to cops maybe they’d think about it twice.

report

AVincentInSpace@pawb.social

[ - ]

2 points

5 months ago

You’re kidding me, right?

Suppose some jackass steals from you. If you don’t want to risk your life to get it back, you just shouldn’t get it back? What kind of libertarian bullshit is that? I thought anarchy was about collectivism, or at least pretended to be.

report

Ranger@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM

[ - ]

3 points

5 months ago

There’s a divers range of anarchist schools of thought & some of the oldest are forms of individualist anarchism, Max Stirner was contemporary with Marx. You should read his work it not only deals with formal hierarchies but also not being ruled by arbitrary concepts, he’s famous/infamous for using hagelian dielectics to deconstruct hagelian dielectics(I’m some what of a hagelian myself /meme).

I was using outsourced figuratively, I was trying to express that the vast majority of people are completely divorced from the violence committed on their behalf. An example is when someone calls the cops over something minor & the cops show up & immediately escalate until they kill someone.

Edit: You can have formal & informal systems in place to minimize/help prevent unnecessary violence under anarchism, they just need to avoid hierarchy.

report

tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

1 point

4 months ago

Obviously a society set up to force citizens to engage with power structures like police isn’t going to mesh will with anarchist ideas. A lot of anarchists just don’t do shit when they get victimized like that. The cops aren’t going to find your stuff and if they do they aren’t going to give it back. You suck it up, accept the loss, and ask your community for mutual aid.

But what if society wasn’t like that? What if we created other avenues for empowerment besides go to the cops or deal with it? What if there was a justice system based on restorative justice and rehabilitation instead of violence and oppression? It turns out that most people are only stealing things because they can’t meet their needs any other way, and most people actually don’t want to just randomly hurt others if they have adequate food, shelter, services, and community. Build a society based on helping people up instead of beating them down, and appealing to your community for help no longer necessitates violence.

report

Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

2 points

5 months ago

Is this a genuine question?

report

[ - ]

5 points

5 months ago

Yes, genuine question. I don’t understand how the system doesn’t devolve into constant, chaotic vigilante justice.

report

Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

5 points

5 months ago

Okidoke, thanks for answering.

Well first of all, we have to look at why people do things. Once we figure that out we can figure out how to prevent such things from happening.

Secondly, since rules were mentioned: What are the rules? Who do they serve? How did they come about? etc. These things must be looked at in any system that is attempting to create and maintain civility and cooperation.

With these two things in place processes can start being created in order to both constantly update our understandings of things and to ensure that such behaviours that you mention are either unnecessary or can be rectified (with things such as restorative and transformative justice etc) instead of devolving into “constant, chaotic vigilante justice”.

Such a system requires a lot of work to impliment, a lot of educating everyone on the best practises for dealing with problems should they arise, a lot of instilling values, a lot of looking at said values and seeing if they fit with the wanted goals any more etc.

This is not a simple or easy path to tread, it’ll take a lot of time to get there and there will be I am sure a lot of struggles along the way, including the vigilante justice you mention to some degree, however, problems do not mean failure, only when we stop trying is it a failure.

Basically it requires slow yet constant work on ourselves, unlearning all the harmful practices of this world and the way it is now, and a desire to do better instead, to help instead of hurt.

Does that help? Feel free to discuss it more with us if you’d like.

report

[ - ]

5 points

5 months ago

That genuinely does help. It sounds like the implementation of anarchism is a transformation of peoples’ attitudes and values. In a world full of people who think and behave that way, anarchism is the natural state of being.

My gut reaction is “well people tend to be just the pits, so that’ll never happen.” But I guess the argument is sort of like the argument for changing the way we do things to combat climate change. Some people think climate change is fake, but even if it is, we’ll end up with clean water and cheaper electricity in the end anyway. Similarly, just because we might not reach a state of anarchism in the next year, or ten, or fifty doesn’t mean the social transformation isn’t worth starting now. There are short term benefits that don’t yet involve a stateless society.

It does feel like a certain fraction of the population is always going to be, I guess, shitheads. I think unpleasant things are going to be necessary to weed those folks out. But even well-intentioned people, when forced to do unpleasant things, tend to be transformed by that process in a pretty negative way. And whoops, now we’ve got idealists who are good at wielding violent force, and those people tend to build followings.

report

Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone

[ - ]

5 points

5 months ago

We are glad to have helped! Yeah, exactly, we aren’t there yet, but doesn’t mean we shouldn’t head towards it.

Hmm, do you know why it feels that way for you? Also, even if there were ‘shitheads’ why is the only way to deal with them to do unpleasant things?

report