I don’t think that justice works that way in an Anarchist System. It would rather work in a transformativ way. So it is looked how the damage is reduced for everyone while at the same time the victim as well as the abuser get protected so no lynching. I have heard that the trials of the Zapatista (“only” libertarian socialist) is espacally fair and therefore also used by outsiders.
Wouldn’t that be amazing, instead of some judge sending you away for 30 years for having some weed you could be freed by commonsense people rather than corrupt judges.
Right, so no different from our current system except that our peers are going to be a much broader representation of society rather than a millionaire law school attending judge, who’s pals with the cops and probably a member of some right wing group or ideology.
I’ll take my chances with the people over the injustice system.
You’d think so, but Punks can invite good people because they can accept good people, and stomp fascist, rapist, racist, etc roaches without needing a grand inquisition to figure out “is it bad”.
Most pass. But true, lots of roaches who think Trump is a golden god, or Joe is made of diamond, or priests aren’t pedophiles, or cops aren’t pedo fascists, etc. All them get stomped in the hypothetical.
Even if you’re right, wouldn’t that mean OP is wrong? It sounds like you’re extolling the virtues of something like “performative cruelty” as a way to regulate society. The mattress seems to be saying do kindness instead of that, not that kindness is only made possible by it.
I used to be very into punk and anarchy but then felt like there truly isn’t a way that anarchy is enacted in a reasonable way. It just takes one bad actor to ruin most of anarchy.
Have you read “Anarchy Works” by Peter Gelderloos? I used to have some of the same concerns, but it’s surprising how much of the “evil” we see in humankind is exacerbated by the state and hierarchies. Also, anarchy doesn’t rely on the goodness of others, only the idea that being social is in our own best interests, even selfishly. There are also non-hierarchical ways anarchist communities can deal with destructive behavior, such as diffuse sanctions. Anarchy doesn’t mean we just let other people cause harm, and it seems to me that anarchy has much better answers than “send more police with guns.”
Yes, but a lot of Anarchy Works side steps the questions like “How do you deal with people who are racist and want to straight up kill other people for being different.” and "How do you deal with people who think they are enacting good but other people believe that they are enacting evil. It goes into “meeting in the streets” which we’ve seen multiple times when that’s happened in modern American, including CHAZ, end in death or rioting. It’s not that people are inherently evil, it’s that they have vastly different beliefs in America. Also, it mentions Nubians which is an ethnic group that’s historically been oppressed. If you go back to when they were their own civilization in about 750 BC, they still had a hierarchy. Overall their example falls flat and doesn’t consider modern age conflict which isn’t driven by logic. Not to mention they end up relying on democratic voting to solve conflict which sounds to me like they’ve just gone to direct democracy with fewer steps.
Race is based on a caste system/hierarchy that was conceived by the state. Sure, it’s deeply rooted at this point, but it could certainly be dispensed with, along with things like capitalism and the state.
Can you give an example of someone thinking they’re doing something good but it’s actually “evil”? I can’t think of one.
You can’t believe you can just “get rid of racism.” This is exactly why I got out of punk anarchy. All the major problems are glossed over. “Ahh we’ll just solve that!” no, you won’t. Welcome to the real world where that sort of thing would essentially require killing a lot of people.
Trumpers, the GOP, the extreme religious. If you really REALLY can’t think of one case where people think they are doing good but they are actually fairly evil then you don’t have much world experience.
Lastly, again, a major thing that happens with humans is grouping (it’s why racism happens.) in which humans group other humans together. So what also happens is that humans will band behind a single representative. Like a tribe. Anarchy would essentially just go back to small pockets of democracies, republics, and tribal governments. True anarchy would not exist for long and even the examples given in Anarchy Works were thousands of years ago and lasted very little time compared to the current governments.
You can’t believe you can just “get rid of racism.”
Nor can you “just get rid of capitalism,” nor can you “just get rid of misogyny,” nor can you “just get rid of religion.” No one is saying that you can, but anarchists seek a path out of these hierarchies. No one is saying it will happen overnight, certainly not on a large scale.
This is exactly why I got out of punk anarchy.
Ahh, so you’re against “punk anarchy” which you perceive as having only a superficial understanding of what anarchy even is. I guess I’ve seen this trend. I’ve seen people who are conservative libertarians who fancy themselves anarchist because they’re “fighting the system” by merely offending people, which ironically flies in the face of the very basic tenets of anarchy. In fact, such people are reinforcing hierarchies and the state rather than opposing them.
I’ve also seen anarchists in the punk movement who are very much informed and take this seriously, which you can tell by their lyrics.
I want to be careful though, because some of these people may be baby anarchists who are just learning what anarchy is. It’s so vastly different from our current systems that it takes a while to sink in.
Trumpers, the GOP, the extreme religious.
They don’t think they’re doing good. They just say they are. The cruelty is the point, and their cruelty is rooted in and exacerbated by hierarchies like race and religion.
Lastly, again, a major thing that happens with humans is grouping (it’s why racism happens.) in which humans group other humans together. So what also happens is that humans will band behind a single representative. Like a tribe.
Nope, I don’t think this holds up to scrutiny at all. Humans grouped together because it was fucking hard to migrate. “Racism is natural human behavior” is some white nationalist shit, and something I quite honestly did not expect from this conversation.
Like a tribe. Anarchy would essentially just go back to small pockets of democracies, republics, and tribal governments.
Depends on what you mean by “like a tribe,” but yes, perhaps “like some tribes” would be more accurate. Certainly [not anything]* one would consider government or a state.
True anarchy would not exist for long and even the examples given in Anarchy Works were thousands of years ago and lasted very little time compared to the current governments.
Methinks you need to re-read the book. Some of the examples were from thousands of years ago, many still exist and thrive. The book does touch on the fact that many anarchist movements are ultimately crushed by the state, and that we truly need to seek anarchy on a worldwide scale. (“Ohno, but that’s not going to happen immediately, so why even try?” – I can hear you typing already!)
*realized I missed some crucial words so went back and added them
They’ve deceived you. I live in a strongly red state, and these people have confided in me their deepest thoughts, thinking I’m one of them. They by no means think they are doing good. You’ve been had.
They don’t think they’re doing good. They just say they are. The cruelty is the point, and their cruelty is rooted in and exacerbated by hierarchies like race and religion.
Many people think they are doing good when they are not. Assuming a whole group’s intention like that is awfully easy. Makes it simple to push them away and outcast them as bad actors. Lots of them are hateful, bad actors. Doesn’t that just mean they need therapy though? I don’t believe any human is beyond repair. Everyone can be better.
Humans grouped together because it was fucking hard to migrate. “Racism is natural human behavior” is some white nationalist shit
I’m not saying it’s okay behavior but every creature is naturally afraid of differences. Many human rights systems will be quick to point this out. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/why-are-people-racist is a great example. This doesn’t stop at just racism. People who are different have been cast aside by society throughout history. It’s a known and disturbing fact. Communal animals are even known to do this. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6168562/ They did a whole documentary on it. It is okay to acknowledge this and understand it’s a natural bias. Everyone has a natural bias toward their own race, sex, etc when it comes to respect. It’s about understanding that, realizing that’s wrong, and how systemic racism exists today.
Certainly [not anything]* one would consider government or a state.
I don’t understand this point. A small tribal government is a governmental state. Could you explain why you wouldn’t consider a structured agreement on how to govern a group of people isn’t a government?
Some of the examples were from thousands of years ago, many still exist and thrive.
Lastly, anarchy doesn’t take into account so many things. It just washes over huge problems like racism, helping the less fortunate, retired folk, etc. Even in the “What is anarchism” section it just spouts a bunch of propaganda without actual answers to enacting these things. When you start to enact these things you’ll see you need some sort of government body and some sort of decision making. It especially throws out world-scale politics, which are extremely useful for when say a large oppressive government needs to be fought against. Any hypothetical question of like “What happens when there is a large-scale disease and people need to stay indoors for the health of the community but others don’t believe it’s a real disease?” How do you enforce people not being assholes and coughing or spitting in people’s faces? How do you deal with the bad actors? In the anarchy works section about gangs and bullies it states “However, no bully is stronger than an entire community.” but I pose, what if it is? What if the bully is larger than any one community? What if those groups of bad actors are larger than the group of good actors? In anarchy, the solution seems to be “Well the good is actually the bully now. you are in the bully community and you need to move.”
The concepts of Communism were unfortunately used as a device for many authoritarians to take control of state apparatus. But that doesn’t mean it MUST fail universally.
If you look into the Anarchist revolution during the Spanish Civil War, you’ll find a true, successful attempt at a non-authoritarian socialist society, it’s a jewel of history, showcasing that humans really can work together and form a fair society.
Unfortunately, it was not allowed to flourish, eventually being destroyed by fascists backed by Hitler. However, their failure was not inevitable, just a lack of luck and bad timing. If they had the industrial means to create enough heavy weaponry, and if Hitler hadn’t been in power to help their enemy with the might of Germany’s industry, the Anarchists would’ve secured themselves a true nation state, and would likely have not fallen into an authoritarian hellscape that the Soviet revolution turned into.
I think communism takes more than just one bad actor depending on the implementation. Anarchy is a very emotional based government since you leave things up to how people feel they should be. Everyone has a different definition of that and some bigger things don’t work without buy in of the entire community you are governing. Like gun control would never work well with anarchy.
Took a long time for me to realize this.
Punk wants anarchy.
Anarchy is only mad max if the people are pieces of shit.
Anarchy is utopia if the people are good.
This is why an anarchist will boot stomp a rapist or a fascist EVERY TIME.
Don’t be a piece of shit and dont sell your soul to The Party, we don’t end up with the federal government enabling genocide.
We get loud music, and stomp the roaches. And that’s all.
That sounds cool af but like damn, could you imagine having trial by public opinion???
_ just taking anarchist self regulation of acceptable behavior to the extreme for fun_
I don’t think that justice works that way in an Anarchist System. It would rather work in a transformativ way. So it is looked how the damage is reduced for everyone while at the same time the victim as well as the abuser get protected so no lynching. I have heard that the trials of the Zapatista (“only” libertarian socialist) is espacally fair and therefore also used by outsiders.
Not sure about the second part but yup, your first part is trial by jury without jury duty itself hanging over your head.
Wouldn’t that be amazing, instead of some judge sending you away for 30 years for having some weed you could be freed by commonsense people rather than corrupt judges.
It’s one of those double edged swords though. You could also be lynched for that same weed by a different group.
Right, so no different from our current system except that our peers are going to be a much broader representation of society rather than a millionaire law school attending judge, who’s pals with the cops and probably a member of some right wing group or ideology.
I’ll take my chances with the people over the injustice system.
Yeah I don’t disagree. Good luck, pal!
Removed by mod
Lmao what
This is a good lesson for me. Thank you.
A self appointed group both deciding how others should behave and enacting consequences for that absent of due process?
We have a word for that you know.
This seems like the opposite sentiment as the OP image
You’d think so, but Punks can invite good people because they can accept good people, and stomp fascist, rapist, racist, etc roaches without needing a grand inquisition to figure out “is it bad”.
Most pass. But true, lots of roaches who think Trump is a golden god, or Joe is made of diamond, or priests aren’t pedophiles, or cops aren’t pedo fascists, etc. All them get stomped in the hypothetical.
Even if you’re right, wouldn’t that mean OP is wrong? It sounds like you’re extolling the virtues of something like “performative cruelty” as a way to regulate society. The mattress seems to be saying do kindness instead of that, not that kindness is only made possible by it.
Removed by mod
ok will do
I used to be very into punk and anarchy but then felt like there truly isn’t a way that anarchy is enacted in a reasonable way. It just takes one bad actor to ruin most of anarchy.
Have you read “Anarchy Works” by Peter Gelderloos? I used to have some of the same concerns, but it’s surprising how much of the “evil” we see in humankind is exacerbated by the state and hierarchies. Also, anarchy doesn’t rely on the goodness of others, only the idea that being social is in our own best interests, even selfishly. There are also non-hierarchical ways anarchist communities can deal with destructive behavior, such as diffuse sanctions. Anarchy doesn’t mean we just let other people cause harm, and it seems to me that anarchy has much better answers than “send more police with guns.”
Yes, but a lot of Anarchy Works side steps the questions like “How do you deal with people who are racist and want to straight up kill other people for being different.” and "How do you deal with people who think they are enacting good but other people believe that they are enacting evil. It goes into “meeting in the streets” which we’ve seen multiple times when that’s happened in modern American, including CHAZ, end in death or rioting. It’s not that people are inherently evil, it’s that they have vastly different beliefs in America. Also, it mentions Nubians which is an ethnic group that’s historically been oppressed. If you go back to when they were their own civilization in about 750 BC, they still had a hierarchy. Overall their example falls flat and doesn’t consider modern age conflict which isn’t driven by logic. Not to mention they end up relying on democratic voting to solve conflict which sounds to me like they’ve just gone to direct democracy with fewer steps.
Race is based on a caste system/hierarchy that was conceived by the state. Sure, it’s deeply rooted at this point, but it could certainly be dispensed with, along with things like capitalism and the state.
Can you give an example of someone thinking they’re doing something good but it’s actually “evil”? I can’t think of one.
You can’t believe you can just “get rid of racism.” This is exactly why I got out of punk anarchy. All the major problems are glossed over. “Ahh we’ll just solve that!” no, you won’t. Welcome to the real world where that sort of thing would essentially require killing a lot of people.
Trumpers, the GOP, the extreme religious. If you really REALLY can’t think of one case where people think they are doing good but they are actually fairly evil then you don’t have much world experience.
Lastly, again, a major thing that happens with humans is grouping (it’s why racism happens.) in which humans group other humans together. So what also happens is that humans will band behind a single representative. Like a tribe. Anarchy would essentially just go back to small pockets of democracies, republics, and tribal governments. True anarchy would not exist for long and even the examples given in Anarchy Works were thousands of years ago and lasted very little time compared to the current governments.
Nor can you “just get rid of capitalism,” nor can you “just get rid of misogyny,” nor can you “just get rid of religion.” No one is saying that you can, but anarchists seek a path out of these hierarchies. No one is saying it will happen overnight, certainly not on a large scale.
Ahh, so you’re against “punk anarchy” which you perceive as having only a superficial understanding of what anarchy even is. I guess I’ve seen this trend. I’ve seen people who are conservative libertarians who fancy themselves anarchist because they’re “fighting the system” by merely offending people, which ironically flies in the face of the very basic tenets of anarchy. In fact, such people are reinforcing hierarchies and the state rather than opposing them.
I’ve also seen anarchists in the punk movement who are very much informed and take this seriously, which you can tell by their lyrics.
I want to be careful though, because some of these people may be baby anarchists who are just learning what anarchy is. It’s so vastly different from our current systems that it takes a while to sink in.
They don’t think they’re doing good. They just say they are. The cruelty is the point, and their cruelty is rooted in and exacerbated by hierarchies like race and religion.
Nope, I don’t think this holds up to scrutiny at all. Humans grouped together because it was fucking hard to migrate. “Racism is natural human behavior” is some white nationalist shit, and something I quite honestly did not expect from this conversation.
Depends on what you mean by “like a tribe,” but yes, perhaps “like some tribes” would be more accurate. Certainly [not anything]* one would consider government or a state.
Methinks you need to re-read the book. Some of the examples were from thousands of years ago, many still exist and thrive. The book does touch on the fact that many anarchist movements are ultimately crushed by the state, and that we truly need to seek anarchy on a worldwide scale. (“Ohno, but that’s not going to happen immediately, so why even try?” – I can hear you typing already!)
*realized I missed some crucial words so went back and added them
deleted by creator
They’ve deceived you. I live in a strongly red state, and these people have confided in me their deepest thoughts, thinking I’m one of them. They by no means think they are doing good. You’ve been had.
Many people think they are doing good when they are not. Assuming a whole group’s intention like that is awfully easy. Makes it simple to push them away and outcast them as bad actors. Lots of them are hateful, bad actors. Doesn’t that just mean they need therapy though? I don’t believe any human is beyond repair. Everyone can be better.
I’m not saying it’s okay behavior but every creature is naturally afraid of differences. Many human rights systems will be quick to point this out. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/why-are-people-racist is a great example. This doesn’t stop at just racism. People who are different have been cast aside by society throughout history. It’s a known and disturbing fact. Communal animals are even known to do this. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6168562/ They did a whole documentary on it. It is okay to acknowledge this and understand it’s a natural bias. Everyone has a natural bias toward their own race, sex, etc when it comes to respect. It’s about understanding that, realizing that’s wrong, and how systemic racism exists today.
I don’t understand this point. A small tribal government is a governmental state. Could you explain why you wouldn’t consider a structured agreement on how to govern a group of people isn’t a government?
I’m having a hard time seeing this. I’ve been reading it from https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works I’ve yet to find one example which actively exists.
Lastly, anarchy doesn’t take into account so many things. It just washes over huge problems like racism, helping the less fortunate, retired folk, etc. Even in the “What is anarchism” section it just spouts a bunch of propaganda without actual answers to enacting these things. When you start to enact these things you’ll see you need some sort of government body and some sort of decision making. It especially throws out world-scale politics, which are extremely useful for when say a large oppressive government needs to be fought against. Any hypothetical question of like “What happens when there is a large-scale disease and people need to stay indoors for the health of the community but others don’t believe it’s a real disease?” How do you enforce people not being assholes and coughing or spitting in people’s faces? How do you deal with the bad actors? In the anarchy works section about gangs and bullies it states “However, no bully is stronger than an entire community.” but I pose, what if it is? What if the bully is larger than any one community? What if those groups of bad actors are larger than the group of good actors? In anarchy, the solution seems to be “Well the good is actually the bully now. you are in the bully community and you need to move.”
I don’t engage with people who believe racism is natural behavior. I’ve zero respect for you. Shoo, fly!
So you rather have all the bad actors in power like now? Anarchy is the only method to prevent that, it’s not perfect but at least we try.
Same story with communism.
It’s a sad story, mankind can’t be saved.
The concepts of Communism were unfortunately used as a device for many authoritarians to take control of state apparatus. But that doesn’t mean it MUST fail universally.
If you look into the Anarchist revolution during the Spanish Civil War, you’ll find a true, successful attempt at a non-authoritarian socialist society, it’s a jewel of history, showcasing that humans really can work together and form a fair society.
Unfortunately, it was not allowed to flourish, eventually being destroyed by fascists backed by Hitler. However, their failure was not inevitable, just a lack of luck and bad timing. If they had the industrial means to create enough heavy weaponry, and if Hitler hadn’t been in power to help their enemy with the might of Germany’s industry, the Anarchists would’ve secured themselves a true nation state, and would likely have not fallen into an authoritarian hellscape that the Soviet revolution turned into.
I think communism takes more than just one bad actor depending on the implementation. Anarchy is a very emotional based government since you leave things up to how people feel they should be. Everyone has a different definition of that and some bigger things don’t work without buy in of the entire community you are governing. Like gun control would never work well with anarchy.