cacheson 🏴🔁🍊
Unfortunately the new mod rule that was announced 2 hours ago precludes me from continuing discussion of basic notions of anarchy,
According to the modlog you weren’t banned for this comment, so I assume we’re fine to continue our discussion. Probably avoid making these kinds of comments on future posts here though, at least until you’ve learned more.
as you need to understand anarchy to participate, and i clearly don’t.
But you’re also still raising objections here, while admitting a lack of understanding. The tendency to conflate “I don’t understand it” with “it couldn’t possibly work” isn’t good for anyone. If nothing else, at least educate yourself in order to become a better skeptic.
The problem with that hypothetical version of anarchism is the same problem that exists with communism. Human nature is not that good.
Why is this an objection to anarchy, rather than an objection to trusting humans with the power to rule over others?
I’m saying human nature without sufficiently dissuading devices leads to loss of values.
Anarchy does not lack “dissuading devices”. See this comment, where I outline how an anarchist society would handle an instance of vigilantism.
For example, a thief steals a loaf of bread and the owner of the store can gather a mob to lynch a thief. Anarchy has the great potential to administer unproportional justice.
You shouldn’t come into an anarchist community and start answering questions about anarchism when you clearly haven’t done your homework.
But hey, since OP is interested in how anarchy would work, let’s go over how such a society would respond to the scenario that you’ve painted. Vigilante justice is never impossible in any society, but that doesn’t mean it would be tolerated. The requirement to have disputes arbitrated by a neutral third party is pretty universal. What differentiates anarchy is that arbiters are freely chosen by (possibly delegated) mutual agreement, instead of the state forcibly inserting itself into every dispute as the supreme arbiter.
Let’s say the thief was a member of a commune. Since the thief is dead, their dispute with the baker and the lynch mob can be claimed by their next of kin, or closest equivalent. Either way, we’ll say that the dispute gets delegated to the commune as a whole, which collectively handles security and dispute resolution for its members.
The baker has a contract with a company (probably organized as a workers cooperative) that offers security and dispute resolution services. For simplicity, let’s say that the members of the lynch mob also use this company’s services.
The commune and the company might have different sets of rules that their members agree to, but it’s reasonable to assume that they both recognize:
- The thief should not have stolen the bread, as it was a product of the baker’s labor and was not being offered for free. While the commune functions primarily via gift economy, they defer to local norms in these situations.
- The baker would be entitled to restitution for both the stolen bread and the costs necessary to secure that restitution
- Killing the thief to stop them from stealing in the moment would have been a wildly disproportionate response
- This was not merely done as an act of immediate defense, but an act of retribution
- The baker made no attempt to resolve this dispute through a neutral third party
- The members of the lynch mob all acted as accomplices to the murder
From there it’s just a matter of negotiating what restitution is owed to whom. Perhaps the commune and the company can’t come to an agreement on what exactly is owed, so they agree to defer to a neutral arbiter of their own. They may both be members of a local federation of dispute resolution bodies, which would simplify handling this.
I could start one on piefed.social, probably later this week. Or would you want it on your instance, to keep it grouped with the flippanarchy and anarchism communities? Alternatively, we could just let 101-level questions go to the anarchism community for now, as seems to be currently happening.
Mlack bloc. Fauce maise.
Text in AIgen art is wild. xD
Do we have an equivalent of r/anarchy101 to direct folks towards before giving them the boot?
Or is there a “proper” subreddit for these kind of discussions that I don’t know about?
I haven’t vetted these beyond a quick look, but anything using the term “men’s liberation” is likely to be better than “men’s rights”:
- !mensliberation@lemmy.ca
- https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/mensliberation/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/
The “men’s rights movement” is just a bunch of reactionary grifters exploiting male discontent and weaponizing it against the usual scapegoats. They don’t give a shit about you.
Men’s liberation on the other hand is the counterpart to women’s liberation/feminism. Both are in favor of gender equality, though feminism tends to focus on women’s issues, so men’s lib focuses on men’s issues.
Nah, some subs have their automod set up to check what other subs you post/comment on, and possibly ban you depending on what comes up. It’s a heuristic for filtering out toxic users. I wasn’t aware until OP’s post that they also provide an automated way to undo the ban if you delete the offending posts/comments.
So there’s a video by CGP Grey that I tend to recommend to people a lot, The Rules for Rulers.
In the framework he presents for democracy, business interests (capitalists) are named as one of the keys to power that politicians need. However, one could argue that it’s actually the (mostly cohesive) capitalist class at the top of the pyramid. The individual politicians would be their keys to power, which the capitalists distribute treasure to in order to keep them loyal (and in office).
Or maybe the reality of the situation is that it’s something that falls between the two views, without neatly fitting into either of them. All models are wrong, but some models are useful, as the saying goes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In a shift from democracy to fascism (Coming Soon™), the capitalists do (mostly willingly) become subordinated to the strong man, so that would fit with your conception of the situation.
Agreed. Anarchists often find US liberals incredibly frustrating to deal with, for some good reasons. A lot of that comes from them being one side of the status-quo ideology, in that both US liberals and US conservatives are descended from classical liberals. They’ve tended to resist scrutinizing most of their received wisdom because they largely haven’t needed to.
However, they’re currently more likely to be receptive to our ideas than they’ve ever been before. Some will end up being “go along to get along” Good Germans. Many others, possibly even a majority are somewhere between nervous and terrified about the future right now, and would welcome new ideas on how to deal with the situation.
They may not be ready to fully switch ideologies, but that’s something that depends on a more gradual background process. If we can refrain from anarcho-purism and meet people where they are, we can make a lot of progress and put ourselves in a much better position to survive and resist.
From reading the message, the way they have it set up actually seems fairly reasonable, considering the scale of what they have to deal with. It’s basically just saying “you can’t participate both there and here, so pick one”.
If you desperately want to participate in both, you can make an alt account. Most people won’t bother with that and will just pick one or the other, which cuts out a significant chunk of toxic users.
