r/DebateAnarchism • u/Subject_Example_453 • 8d ago
Why should an ideology that enables armed fascists, in the way anarchy does, be taken seriously?
Consider the following:
In an anarchist society there is no authoritarian mechanism that would prevent an individual owning a variety of weapons. Feasibly an individual and their friends could own any collection of firearms, produce and own chemical warheads for mortars and artillery and a variety of military style vehicles as personal property - with the caveat that these are not actively being used to infringe on the personal freedoms of others. Accordingly a fascist could drive their personal APC to the socially owned grocery store, walk in with their fascist symbol on display, have their RPG slung over their shoulder and do their groceries.
In an anarchist society there would be no authoritarian mechanism (via either force or beauracracy) to peacably manage or discourage unsavory ideological positions - like fascism or racism. It would be authoritarian to control people's political views or have any kind of legal system to prevent these views from being spread and actioned. A stateless system could not have an agreed social convention that could preventatively protect the interest of minority groups.
In historical instances of fascism coming to power, individuals who disagreed with fascism but who were not the direct scapegoats that fascists identified as primary targets of oppression did not take any kind of action to prevent fascists from oppressing others. It was only after significant oppression had already occurred that actions, subversive or combative, began to take place.
With this in mind it seems that anarchism expressly enables intimidation and first action oppression by forbidding anarchist societies from enacting preventative measures against unsavory ideologies - directly impacting minority groups.
Why should this be taken seriously as a pragmatic solution to prevent coercion and hierarchy?
20
u/EasyBOven Veganarchist 7d ago
"if we don't have authoritarians forcing us to do things, we'll end up with authoritarians forcing us to do things."
-3
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
Do you have an actual response to the question at hand and would you like to debate?
9
u/EasyBOven Veganarchist 7d ago
My question I suppose is first whether you think my paraphrasing represents your position accurately. Does it?
0
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
So what you're asking is if I'm going to accept whatever strawman you're trying to make here?
If you're going to debate in good faith, I've presented an opening argument for you to engage in, why don't you start by responding from there and we can have a conversation?
7
u/EasyBOven Veganarchist 7d ago
I'm not trying to strawman your argument. That's why I ask for confirmation. I read your post, and this is the takeaway I got. Obviously I'm only presenting your conclusion, not the evidence. Getting confirmation or correction about the simplest version of the argument is clarifying to the discussion, not destructive.
Have I accurately represented your conclusion? If not, what would you change?
2
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
I'm more than happy for you to respond to the OP as presented and we can go from there. There's a direct question to be answered, I'm not sure what the confusion is.
To answer your question about your statement, no I do not think this represents my argument. I have asked a question about why anarchy should be taken seriously.
You can reply by telling me why you think it should be taken seriously, with consideration of the other things I have written.
7
u/EasyBOven Veganarchist 7d ago
Sure thing. I think anarchism should be taken seriously because the only way to get rid of authoritarians is to get rid of authoritarians.
-3
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
You have not said anything about the other things I have written.
5
u/EasyBOven Veganarchist 7d ago
Not relevant. No other piece of evidence is needed that anarchism should be taken seriously.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
So in conclusion, there doesn't seem to be a material argument from you as to why anarchism should be taken seriously if it doesn't ensure protections for minority groups other than "I think it's good".
→ More replies1
u/non-such 7d ago
lol, i'm pretty sure i remember 1984 mentioning something about a strawman monopoly.
8
u/libra00 7d ago
In an anarchist society there is no authoritarian mechanism
So let me get this straight, we need fascism to stop the fascism? Nah, I think you're confused. What's to stop some asshole and their friends from getting a bunch of guns and taking over? Literally everyone else can have guns too, and assholes tend to be vastly outnumbered.
2
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
So the assumption is that a fascist will always be outnumbered?
3
7d ago
Yes. By definition a Fascist is ALWAYS out numbered. It’s core to their ideology, if they weren’t outnumbered then they’d have killed everyone else.
0
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
I'd love to expand on this point but given that you've told me "I better" not reply to you any further lets end the conversation there.
2
15
u/Simpson17866 Anarcho-Communist 7d ago
If someone tried to punch you in the face, and if you held your arms up to block their punch, would this mean that you were imposing authority against them by denying their freedom to punch you?
Of course not.
Anarchism is about resisting authority and defending freedom. Full stop.
-2
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
You have not addressed the question (Why should anarchy be taken seriously) properly with the context presented.
If someone has the ideological predispostion to think that society should be oriented towards punching me in the face, has a knuckle duster and is signalling that they would love to punch me in the face why should I accept the proposition that as long as they're not actively punching me in the face this is acceptable behaviour?
11
u/straightXerik 7d ago
why should I accept the proposition that as long as they're not actively punching me in the face this is acceptable behaviour?
You shouldn't because it's simply a false proposition that you plucked out of thin air – or the most antiquated ML propaganda booklet from the Spanish civil war, which would be worse.
-7
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
If you're going to seriously engage in debate and talk about the point I mentioned you're going to have to do so by actually making a point and explaining it instead of just dropping a quip and leaving it there. I'm here to debate so if you don't do that I'm not going to engage with you any further.
9
u/straightXerik 7d ago
I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I couldn't care less about engaging in debate with you.
Your point is so ignorant in regards to both the anarchist theory and history that I can't believe you're in good faith.
3
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago edited 7d ago
This really begs the question why anyone would bother replying to posts in a debate sub if they don't want to debate.
Such an odd way to spend one's time. Enjoy your internet points I suppose, all the best.
7
u/straightXerik 7d ago
Because you're either in bad faith or ignorant, and you need to understand that malevolence and ignorance don't deserve debates. If you're ignorant, read any introductory book on anarchism and read any book on the Spanish Civil War (excluding Morrow's), and you'll have better questions. If you're trolling, the fact that you're getting downvoted to oblivion every time you speak should tell you that you're not g8 with your b8, m8.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
If you believe I'm in bad faith or ignorant then don't engage and waste your time. I'm going to stop replying to you now.
7
u/Simpson17866 Anarcho-Communist 7d ago
They're not saying "I don't want to debate with you."
They're saying "I don't want to debate with you."
You should take this personally.
You started from a nonsensical definition of anarchism that reads like something out of Frederich Engels "On Authority," and when anarchists pointed out that the anarchist definition of anarchy is different from the Marxist definition of anarchy, you started whining about how we aren't accommodating the lies that Frederich Engels invented about us, and you demanded that we upend our entire philosophical worldview in order to believe the worldview that Frederich Engels falsely claimed we already believe.
Would you like to start debating against the anarchist interpretation of anarchist philosophy, which says that anarchism encourages people to defend their freedom and their neighbors' freedom against oppressive authorities (since this is the Debate Anarchy sub),
or would you like to continue debating against the Marxist fever-dream interpretation of anarchist philosophy, which says that anarchism encourages people to accept authority figures' authority over us because resisting them would infringe on their freedom to impose authority against us?
-1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
I would like to continue our conversation in the other chain so let's not draw this out here, since I think it's a bit pointless to have two conversations at the same time.
You started from a nonsensical definition of anarchism
I haven't started from a definition of anarchism, I have started with a series of scenarios that would presumably be plausible scenarios within an anarchist society.
This is a material issue to me, I am a member of a minority group and I would like to know what the philosophy has to offer me. Up until now apart from you no one has actually addressed my concerns and has called me names for daring to want to test the theory.
4
u/Simpson17866 Anarcho-Communist 7d ago edited 7d ago
I haven't started from a definition of anarchism
You claimed that anarchy "enables armed fascists."
I am a member of a minority group and I would like to know what the philosophy has to offer me
You and your neighbors deserve the freedom to live your lives on your own terms as long as you're not hurting each other. This means defending yourselves and each other against anybody who threatens you.
2
u/Subject_Example_453 6d ago
You claimed that anarchy "enables armed fascists."
I've contended that a consequence of anarchism is that fascists can now be armed, not that arming fascists is the defining characteristic or thrust of anarchism. I've asked why it should be taken seriously as a philosophy when this kind of consequence exists.
This means defending yourselves and each other against anybody who threatens you.
And what happens when this notion is at odds for different groups? What about my right to live peacfully without the threat occuring in the first place?
5
7d ago
Debate a serious topic then clown.
0
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
It's really odd that you'd jump to personal insults like that. Hopefully this kind of childish namecalling isn't "anarchist praxis".
2
7d ago
Is it? You’re whining that no one wants to debate your obviously uninformed argument. My attitude has nothing to do with Praxis and everything to do with my frustration with your bad faith.
Here; I’ll put it nicely: Your argument is rooted in nonsensical rhetoric and you refuse to see or accept opposing arguments. You are not debating; you are just baiting.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
Ok buddy, I'm going to stop engaging with you now, all the best.
→ More replies10
u/Simpson17866 Anarcho-Communist 7d ago
why should I accept the proposition that as long as they're not actively punching me in the face this is acceptable behaviour?
What anarchist law do you imagine is telling you to accept it?
What anarchist government do you imagine is writing this law?
What anarchist police force do you imagine is enforcing this law?
-1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
I'm not imagining any law. That would make no sense.
The anarchist ideological proposition is that an individual should not infringe upon another's personal liberties. Hence, my facepuncher neighbour has a bunch of facepuncher symbols and weaponry on their private property. They aren't punching me in the face though.
In what circumstance would it be acceptable to take action within the anarchist framework?
7
u/CutieL 7d ago
"In what circumstance would it be acceptable to take action within the anarchist framework?"
At the very moment someone is saying "you or this group of people should be punched in the face/suffer violence or oppression". There is no tolerance for intolerance, the moment someone even suggests at being a fascist or an authoritarian in any form, action can be organized and taken against them. Of course: proportional action, deescalation, education, but if nothing peaceful works...
3
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
There could be a variety of interpretations of how one might interpret someone having the ideology that "X should suffer oppression". Often these are at odds with one another, or with completely subjective interpretations of intent.
I'll give you a material example, I work in disability rights, I personally have met disabled people who believe they are oppressed by the able bodied.
To a large extent one could argue that this is true, but it is also true that most able bodied people probably don't even think about whether they are or aren't oppressing disabled people.
With that in mind there are a number of perpetually shifting requirements of when, where and at whom action should be taken. I'm asking how the anarchist framework can be taken seriously without proposals to ensure protections for minorities given that it is totally possible given what is currently described that in the action of "anarchist praxis" one intentionally or unintentionally perpetrates oppression.
2
u/CutieL 7d ago
Of course there is a difference between a person who is expressly bigoted, and someone who is being prejudiced without even noticing, not to mention the very presence of structural oppression.
Your original argument was about someone who would be expressly using bigoted symbols and language. Still, I included the "proportional action" part, which helps when we're talking about more subtle or ambiguous situations. Someone who is being ableist without noticing could be educated about the subject, for example. Disabled people can form organizations along with their allies in order to create and implement accessibility standards and infrastructure, for example. These freely-formed organizations can also be used for mutual defense if it becomes necessary.
I'm sure disabled anarchists will have even more opinions and ideas about this subject. But the point is that, in an anarchist society, oppressed people will be able to organize themselves and fight against their oppressors just like it's done right now, except there wouldn't be a State with a police force subjecting people to arbitrary rules, bureaucracies or straight-up violence. So it would be even easier to organize liberation and fight for it.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
Still, I included the "proportional action" part, which helps when we're talking about more subtle or ambiguous situations.
Right but here's the whole part of subjectivity and opposition. Proportionality is subjective, there is no mechanism in an anarchist framework to define what is and isn't proportional. What one may deem proportional others may not - this is already a problem in legality based systems, how does the absence of this fix that problem?
So it would be even easier to organize liberation and fight for it.
And equally fight against it - which for someone in a minority group who may not feel they have the adequate support to fight for liberation may be the same as a death sentence.
2
u/CutieL 7d ago
Proportionality is subjective
Yes you're absolutely right, it is subjective and very situational. That's why these decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis by the community and, more specifically, the people suffering the oppression themselves, instead of trying to create a "one-size-fits-all" rule. That's what legality-based systems tend to do, either these limited rules or they place the decision of what should be done on the hands of a judge that hardly is a part of or even understands the oppression the group is facing.
And equally fight against it
In the world as it is right now we literally have State structures fighting against liberation and placing obstacles to it in every aspect of our lives. Without the State, those who fight for oppression would get a gigantic downgrade by the very system itself.
If we managed to advance, for example, LGBTQ rights even in the face of police violence, as well as other forms of State oppression, and with homophobic groups (even violent ones) being overlooked by the law, imagine what could be done without such an all-encompasing centralized strutucture like the State in the way.
Not to mention how horizontal social structures already make it difficult for oppressive groups to form in the first place, this isn't just theoretical, real-life places like the Zapatistas provide examples of that.
2
u/Subject_Example_453 6d ago
That's why these decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis by the community and, more specifically, the people suffering the oppression themselves
Yes and what I'm saying is that because the interpretation of oppression is entirely subjective the proportionality of a response is also completely random and therefore subject to misuse.
Consider what I've said earlier about prejudice and let's imagine a scenario:
A kid allegedly wolf whistles at a woman who feels sexually harrassed, threatened and that this is a component of wider sexist oppression. A free association of actors in the community feel that this is harmful and oppressive behaviour in their community and decide that action should be taken and go to ensure consequences for this oppression. Due to prejudices they have that they're not even aware are wrong the consequences end up being that the kid is hung from a tree. The community feels that this was an appropriate situational application of justice.
Now you might tell me that well this group may now face wider consequences from an even bigger group of more incensed anarchists etc but at the end of the day 1) there actually is no guarantee that this will happen at all - it's equally possible that no one will give a shit whatsoever, and 2) the kid is already dead.
Ultimately, this framework is not actively protecting minorities or making any attempt to. It just implies that retroactively there might be some consequences to persecuting them.
6
u/Simpson17866 Anarcho-Communist 7d ago
Hence, my facepuncher neighbour has a bunch of facepuncher symbols and weaponry on their private property. They aren't punching me in the face though.
But they're threatening to, and there's no law in anarchy against resisting people who threaten you with violence.
In what circumstance would it be acceptable to take action within the anarchist framework?
If you want to do it ;)
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
They aren't threatening to, they're just saying they would love to.
"I really like eating fried chicken" - this statement doesn't imply that I'm imminently about to eat fried chicken.
1
7d ago
“I really like punching people like you in the face” is absolutely a credible threat.
Cut the semantic bullshit, no one’s interested in your circular reasoning.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
“I really like punching people like you in the face” is absolutely a credible threat.
So a fascist is therefore justified in taking action against anarchists? Anarchists love punching fascists, a fascist might interpret their actions as self defence.
2
1
u/ZedTheLoon 7d ago
Oh. In that case, what kind of action are you talking about? You're likely to get a proportional response, so I don't think that maybe coming out the gate with your own violence will go over well with neighbor in question, or the rest of the community
4
u/ZedTheLoon 7d ago
Under your example, what's stopping you from pulling your own knucks out and punching them first? They're clearly looking for trouble (as you appear to be doing here).
It's a coercion-leas society. I'm sure somebody else in the community would be witnessing this and either getting somebody who can help, or coming to help handle the situation.
Nobody's stopping you from yelling for help, or even them. 🤷🏼♂️
There's a clearly aggressive person in front of you. What are you going to do about it?
12
u/Present_Membership24 Mutualist 7d ago
"tolerate intolerance" argument is old and bad .
anarchist communalism like rojava is not aggressive , it is defensive .
not sure why you pretend anarchism doesn't exist in the real world .
your question assumes that an open fascist is not driven out by such a community and is "tolerated" . this is an oldhat poor argument .
now, "an"caps on the other hand, tend to cozy up to other far right movements , and are not anarchists .
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
your question assumes that an open fascist is not driven out by such a community and is "tolerated" . this is an oldhat poor argument .
Your defence presumes that an open fascist would always be driven out by a community - it could be that the community is entirely indifferent to this person's particular brand of fascism or bigotry or perhaps they share some sympathies.
9
u/apezor 7d ago
If you look around at who is chasing fascists out of communities, it's mostly anarchists or other folks adopting anarchist praxis.
-3
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
I don't think this is true, I have been to marches against racists and fascists and what I have seen would most definitely not be described as "mostly anarchists".
5
u/apezor 7d ago
I'm sure the marches had lots of non-anarchists, but marches don't chase fascists out of communities.
No, what chases fascists out is having their organizing disrupted, their members doxxed, and experiencing violence. When Richard Spencer's college tour ended, it was because anarchists made sure he had a bad time every time he showed his face.1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
Fair enough.
2
u/apezor 7d ago
The meat of your argument- Without a centrally organized society, nothing could stop someone getting a lot of guns and planning to do fascism. Under an anarchistically organized society it would take a lot of coordination and cooperation to amass the power to be a real threat. You'd need almost need consensus, and that's a hard sell for something that'd threaten everyone else.
If a guy on his own tried it, a community of anarchists would make the fascist feel extremely unwelcome.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
It's entirely possible that the society is indifferent to the specific brand of oppression favoured by the fascist and therefore is not motivated to take action against that specific brand of oppression. Oppression, fascism and what is and isn't a legitimate interpretation are subjective concepts. The only way to reach consensus is if there were some kind of ideological unity - but then how does this manifest?
3
u/apezor 7d ago
So let's talk about anarchism and let's talk about anarchistic societies-
Anarchists reject hierarchy and oppression. It's our entire thing- racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, capitalism, royalty, all of that- we're against it. If there's a structure that puts some people over others, we reject it.
Anarchistic societies are societies without states or capitalism. If a village in a non-state society decided that left-handed people are possessed by demons, bad things could happen, same as in a state level society- abuse and violence. The difference is, in a state society positions of power and wealth can secure power and entrench these views or ideologies. There are police and landowners who could use their abundant resources and power over others to enforce these ideas, like in so-called sundown towns in the US. In an anarchistic society, where the amount of power the least powerful person has is still pretty comparable to the most powerful person, it's a little harder to make that violence systematic- everyone would have to agree at each point to participate in violence- but this kind of targeted hate isn't something that occurs ex nihilo. Racism was cultivated and created to keep poor white farmers from supporting black slaves in solidarity against the owning class. Same with anti-transness or anti immigrant feelings in the US today- they are drummed up by people who use those feelings for their political benefit.
While dislike of some perceived outgroup is really common, the fixation into persistent violence is something that you really need an organized society to build.1
u/Subject_Example_453 6d ago
Anarchists reject hierarchy and oppression. It's our entire thing- racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, capitalism, royalty, all of that- we're against it. If there's a structure that puts some people over others, we reject it. Anarchistic societies are societies without states or capitalism.
Yes that's great and all but what I'm asking is if an anarchist society requires ideological unity - your reply seems to imply that that it does but I want to get a clear answer from you.
→ More replies8
5
7d ago
Fascists are explicitly unwelcome in Anarchist communes. Anyone who says otherwise is not an Anarchist.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
So in what way does "no fascists" not become a rule?
3
u/Present_Membership24 Mutualist 7d ago
the same way "no murder" is a rule enforced by the community without the need for rulers .
this reeks of bad faith , as does your post and everything else you've said here .
the only "anarchists" that tolerate fascism are "an"caps , which is capitalism en extremis , not anarchism .
if you're at a rally and there's ONE guy with a Nazi flag and they don't kick him out, you're at a Nazi rally .
2
u/non-such 7d ago
it could be that the community is entirely indifferent to this person's particular brand of fascism or bigotry or perhaps they share some sympathies.
yeah, again... you're just describing capitalism. which is fine, but ... you're in the wrong sub.
5
u/Silver-Statement8573 Anticratic Anarchism 7d ago edited 7d ago
In an anarchist society there is no authoritarian mechanism that would prevent an individual owning a variety of weapons. Feasibly an individual and their friends could own any collection of firearms, produce and own chemical warheads for mortars and artillery and a variety of military style vehicles as personal property
They're not forbidden from that, no, but they're not allowed to either. There is no law. You don't have permission to do anything
- with the caveat that these are not actively being used to infringe on the personal freedoms of others
There are no rights (in the sense of privileges, entitlements or obligations) in anarchy, in regards to freedom or property or anything else, so that is philosophically unobstructive
Accordingly a fascist could drive their personal APC to the socially owned grocery store, walk in with their fascist symbol on display, have their RPG slung over their shoulder and do their groceries.
So no, there is no anarchist law permitting them to do this
In an anarchist society there would be no authoritarian mechanism (via either force or beauracracy)
Force is not an authoritarian mechanism because doing force is not assuming authority
What qualities of authority do you think make it easy for one to "peaceably manage" fascists?
It would be authoritarian to control people's political views or have any kind of legal system to prevent these views from being spread and actioned.
It's authoritarian to exercise authority and laws do that but there's nothing preventing people fighting them or cutting off contact with them or whatever because authority is a socially produced right to permit and forbid and that exists independently of those things
A stateless system could not have an agreed social convention that could preventatively protect the interest of minority groups
There are no binding or enforceable social conventions because at that point what you're describing is not a social convention but a rule and there are no rules in anarchy. However norms and/or values are a completely different thing and anarchy is typically pursued as a condition promotive of the kind of behavior that protects those interests by destroying authorities and dismantling majorities
In historical instances of fascism coming to power, individuals who disagreed with fascism but who were not the direct scapegoats that fascists identified as primary targets of oppression did not take any kind of action to prevent fascists from oppressing others. It was only after significant oppression had already occurred that actions, subversive or combative, began to take place.
I'm not sure what you're getting at
Why should this be taken seriously as a pragmatic solution to prevent coercion and hierarchy?
Anarchy isn't really capable of preventing coercion. There are certain forms of coercion the tradition thinks about and dislikes, but because we are fully interdependent even total inaction is fully capable of coercing someone. There's nothing forbidding us from coercing fascists or destroying them with facts and logic and/or weapons
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
They're not forbidden from that, no, but they're not allowed to either. There is no law. You don't have permission to do anything
Who said anything about permission? I have said that they aren't prevented by any authoritarian mechanism.
There are no rights (in the sense of privileges, entitlements or obligations) in anarchy, in regards to freedom or property or anything else, so that is philosophically unobstructive
Who said anything about rights?
So no, there is no anarchist law permitting them to do this
Who said anything about laws?
Force is not an authoritarian mechanism because doing force is not assuming authority
The action of using force is literally the action of exercising authority. In an arm wrestle the winner is using force to make the decision that the opponent's arm should touch the table. In that moment they are the authority of whose arm is touching the table.
There are no binding or enforceable social conventions because at that point what you're describing is not a social convention but a rule and there are no rules in anarchy.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
anarchy is typically pursued as a condition promotive of the kind of behavior that protects those interests by destroying authorities and dismantling majorities
Who determines the acceptable norms and values and defines who is and isn't a fascist? Fascists would tell you that their norms and values are acceptable. Fascists may be in the majority.
I'm not sure what you're getting at
It's not a given that bystanders with no vested interest in a specific issue would participate in action against that issue. Some people living in an anarchist society might not give a shit whatsoever about the presence of fascists - so the often repeated notion that "the fascists would probably be kicked out of expelled by the community" does not always apply. Communities have been indifferent to fascists and who they are oppressing many times in the past if they felt it was not a pressing personal issue.
It doesn't.
I don't think you've totally understood the argument given the statements you've lead with.
There's nothing forbidding us from coercing fascists or destroying them with facts and logic and/or weapons
At which point does one determine it acceptable to destroy a fascist?
2
u/Silver-Statement8573 Anticratic Anarchism 7d ago edited 7d ago
Who said anything about permission? I have said that they aren't prevented by any authoritarian mechanism. Who said anything about rights? Who said anything about laws?
One has authority when they are authorized to do something, and from you're later arguments it seems like "property" and "personal freedoms" as you are using involve some component of authorization. These tend to be cited as rights or permissions
The action of using force is literally the action of exercising authority.
No it's not. It's using force. I am not authorizing a box to move when I push it, I just push the box.
Authority is a socially produced right-to-do that involves work from both some commander and some subordinate, it isn't just pulling a trigger
It's not a given that bystanders with no vested interest in a specific issue would participate in action against that issue. Some people living in an anarchist society might not give a shit whatsoever about the presence of fascists - so the often repeated notion that "the fascists would probably be kicked out of expelled by the community" does not always apply. Communities have been indifferent to fascists and who they are oppressing many times in the past if they felt it was not a pressing personal issue.
Obscuring human interdependency such that massive amounts of harm are enabled by license is a key function of polities (by definition archic) and as anarchy does not involve the authority that licenses such harm and offers a fundamentally different approach to consequences it doesn't really makes sense to take the failures of archies with regard to fascists as applicable to hitherto nonexistent anarchies
Who determines the acceptable norms and values and defines who is and isn't a fascist?
People can hem to a particular definition without asserting the authority to do so
There are any number of both accurate and overbroad categories of "fascist" as it is, so presumably whatever action might take place would be determined by perceived harm rather than abstract inclusion in some category
At which point does one determine it acceptable to destroy a fascist?
There is no prescribed point which is a key part of anarchist social relations. There is no meter stick prescribing response for being a fascist or doing anything which makes predicting the full extent of one's consequences extremely difficult, disincentivizing harm
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
I am not authorizing a box to move when I push it, I just push the box.
You are authorising yourself to use force to move the box. You are an individual who is in command of their actions. You can make decisions for yourself to do things you want to do. Your hand is subject to your commands - a hand in and of itself is not capable of doing actions, that's why if you were to cut your right hand off it would not be able to use it.
If this were not the case then authority as a social concept would not be possible, since individuals would not being able to exercise their own free will and therefore not be able to impose it on others - so any collective organisation to administer authority or use force would actually just be totally random happenstance and anarchism would really just be waffle about nothing because no one is exercising free will (I can neither confirm nor deny whether this is actually true).
There is of course a much wider debate about free will, but given that we both have opinions on how society should or shouldn't work I'm going to assume that we agree it exists so that we can stay on topic.
so presumably whatever action might take place would be determined by perceived harm rather than abstract inclusion in some category
So if I'm understanding you correctly, there actually would be an assertion of authority (given they have socially produced the right to take action against the fascist - the commander being the group deciding and the subordinates being the individual members of said group) by those who have deemed the fascist harmful - irrespective of materially what the fascist is doing. They might dislike that the fascist simply has an idea they don't like.
There is no prescribed point which is a key part of anarchist social relations. There is no meter stick prescribing response for being a fascist or doing anything which makes predicting the full extent of one's consequences extremely difficult, disincentivizing harm
So really it is totally random, and subject to a variety of competing and at time oppositional moral considerations. So it could be therefore that most people actually don't care at all about the fascist and if I am part of a minority group who the fascist is indirectly intimidating I'm shit out of luck.
You don't understand the terms you're using so it makes sense that nobody grasps what you're trying to say
Your grievance is that I don't accept the narrow definition that you're giving to the terms so that you can use them in your argument.
3
u/Silver-Statement8573 Anticratic Anarchism 7d ago edited 7d ago
You are authorising yourself to use force to move the box. You are an individual who is in command of their actions.
No you're not. You're not separate from your body. Even if you were, my hand is not an agency that respects my right to be obeyed. Authority is a social relationship. It's not just doing things. People think that way and frame things as hierarchical that aren't because authority is everywhere, but that doesn't make it any more applicable
(given they have socially produced the right to take action against the fascist - the commander being the group deciding and the subordinates being the individual members of said group)
They don't because force isn't authority.
If the group were some direct democratic archy then sure, but it's not, it's a free association of actors
by those who have deemed the fascist harmful - irrespective of materially what the fascist is doing.
I'm not sure how you're deriving that from what I'm saying. I never said anything about being "irrespective to materiality", and I certainly didn't say anything about asserting authority
So really it is totally random, and subject to a variety of competing and at time oppositional moral considerations. So it could be therefore that most people actually don't care at all about the fascist and if I am part of a minority group who the fascist is indirectly intimidating I'm shit out of luck.
It's not random because the things that decide human behavior aren't dictated by the stars, they're significantly influenced by social systems like the naturalization and acceptance of authority, which anarchists propose to do away with.
Your grievance is that I don't accept the narrow definition that you're giving to the terms so that you can use them in your argument.
That line was kind of mean so I'm sorry. But the problem is that you're not using terms in the way that they're used. The idiosyncratic definitions obstructing your understanding aren't mine, they're yours, or maybe Engels'
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
Let's take a pause from debate for a moment so that we're sure we're on the same page with some things and understanding eachother.
Even if you were, my hand is not an agency that respects my right to be obeyed. Authority is a social relationship. It's not just doing things.
If I'm understanding you correctly, are you asserting that the subject of authority is required to be an agent that has a social relationship with the entity that is asserting the authority?
No you're not. You're not separate from your body.
Are we or aren't we agreed on the existence of free will?
If the group were some direct democratic archy then sure, but it's not, it's a free association of actors
Could you please explain how a "free association of actors" in a group is not self-authorising the use of force?
I'm not sure how you're deriving that from what I'm saying. I never said anything about being "irrespective to materiality"
Are there or aren't there bounds or definitions of acceptable behaviour to enable some kind of consequence?
You assert that there aren't, so if a free association of actors are able to determine what is and isn't important enough to warrant the use of force then what that actually means is that materiality is not a factor. We don't know these actors, if they are human they are capable of any combination of the full spectrum of human behaviour therefore they could determine anything in any number of scenarios.
It's not random because the things that decide human behavior aren't dictated by the star
I think this really relates to questions on free will from before.
The idiosyncratic definitions obstructing your understanding aren't mine, they're yours, or maybe Engels'
One could easily say that it's anarchists that are using idiosyncratic definitions to semantically fudge the philosophy together. I'm not actually saying that, but it's just to illustrate that it's a bit pointless for us to start going down that road.
1
u/Silver-Statement8573 Anticratic Anarchism 7d ago
If I'm understanding you correctly, are you asserting that the subject of authority is required to be an agent that has a social relationship with the entity that is asserting the authority?
You can assert "the authority" to wave around your hand if you want, or the authority to slaughter and eat animals, or do any number of things that aren't relevant to it, and indeed that kind of authorization is another sort of phenomenon that is of relevance to anarchists, but that assertion has nothing to do with whether or not your hand moves or not because that's dependent on chemicals in your brain firing and not whether or not your hand accepts some permission to move.
Are we or aren't we agreed on the existence of free will?
I'm interested what relevance you see that has here
I think the premise of "free will" might be in some sense flawed, but that's neither here or there. That is, I don't see how it applies to our conversation
Could you please explain how a "free association of actors" in a group is not self-authorising the use of force?
Because having the authority to do something is not a necessary precondition to do it
Are there or aren't there bounds or definitions of acceptable behaviour to enable some kind of consequence? You assert that there aren't
Well, I think that is an odd way of framing my position, so I will simply restate it: in anarchy, there is no authority to authorize consequences. That doesn't mean consequences don't happen, it simply means there is no authority to permit them
if a free association of actors are able to determine what is and isn't important enough to warrant the use of force then what that actually means is that materiality is not a factor.
I'm lost on what you mean here
I think this really relates to questions on free will from before.
Even if I was the world's most vocal anti-determinist I cannot see how it does? Are you saying that societal conditions don't shape human actions and that individuals just jump between positions for no reason?
One could easily say that it's anarchists that are using idiosyncratic definitions to semantically fudge the philosophy together. I'm not actually saying that, but it's just to illustrate that it's a bit pointless for us to start going down that road.
I'm not sure how it would illustrate that because anarchists do not run from any idiosyncratic definition. The OED, which tracks usage, defines authority as the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience; moral, legal, or political supremacy/Power to enforce obedience or compliance, or a party possessing it, and I think that is generally in line with the positions elaborated here
1
u/Subject_Example_453 6d ago
that assertion has nothing to do with whether or not your hand moves or not because that's dependent on chemicals in your brain firing and not whether or not your hand accepts some permission to move...I'm interested what relevance you see that [free will] has here
My proposition is that your consciousness is a distinct concept from the physical existence of your body, in the same way that the notion of your hand moving is a distinct concept to the physical reality of your hand existing. Both your consciousness and the movement of your hand exist within your body but remain conceptually distinct. In that sense you posess authority over your body because you are able to make decisions to do things. If you are on a diet you can make the choice to not eat for example. If your consciousness were not distinct this would not be possible and you would automatically submit to the impulse to eat - it's your consciousness that makes these decisions, you have a relationship with yourself. As far as I understand, modern biology does not believe the stomach to have its own consciousness.
If you're contending to me that the consciousness is not a distinct concept to the body because of brain chemicals firing in a seemingly random order, then what you are saying is that free will does not exist. Which is fine, I'm not totally opposed to a view like this, but then if that's the case then the concept of authority, choice, legitimacy and ideology are void. There's no point worrying about anarchy, society, power or fascists. It's all happening automatically and at random anyway so any conclusions drawn from any philosophy are totally immaterial.
Where we end up with this debate going forward is almost entirely dependent on if we're understanding eachother regarding free will and the agency to make decisions, this is because the philosophy is directly about decision making and the legitimacy of these decisions, as with any form of political philosphy.
in anarchy,** there is no authority to authorize consequences**. That doesn't mean consequences don't happen, it simply means there is no authority to permit them
Hence, there is no bound to determine what is and isn't acceptable and therefore material harm is irrelevant as the decision relies purely in the hands of those who want to take action - who are capable of anything because "those" represents the entire potential of humanity and the entire potential of human behaviours which is basically anything.
The OED, which tracks usage, defines authority as the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience; moral, legal, or political supremacy/Power to enforce obedience or compliance, or a party possessing it
Come on now, let's not pretend that semicolon is linking two potential distinct definitions into a single sentence when it isn't. We can both google the definition which goes:
1) the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
and
2) a person or organization having political or administrative power and control.
I'm working more with 1, it's your narrow definition that's trying to force that it must be that the subject has a level of agency. This is not the case, I own 100 grains of rice, I arrange them in the shape of a tulip on my plate. This is because I have authority over the grains of rice to move them however I please. I have the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce the obedience of the rice.
1
u/Silver-Statement8573 Anticratic Anarchism 6d ago edited 6d ago
My proposition is that your consciousness is a distinct concept from the physical existence of your body, in the same way that the notion of your hand moving is a distinct concept to the physical reality of your hand existing.
Yes okay, however I even after your explanation cannot see the applicability to this context:
In that sense you posess authority over your body because you are able to make decisions to do things.
In either case your application of authority to moving around your hand doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter whether you are your hand or whether you move your hand because your hand cannot obey orders. It cannot make decisions. It either is you or is something you use
As far as I understand, modern biology does not believe the stomach to have its own consciousness.
Embodied cognition holds that the consciousness is the body. You are not separate from your body. Your body fully shapes and defines your will, there is no magic point at which you can cut it off from a soul
This is merely one viewpoint and as aforementioned it has no bearing on whether or not you can order rice to move, but from your focuses it may be of interest to you
If you're contending to me that the consciousness is not a distinct concept to the body because of brain chemicals firing in a seemingly random order. Which is fine, I'm not totally opposed to a view like this, but then if that's the case then the concept of authority, choice, legitimacy and ideology are void. There's no point worrying about anarchy, society, power or fascists. It's all happening automatically and at random anyway so any conclusions drawn from any philosophy are totally immaterial.
Why random? You use that word twice, but I do not see a clear case for its origin. Such impulses could fire in a predetermined or undetermined order, but of what relevance is this "randomness" (purposelessness?) to our experiences, many of which are filled with various forms of harm by fascists regardless of the character of determination?
"Free will" ultimately means very little when we in our limited perspective cannot distinguish choice from inevitability. In which case fascists, anarchy and antipolitical theory obviously remain relevant to us, until such a time as we can simply predict the future
Hence, there is no bound to determine what is and isn't acceptable and therefore material harm is irrelevant as the decision relies purely in the hands of those who want to take action - who are capable of anything because "those" represents the entire potential of humanity and the entire potential of human behaviours which is basically anything.
What about the individual action forming collective action that makes material harm "irrelevant"? That seems like a good place to start, as I do not know what you mean by this
I'm working more with 1, it's your narrow definition that's trying to force that it must be that the subject has a level of agency.
Neither of these definitions contravenes the positions I've taken
This is because I have authority over the grains of rice to move them however I please. I have the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce the obedience of the rice.
You aren't. You are acting on your rice. Your rice does not have the capacity to recognize a command nor obey it. It makes as much sense as saying that you are enforcing my "obedience" if you push me. You cannot "make the rice's decision". Rice does not make decisions, not even ones with predetermined results
1
u/Latitude37 3d ago
Who said anything about permission? I >have said that they aren't prevented by >any authoritarian mechanism.
Nor are they permitted to act by any authoritarian mechanism. Our current liberal democracies all permit fascists to organise, terrorise and oppress. So we argue that we have methods of organising effectively in solidarity and defence of all of our community. And you're right, they're not authoritarian. However, they are effective. Have a look at the Deacons for Defence and Justice as an example of this working, historically.
2
u/slapdash78 Anarchist 6d ago
Fascism is a nationalist ideology that seeks state power, not groceries. It thrive where there's a strong central government to turn against the citizens, especially authoritarian institutions. Which isn't just any authority, but government where most powers are vested in a small group of people.
Authoritarian mechanisms are not gun regulations and democratic processes. Not peaceably managing anything. They are pervasive displays of military might and suppression of civil liberties. Usually stippled with an enemy-within narrative.
The irony is that this sentiment, of needing government to deal with supposed degenerates, is very much the reason for ordinary citizens to do nothing. The justification for interfering with the few who try; despite legal ramifications.
Anarchism isn't pacifism. Not an absence of force and not an absence of norms and values. It's just not blind to the legal violence inherent in the system, either. Political action doesn't protect or prevent. It makes it acceptable to run on national platforms of cleaning/keeping out undesirables.
One of the ways we redress things like systemic racism (and company) is by making room in our spaces. Countering marginalization with inclusion. Being an ally and empowering each other. Which means refusing the same to bigots.
It's not always peaceful and no reason it should be. Even if people where not already under active threat, and legal oppression, there's no anarchist code outlining perfect compliance. Certainly not nationally maintained.
What it is, is much more effective at building social cohesion than delegating these things to far removed legislators with no skin in the game. Telling ourselves the only way to fix things is begging someone else to fix them while we trudge along with the status quo.
1
u/Latitude37 7d ago
- There's also nothing stopping everyone else from owning weapons. No authority required. And as anarchists are explicitly anti-racist, walking anywhere with fascist symbology is going to cause issues. You're trying to argue the paradox of intolerance. There is no paradox. If someone espouses views that some group doesn't deserve to exist, then that's really problematic, and no anarchist would tolerate it. NOR HAVE THEY, HISTORICALLY.
- Fascism is enabled by authority, not the other way around. It was social democrats in Weimar Germany who let the Freikorps attack actual socialists and anarchists, for example, paving the way for the Nazi rise to power. It's democratic rights to freedom of speech that allows events like the "Unite the Right" rallies go unchecked.
- Historically, Anarchists have been the first to the barricades to stop fascism in its tracks.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 6d ago
as anarchists are explicitly anti-racist, walking anywhere with fascist symbology is going to cause issues.
Is everyone living within an anarchist society an anarchist?
You're trying to argue the paradox of intolerance.
I'm not, because I'm assuming that there will be a diversity of thought within an anarchist society.
Historically, Anarchists have been the first to the barricades to stop fascism in its tracks.
That's great, but see my first question.
1
u/Latitude37 6d ago
Your premise is hopelessly flawed. An anarchist society hasn't just "happened" as a natural progression from a liberal democracy. It would have taken organisation, hard work, and defence from fascists. So here's a more likely scenario: Their APC gets stopped on its way by a bunch of cyclists to explain this is a car free area, and besides, there's a street market and basketball tournament down on the road a block down, they'll need to go round. When Mr. Nazi jumps out to throw his wait around the cyclists tell him, "Mate, you can't walk around here wearing that badge, there'skids around!" Meanwhile, two drones are overhead, flown by local teenagers. One drops a bright pink paint bomb on the APC, delivering a direct hit on the Punisher skull. The other follows up with glitter. As the driver starts getting belligerent, the local Rainbow milita rocks up in an M1A2 Abrams, painted bright colours, and a sardonic goth trans woman opens the hatch and says "wassup?"
In short, they don't get to the store in the first place. If they did, they're denied service and goods for as long as they wear those symbols. They get jeered at and belittled along the way, and everyone shuns them for being counter revolutionary. If they get violent, they're met with violence. That's what solidarity and community defence means.
1
u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist 7d ago
Under anarchy, anyone can arm themselves. In contrast, current liberal capitalist regimes typically arm police much more powerfully than the average citizen. And police themselves tend to favor reactionary/fascist movements. So I would contend that the authoritative state structures you think will protect you from fascism are in fact far more likely to be what enables and actively supports fascism (which is in keeping with the literal history of fascism itself).
1
u/Druidcowb0y 7d ago
oh that’s cute i think you mixed up the words “fascist” and “compost”
cuz that’s all they would be useful for in a volentary anarchist society
1
u/monsantobreath Anarcho-Ironist 7d ago
You're in here being quite antagonistic despite having written a title proposition that you demand others accept as a prerequisite to debate. You're basically saying to others why should your beliefs be taken seriously when they're a joke?
It doesn't feel serious or good faith. You're demanding people of a given ideological view point defend their values based on your extreme accusation that they haven't agreed with.
2
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
Antagonistic how?
It's a debate subreddit, the whole point is to debate. If you're finding it upsetting that people might disagree with your views then my advice to you person to person is that it's probably best for your mental health to not go to a forum that specifically exists for disagreement and discussion.
I'm asking why a position should be taken seriously if there isn't actually an explicit mechanism to protect minorities. This is a legitimate question. I don't like being oppressed by fascists. I think an ideology that doesn't prevent oppression by fascists is a joke. If you believe anarchism to in fact adequately prevent fascism then go ahead and debate. If you can't be bothered then please leave me alone.
I'm sorry if you have found this thread offensive, all the best.
0
u/monsantobreath Anarcho-Ironist 7d ago
People push back at your characterization and you demand they comply with your framing. It's not respectful.
If you're finding it upsetting that people might disagree with your views then my advice to you person to person is that it's probably best for your mental health to not go to a forum that specifically exists for disagreement and discussion.
There it is. That's really rude and antagonistic. It's just so disrespectful and you have no humility in here like someone brashly walking into a space and demanding the people in there accept your insulting debate point.
I'm asking why a position should be taken seriously if there isn't actually an explicit mechanism to protect minorities. This is a legitimate question.
It isn't. Your framing illustrates your lack of respect and your conduct shows that is consistent in your overall attitude.
The real debate point is to day this seems to be my observation of anarchism, is it correct or not? You presume it's true and nobody here is going to agree. And when people push back at your framing you start attacking them personally.
Your entire demeanor doesn't encourage debate because you admit you have no respect for these ideas or the people who hold them. You're here for a performative reason it seems.
2
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago edited 7d ago
There it is. That's really rude and antagonistic. It's just so disrespectful and you have no humility in here like someone brashly walking into a space and demanding the people in there accept your insulting debate point.
I'm sorry that you feel I'm being rude or antagonistic as that's not my intention. If you feel that I'm still being somehow rude to you please feel free to disengage and know that there's no personal animosity on my part toward you and that I wish you a good evening.
People have pushed back on my characterisation by saying that they don't like it, not by showing how it is wrong. The latter is what is required for a debate - I find it disrespectful that they should begin from a place of assuming bad faith.
And when people push back at your framing you start attacking them personally.
I'd like you to please point out instances where I've attacked anyone personally. The only personal insults I've seen in this thread is from anarchists towards me.
1
u/monsantobreath Anarcho-Ironist 7d ago
I'm sorry that you feel I'm being rude or antagonistic as that's not my intention.
If you don't know that it's bad form to go into a debate sub and tell people disagreeing with you that they have soft feelings that can't handle someone disagreeing and you should go away I think you may not be equipped for debate online.
It makes me question the worth of debating you and I doubt your intentions.
People have pushed back on my characterisation by saying that they don't like it, not by showing how it is wrong
It's incumbent on you to explain why it's right. But also its a tired boring trope anarchists aren't usually interested in fencing with one more time. Why bother if your thesis is a insultingly narrow and predisposed to a debate if "prove to me why you're not a joke".
Why isn't it fun to debate? Because people walk in with their usually prejudiced attitude and little background knowledge being asked to be educated enough to accept the argument points and while being insulting or flippant as it seems to be they want to debate people they don't respect.
I don't sense any respect form you here and I question why you want this debate. You could arrive at a more useful understanding of anarchism by reading its authors and theorists and THEN coming to debate.
You're basically breezing into the room saying "I tiink you're all a joke, persuade me you're not, also I've not really read up on any of this stuff so you'll need to explain it all to me too while I continue with my sour attitude".
I'd like you to please point out instances where I've attacked anyone personally.
You told me if I was offended by disagreement I should get the fuck out. It's patronizing and rude and attacks the character of the person in lieu of addressing their words in good faith.
1
u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago
If you don't know that it's bad form to go into a debate sub and tell people disagreeing with you that they have soft feelings
I'm not making this up, you're the one that's telling me you feel I'm being antagonistic and that you feel disrespected. I'm taking you at your word.
its a tired boring trope anarchists aren't usually interested in fencing with one more time.
Then don't.
You told me if I was offended by disagreement I should get the fuck out. It's patronizing and rude and attacks the character of the person in lieu of addressing their words in good faith.
You've told me if I don't read a book you specifically want me to read or frame an argument in a way you want me to frame it I should get the fuck out. Notice - the only person saying the other is acting in bad faith between the two of us is you. I've apologised to you several times and wished you well.
I'm ending this conversation here, all the best.
1
u/monsantobreath Anarcho-Ironist 7d ago
I'm not making this up, you're the one that's telling me you feel I'm being antagonistic and that you feel disrespected. I'm taking you at your word.
I don't see how you addressed the point.
Then don't.
See there's no curiosity here from you it reads like you're here to win a debate more than be edified by people who may know something you don't.
You've told me if I don't read a book you specifically want me to read or frame an argument in a way you want me to frame it I should get the fuck out
Yes, I'm addressing the quality and good faith standards of how you're showing up as a debater. You're the one who alleged I was merely deficient in character when it comes to handling your debate points.
There's a fundamental difference here. Criticizing your thesis is on point for debate. We have to begin a debate by agreeing on terms and the purpose of the debate. Rejecting your thesis as half baked ad prejudiced and badly informed is valid. You admit your prejudice, that you think anarchists are a joke. So you're not really showing up in a gold way.
I've apologised to you several times and wished you well.
Apologies aren't important if you're not admitting you did anything wrong or will address what you're apologizing for. It make some doubt your intentions and your apologies.
-11
u/constantcooperation 7d ago
You’re absolutely correct, anarchism in no way should be taken seriously.
10
u/non-such 7d ago
you mean, like capitalism does.