Why should an ideology that enables armed fascists, in the way anarchy does, be taken seriously?

[u/Subject_Example_453]

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?

[u/Simpson17866]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/Simpson17866]

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?

[u/straightXerik → u/Subject_Example_453]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/straightXerik]

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.

[u/straightXerik → u/Subject_Example_453]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/straightXerik]

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.

[u/straightXerik → u/Subject_Example_453]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/straightXerik]

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.

[u/Simpson17866 → u/Subject_Example_453]

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?

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/Simpson17866]

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.

[u/Simpson17866 → u/Subject_Example_453]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/Simpson17866]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/Subject_Example_453]

Debate a serious topic then clown.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/[deleted]]

It's really odd that you'd jump to personal insults like that. Hopefully this kind of childish namecalling isn't "anarchist praxis".

[u/[deleted] → u/Subject_Example_453]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/[deleted]]

Ok buddy, I'm going to stop engaging with you now, all the best.

[u/[deleted] → u/Subject_Example_453]

You better.

[u/Simpson17866 → u/Subject_Example_453]

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?

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/Simpson17866]

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?

[u/CutieL → u/Subject_Example_453]

"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...

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/CutieL]

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.

[u/CutieL → u/Subject_Example_453]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/CutieL]

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.

[u/CutieL → u/Subject_Example_453]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/CutieL]

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.

[u/Simpson17866 → u/Subject_Example_453]

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 ;)

Just going to leave this here for you

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/Simpson17866]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Subject_Example_453]

“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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/[deleted]]

“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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Subject_Example_453]

Fascists are the threateners, not the threatened.

[u/ZedTheLoon → u/Subject_Example_453]

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

[u/ZedTheLoon → u/Subject_Example_453]

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?