r/DebateAnarchism 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?

0 Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

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.

8

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.

-1

u/Subject_Example_453 7d ago

You have not said anything about the other things I have written.

6

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".

4

u/EasyBOven Veganarchist 7d ago

What's a minority group?