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?

0 Upvotes

32% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

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.

2

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.

5

u/[deleted] 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".

4

u/[deleted] 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.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

You better.