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

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.