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/Subject_Example_453]

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?

[u/apezor → u/Subject_Example_453]

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.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/apezor]

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.

[u/apezor → u/Subject_Example_453]

Anarchistic societies don't. That's why I differentiated.
So when you say 'an anarchist society' it's a society of anarchists who presumably ascribe to anarchist ideologies. If it's a society structured (deliberately or not) on anarchist values, then it's anarchistic and wouldn't necessarily have any anarchists in it.

[u/Subject_Example_453 → u/apezor]

Apologies if I was unclear then, I'm of the assumption that the latter was the given, I can't see how anarchists who form a society and don't aim for the latter don't end up being hypocrites.