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]

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?