Anarchism does fail in protecting despised minorities. If the local people want to hurt you, there's no higher authority to appeal to. You can try to fight (and lose, because you're a minority) or become a refugee (assuming the people in charge where you are let you leave), neither of which are reasonable options.
The shitbirds at /r/anarchism can't see that, of course, because they're so privileged they have no idea what a "despised minority" even is, let alone how they're treated.
What do you do if the higher authority wants to hurt you?
Couldn't someone easily say "This is why statists are so priveliged they are out of touch with reality."
I think you underestimate people's ability to settle things peacefully when they actually live near each other. Heck there's all kinds of research showing this is possible like Order Without Law and Elinor Ostrom's work.
It's not in people's interest to develop that kind of precedent, because then who's next? It's a real concern though and requires a strong culture of antiauthoritarianism. But it's obvious anarchism requires communities built on trust and equality. Difficult yes, impossible, probably not.
What do you do if the higher authority wants to hurt you?
Vote and rely on Constitutional protection. If that doesn't work, well, you're back to where I said anarchism brings you. The point is, in a functional governmental system, they do work.
Couldn't someone easily say "This is why statists are so privileged that they are out of touch with reality."
Only if they're willfully ignorant of how well governments work most of the time.
I think you underestimate people's ability to settle things peacefully when they actually live near each other.
Most times, sure, they can. But when they can't, as I said, there's nothing to stop the violence.
Heck there's all kinds of research showing this is possible like Order Without Law and Elinor Ostrom's work, as well as Restorative Justice.
Those things are nowhere near enough to demonstrate an anarchist system could stop the Klan, for example, as a government could and did.
But it's obvious anarchism requires communities built on trust and equality. Difficult yes, impossible, probably not.
"It will work if we all get along!" means it won't work, because we won't always all get along.
You can literally say the exact same thing about constitutional government for every single point.
It's just defined out by you saying a "functional" one
-> "The point is, in a functional anarchist system it does work"
gg
Governments don't do much to stop the klan, people rejecting the klan and kicking them out do. In fact, the fbi has published reports of the police being infiltrated by the kkk for years.
The big difference is that, in a constitutional government, you have a broader segment of society to be "the people" because, now, a whole country's worth of people can influence what the government does. For example:
Governments don't do much to stop the klan
Wrong. Simply wrong. The government stopped the Klan. The Federal government did, anyway, even though local governments refused to. Without the Federal government, chosen by the country as a whole, the Klan would still exist, because the local majority wanted it to.
And we have reports showing corruption at all levels of the police for over 100 years that every attempt has failed to fix.
Just because a system is flawed doesn't mean it can't be improved. And the system has improved. The decimation of the Klan is evidence of that.
More to the point: Do you think an anarchist system would be perfect? And if it isn't, and the majority likes how imperfect it is, how do you even begin to fix it?
That doesn't explain how you stop a minority from being oppressed.
No, the great depression, kennedy exposing their secrets and making them a laughing stock, and competition with other extreme groups has eroded them more than the government did. Some leaders in the federal government did things to suppress the kkk, like Johnson, but others like Reagan and the FBI simply encoded new ways of suppressing people of color and implementing white supremacy as described in The New Jim Crow.
No I don't think any system is perfect. I just think the current system is not as accountable to the people most affected by decisions as it could be, and that this is a result of structural flaws within it (like having people who aren't affected by decisions make them for large swaths of people).
The point about the police is that they structurally have their own interest. If you go against the blue code of silence, you get dropped and no one will help when you need it. The fact that every reform has failed for over 100 shows that it is a deeply embedded problem. This makes sense considering the police grew out of slave patrols and have played a racist role as an institution since then all the way through the new jim crow to today.
No, the great depression, kennedy exposing their secrets and making them a laughing stock, and competition with other extreme groups has eroded them more than the government did.
That was one iteration of the Klan. The first iteration was killed off by the Federal government, during Reconstruction, and the last was killed off during the Civil Rights Era by, again, the Federal government.
I just think the current system is not as accountable to the people most affected by decisions as it could be, and that this is a result of structural flaws within it (like having people who aren't affected by decisions make them for large swaths of people).
Then improve the system, don't tear it down. The idea that progressive improvement is impossible is the most pernicious disease which infests politics: It prevents people from engaging with reality, because they're convinced reality can be undone by The Revolution. No. The Revolution exists within reality, and is limited by it. Nothing happens from a clean slate.
Without institutionalized weapons like the police for a majority to wield over a minority (or minority over a majority), oppression becomes much harder.
This is wrong. Majorities oppress minorities just fine without any formal police, and, unless there's a police to prevent it, minorities have no real recourse.
Hopefully if people actually live together and talk, they can at least come to some sort of arrangement that all parties can live with/accept democratically.
And when they can't, there needs to be some mechanism to fix things without massive violence.
And if there's a deep disagreement between people, sometimes it's best to respect one another and separate into groups for a while (not that this is always possible but would be possible in more situations).
Refugees would disagree with this. They're separating "peacefully" because they'll be shot if they don't, and they don't have anywhere to separate to which wants them or can support them.
Again, it's a sign of privilege to imagine that everyone has someplace nice to run off to when things get too bad back home.
It's still necessary to have values in line with anarchism (like not racist and willing to lynch)
And here you go. Anarchism has no solution for when a large enough group of people don't have such values. When it succeeds, it's fine, but when it fails, it fails very, very badly.
And one final note:
There have to be decentralized forms of organization and leadership that are more directly accountable and recallable.
Direct democracy with instant recall... is not anarchism. It is a form of government.
I also neglected to mention that people gain power over their own lives, and material and social poverty are alleviated, there becomes much less discontent for say racism and other reactionary ideologies to feed off of. Coupled with egalitarian norms that most people tend to already favor or at least be sympathetic to, and you start to get a system that can potentially work well.
I think "commoning" is a good process toward both of these, for example, and we should support the construction of alternative institutions, both on a policy/meta-policy level and through actively building them in our day to day lives and relationships. That way we begin to erode economic and government relations which can further concentrate power by further fueling racial and other divides.
I also neglected to mention that people gain power over their own lives, and material and social poverty are alleviated, there becomes much less discontent for say racism and other reactionary ideologies to feed off of.
The Klan drew from people who were quite well-off and in control of their own lives. They just didn't want to share those lives with people who looked or thought differently from them. And you couldn't have persuaded them otherwise by talking about structural problems, in part because they damned well were the structural problems, and they liked the structure just fine, thank you very much.
Anarchism, the way you describe it, assumes everyone is going to be nice and broad-minded and so on. It has no way to deal with a substantial region where people simply aren't.
Only true idiots confuse arrogance with competence. Luckily for you /r/anarchism is full of literal idiots, they seem to like you.
If you have government, you inevitably have those who decide, and those who have to obey. If nobody is forced to obey, the government may as well not exist at all.
Like the more intelligent fella said: You can't have government without authority.
Mitchy-boy, come out of the closet, just admit it: when you say "I'm an anarchist" you mean:
"I wish to be tyrant of my own little fiefdom, where true equality is whatever I want to happen next."
Then you are making up your own definition of government.
You can assign any meaning to any string of letters that you choose.
But you won't be able to communicate with anyone except those in your little clique.
Sounds kind of ridiculous to me. And the death of your kind of anarchy which seems like a pretty good idea from where I sit.
"I wish to be tyrant of my own little fiefdom, where true equality is whatever I want to happen next."
What? What does that mean? How am I supposed to figure out what you intended to say? Am I supposed to read your mind? Is sucking your dick the key to your encryption?
You have made yourself into a joke. Keep playing in your little sandbox.
So your idea of anarchy is to have a government, because you apparently need government. But nobody has to follow the decisions of the government, which makes the government completely useless. LMAO
I can't have a discussion with someone who has no clue how to speak/write the english language.
Define "government" and cite your dictionary.
It sounds like you are confusing a "state" with government. But you know anarchy is stateless so now you are just fucked.
There is no way there is any competence on your part. Just arrogance and ignorance. No confusion. Arrogance when you just regurgitate your dogma without examining it. Resulting in chosen ignorance.
someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today! from here, it looks like you're the one fellating yourself. enjoying your own little drama thread honey?
27 comments
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-11-14
Nothing special really, just an amusing incident.
1 SnapshillBot 2017-11-14
You probably don't get bussy because you're the type of guy who fucking nails his dick to a board
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 tot22 2017-11-14
OP how often do you watch video of yourself jerking off? I'd be willing to bet its a lot.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-11-14
Wow, this is a fucking terrible thread
Upvoted
1 aggressiveshitpost 2017-11-14
Come on /u/Cyclideon, it's not like this shit is less retarded than the stuff that gets routinely posted on /r/Anarchism. Make some effort.
1 tHeSiD 2017-11-14
Is this the new euphoria moment on reddit?
1 aliceunknown 2017-11-14
This dude. ^
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-11-14
It was a play on the Oscar Wilde quote that keeps appearing on their sub's right column - apparently they've missed that.
1 Thestateyest 2017-11-14
“Voluntarists aren’t anarchist at all, they believe in voluntary hierarchy!” “Yes my communist government is not statist, why do you ask?”
1 derleth 2017-11-14
Anarchism does fail in protecting despised minorities. If the local people want to hurt you, there's no higher authority to appeal to. You can try to fight (and lose, because you're a minority) or become a refugee (assuming the people in charge where you are let you leave), neither of which are reasonable options.
The shitbirds at /r/anarchism can't see that, of course, because they're so privileged they have no idea what a "despised minority" even is, let alone how they're treated.
1 boldbandana 2017-11-14
What do you do if the higher authority wants to hurt you? Couldn't someone easily say "This is why statists are so priveliged they are out of touch with reality." I think you underestimate people's ability to settle things peacefully when they actually live near each other. Heck there's all kinds of research showing this is possible like Order Without Law and Elinor Ostrom's work. It's not in people's interest to develop that kind of precedent, because then who's next? It's a real concern though and requires a strong culture of antiauthoritarianism. But it's obvious anarchism requires communities built on trust and equality. Difficult yes, impossible, probably not.
1 derleth 2017-11-14
Vote and rely on Constitutional protection. If that doesn't work, well, you're back to where I said anarchism brings you. The point is, in a functional governmental system, they do work.
Only if they're willfully ignorant of how well governments work most of the time.
Most times, sure, they can. But when they can't, as I said, there's nothing to stop the violence.
Those things are nowhere near enough to demonstrate an anarchist system could stop the Klan, for example, as a government could and did.
"It will work if we all get along!" means it won't work, because we won't always all get along.
1 boldbandana 2017-11-14
You can literally say the exact same thing about constitutional government for every single point. It's just defined out by you saying a "functional" one -> "The point is, in a functional anarchist system it does work" gg Governments don't do much to stop the klan, people rejecting the klan and kicking them out do. In fact, the fbi has published reports of the police being infiltrated by the kkk for years.
1 derleth 2017-11-14
The big difference is that, in a constitutional government, you have a broader segment of society to be "the people" because, now, a whole country's worth of people can influence what the government does. For example:
Wrong. Simply wrong. The government stopped the Klan. The Federal government did, anyway, even though local governments refused to. Without the Federal government, chosen by the country as a whole, the Klan would still exist, because the local majority wanted it to.
Just because a system is flawed doesn't mean it can't be improved. And the system has improved. The decimation of the Klan is evidence of that.
More to the point: Do you think an anarchist system would be perfect? And if it isn't, and the majority likes how imperfect it is, how do you even begin to fix it?
1 boldbandana 2017-11-14
That doesn't explain how you stop a minority from being oppressed.
No, the great depression, kennedy exposing their secrets and making them a laughing stock, and competition with other extreme groups has eroded them more than the government did. Some leaders in the federal government did things to suppress the kkk, like Johnson, but others like Reagan and the FBI simply encoded new ways of suppressing people of color and implementing white supremacy as described in The New Jim Crow.
No I don't think any system is perfect. I just think the current system is not as accountable to the people most affected by decisions as it could be, and that this is a result of structural flaws within it (like having people who aren't affected by decisions make them for large swaths of people).
The point about the police is that they structurally have their own interest. If you go against the blue code of silence, you get dropped and no one will help when you need it. The fact that every reform has failed for over 100 shows that it is a deeply embedded problem. This makes sense considering the police grew out of slave patrols and have played a racist role as an institution since then all the way through the new jim crow to today.
1 derleth 2017-11-14
That was one iteration of the Klan. The first iteration was killed off by the Federal government, during Reconstruction, and the last was killed off during the Civil Rights Era by, again, the Federal government.
Then improve the system, don't tear it down. The idea that progressive improvement is impossible is the most pernicious disease which infests politics: It prevents people from engaging with reality, because they're convinced reality can be undone by The Revolution. No. The Revolution exists within reality, and is limited by it. Nothing happens from a clean slate.
This is wrong. Majorities oppress minorities just fine without any formal police, and, unless there's a police to prevent it, minorities have no real recourse.
And when they can't, there needs to be some mechanism to fix things without massive violence.
Refugees would disagree with this. They're separating "peacefully" because they'll be shot if they don't, and they don't have anywhere to separate to which wants them or can support them.
Again, it's a sign of privilege to imagine that everyone has someplace nice to run off to when things get too bad back home.
And here you go. Anarchism has no solution for when a large enough group of people don't have such values. When it succeeds, it's fine, but when it fails, it fails very, very badly.
And one final note:
Direct democracy with instant recall... is not anarchism. It is a form of government.
1 boldbandana 2017-11-14
I also neglected to mention that people gain power over their own lives, and material and social poverty are alleviated, there becomes much less discontent for say racism and other reactionary ideologies to feed off of. Coupled with egalitarian norms that most people tend to already favor or at least be sympathetic to, and you start to get a system that can potentially work well.
I think "commoning" is a good process toward both of these, for example, and we should support the construction of alternative institutions, both on a policy/meta-policy level and through actively building them in our day to day lives and relationships. That way we begin to erode economic and government relations which can further concentrate power by further fueling racial and other divides.
1 derleth 2017-11-14
The Klan drew from people who were quite well-off and in control of their own lives. They just didn't want to share those lives with people who looked or thought differently from them. And you couldn't have persuaded them otherwise by talking about structural problems, in part because they damned well were the structural problems, and they liked the structure just fine, thank you very much.
Anarchism, the way you describe it, assumes everyone is going to be nice and broad-minded and so on. It has no way to deal with a substantial region where people simply aren't.
1 TraurigAberWahr 2017-11-14
LMAO /u/MitchSnyder
Only true idiots confuse arrogance with competence. Luckily for you /r/anarchism is full of literal idiots, they seem to like you.
If you have government, you inevitably have those who decide, and those who have to obey. If nobody is forced to obey, the government may as well not exist at all.
Like the more intelligent fella said: You can't have government without authority.
Mitchy-boy, come out of the closet, just admit it: when you say "I'm an anarchist" you mean:
"I wish to be tyrant of my own little fiefdom, where true equality is whatever I want to happen next."
1 MitchSnyder 2017-11-14
Then you are making up your own definition of government.
You can assign any meaning to any string of letters that you choose.
But you won't be able to communicate with anyone except those in your little clique.
Sounds kind of ridiculous to me. And the death of your kind of anarchy which seems like a pretty good idea from where I sit.
What? What does that mean? How am I supposed to figure out what you intended to say? Am I supposed to read your mind? Is sucking your dick the key to your encryption?
You have made yourself into a joke. Keep playing in your little sandbox.
1 TraurigAberWahr 2017-11-14
So your idea of anarchy is to have a government, because you apparently need government. But nobody has to follow the decisions of the government, which makes the government completely useless. LMAO
1 MitchSnyder 2017-11-14
I can't have a discussion with someone who has no clue how to speak/write the english language.
Define "government" and cite your dictionary.
It sounds like you are confusing a "state" with government. But you know anarchy is stateless so now you are just fucked.
There is no way there is any competence on your part. Just arrogance and ignorance. No confusion. Arrogance when you just regurgitate your dogma without examining it. Resulting in chosen ignorance.
1 TraurigAberWahr 2017-11-14
haha look in the mirror baby
1 MitchSnyder 2017-11-14
I do.
Cite or admit you are not communicating, have no interest in communicating, can't communicate and won't cop to it.
Show me a dictionary that doesn't rely on manipulated translations like the other idiot.
And take your hands out of your pants.
1 deepthinker420 2017-11-14
someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today! from here, it looks like you're the one fellating yourself. enjoying your own little drama thread honey?
1 MitchSnyder 2017-11-14
No, no problem here, my bed is against a wall.
Wherever you are, you still don't have any ability to communicate with english speakers.
I'm focused on teaching ego driven idiots. I don't care about your boredom.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2017-11-14
Wahrhaftig, ja.