[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1763750690716.jpg ( 232.28 KB , 1280x873 , Anarchist_2011_protest.jpg )

 No.492346

I don't know how many anarchists are here, but I've been looking into anarchism, and though I'm pretty sceptical I find some of their points valid. It is easy for me to understand why someone would want to be an anarchist and I am not swayed by the basic, superficial, "On Authority" style "arguments" against it. I both understand and sympathise with their libertarian tendencies and scepticism toward the state.

However, I have some concerns nonetheless.

>1. No prisons, no death penalty, so what instead?


The concept of "crime" is, of course, foreign to anarchy, for there are no laws to violate. But of course anarchists, I hope, would agree something must be done to prevent and address acts like murder, assault, rape, and robbery. Rehabilitation programs have been proposed, which is fine (I would support that, in fact), but how is that substantially different from prison? In many countries (Norway, for instance), prison is basically that already, but no one denies it is prison. Such people would likely not willingly enter reabilitation, so for this to be effective, they'd have to be enrolled without their consent, much like how prisons or asylums work. How is this not, then, simply prison with a red-and-black coat of paint, regardless of how much better the conditions are? I wouldn't oppose such a system, but I'm not sure I would call it anarchist? Failing that, what would you do? And if you do want something like that, how would you enforce and sustain it under anarchy? Who would take away the committers of such acts to be rehabilitated? The anarcho-police? Neighborhood watch?

>2. How? Is this actually possible?


That's my biggest question. In no universe, to me, does it seem that your goal, however noble, is at all attainable. With standard socialism, we've at least gotten pretty close, but with anarchism, no large-scale experiments have survived. Ukraine's experiment was crushed by the USSR, the anarchists in Spain were utterly defeated, and I wouldn't exactly call Rojava anarchist, they just have a more libertarian form of government. My question here especially extends to Western anarchists. Suppose, for example, the USA falls, be that by itself or by some popular uprising. It is not taken over, but abolished entirely, the ideal conditions for anarchists! You and your anarchist org (assuming you're fortunate enough to have one) start organising, let's say you're really successful and get together a neighbourhood. Then what? How do you make decisions? Direct voting? Congratulations, now you're a direct democracy. The people are rulers, and you are no longer anarchists. Perhaps you may create something great, but unless I am misunderstanding something here, it shouldn't really be called anarchism. How exactly is anarchism organised? Total consensus is not possible on the majority of issues, especially politically. People are unlikely, even if the empire falls, to let go of their previous biases. Your neighbour with the Trump-Vance flag probably isn't going to donate much of his labour to the community gardens, nor much of his food to the community food reserve you've set up, unless he thinks you're trying to rebuild the USA from the ashes. But as an anarchist, you aren't, and your org hasn't been secretive about its sympathies and ideological leanings. Supposing he hasn't already done what members of dying cults tend to do, he will, at best, be of no help. The liberals (let's suppose you live in a mostly-liberal neighbourhood), of course, will also be of little help. Perhaps, at first, they will participate in your little democracy, but if it grows enough, they will suggest a republic instead; 'all this voting is so tiresome and inconvenient, what if we appointed representatives instead?', and soon enough you'll have a brand new state. How can we prevent a new state from arising after the empire falls, just as they always have before? The Roman Empire, once fallen, did not result in an anarchist Spain, Italy, Britain, or Germany, and if it did, they gave way to empires anew.
>>

 No.492348

File: 1763752686069.jpeg ( 39.94 KB , 414x575 , kleroterion-reconstructed.jpeg )

>How do you make decisions? Direct voting? Congratulations, now you're a direct democracy.
>Perhaps, at first, they will participate in your little democracy, but if it grows enough, they will suggest a republic instead; 'all this voting is so tiresome and inconvenient, what if we appointed representatives instead?'
Not an anarchist, but I do have an answer to this. Direct voting on important issues is only one component of democracy. The other, overlooked for centuries ever since the word "democracy" was inverted on its head, is sortition. Selecting public officials through random lot is how you delegate day-to-day decision making. This idea that democracy is especially cumbersome because everyone is constantly voting on decisions is ahistorical propaganda invented to aid the reputation of the oligarchic electoral republic.
>>

 No.492349

Did Makhno's Ukraine or anarchist Catalonia even fully abolish prison or the death penalty?

Unique IPs: 3

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome