You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
4 points
*

For example by positioning themselves along a river and demanding payment from anyone who draws water.

Or by crafting weapons and demand payment from anyone who doesn’t pay.

Or seek control through other threats, like poisoning food.

Really, the possibilities are endless…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

An anarchist society doesn’t mean that the people of that society can’t defend themselves in nonviolent and violent ways.

Furthermore: why would those “dissidents” even start such behavior?

Edit (addendum): Seriously: Do you really think that over 150 years of anarchist theory didn’t think of those scenarios and how to prevent them?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

plenty of bad actors doing evil suff today for a big variety of reasons. i think its safe to assume they will be there, even if they are not so numerous?

whats the theory on how to deal with this stuff?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Without private property, there isn’t much ingentive to be malicious in the first place.

And as I’ve said: a community can defend itself without the need of command and control hierarchy.

Example solutions for the examples given above:

Since these assholes live in a community, diplomacy to sanction those people until they cut that shit out. But he concept of payment isn’t really a thing in a “fully anarchist” society, since those would for example run on gift economies, rendering the concept of payment a bit useless.

Crafting weapons example: Same thing. But if diplomacy doesn’t work, the weapons would have to be taken by force (i.e. by a voluntary, democratically controlled militia).

The food stuff: I’m again asking “why?”. But in general: let’s say that people can’t stop the “evil” people from being a dick by sanctions or force: People just move away. That’s how humanity did it back in hunter-gatherer times. I think it was this video which explained it quite well (but I might confuse it with another one)

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Anarchist theory almost exclusively talks about political motivated crime they propose will stop when the state and all it’s structures are abolished.

Non-political crime they mostly only brush over and suggest the communities will handle it themselves.

So no, they don’t have a concept of how people are supposed to protect themselve from crimes that aren’t politically motivated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s because you can’t over-generalize these things without gausing great injustice in the process.

The communities on a ground level know best how to handle crimes in the community. If you want laws encompassing everyone in every facet of life: go read a bible or something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Anarchist theory almost exclusively talks about political motivated crime they propose will stop when the state and all it’s structures are abolished.

You haven’t actually read any anarchist theory, have you? This is a fucking joke.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

In the real world practice of small-scale egalitarian societies, these people either get killed, or the group packs up and goes somewhere else. That’s how humanity lived for the hundreds of thousands of years before we invented agriculture.

How we translate that into a contemporary agricultural context where private property and control of resources is a real force is beyond me, but I do think that we have to try.

permalink
report
parent
reply