Treatment of minoritys in anarchism

this is literally what we already do in democratic representative societies anyway

Seems pretty real to me

best answer

imo: if there's systemic suppression, then you're not living under anarchism proper, since anarchism is the absence of embedded structural hierarchies and, unlike marxism or w/e, is an actual way of living and not just a static 'system' of analysis. i realize that will seem sophistic and it has holes in it taken to an extreme

also, re: protection of individuals. you might be interested in left-wing market anarchism and/or mututalism which (arguably) have a greater concern for the place of individuals balanced with the collective. youtube.com/watch?v=vCgg1b5CQ4w

Self-defense

The modern socialist movement is a fucking trainwreck of feminist retardation and nigger nazis who would kill all white people given a tenth of a chance, so this is worth thinking about, but there's no magic answer. As far as I can see, the only real solution is the obvious one: to have enough military vehicles and advanced weaponry that your side can overrule the majority. The majority of a society is often wrong, as in the case of the Soviets' homophobia, the various religiously driven furors in numerous countries, the amerilard insanity about how having sex with someone two seconds below an age determined purely by feels rather than science is rape, and the ethnic strife we've seen in the US and other places with large minority populations. The cold, hard truth of the matter is that when your opponents reject facts and logic, force is the only option. That won't change under socialism, and socialism won't magically make people respect rational thinking.

This feels like it has a story attached to it

Also

Its called the education system nibba

Aren't there always stories attached to every struggle for liberation? They're invariably stories full of stupid, arrogant people who believe they have the right to determine how other people should live their lives, and they'll often make up some pretext that calamity will befall innocents if they're not allowed to control other people's personal affairs and social opportunities. Anyone who wants freedom has to be prepared to destroy people like that. That's just the way it is.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. All the education in the world will have no effect if the person you're trying to enlighten just doesn't want to listen. After all, if they had to listen to you to learn the truth, that would mean they couldn't find it on their own and/or believed something false before, and that would mean they're not such hot shit after all.

but thats exactly what i want fam

ancap detected

...

that's the nice thing about truth, I doesn't care. If someone was trying to put forward an idiotic idea and got shot down when trying to defend it, the populace will see the futility of his arguments when held to logic and pic the more rational option. This will only be made easier when we do away with all the needless ideology in society, like capitalism and racism, and start basing our opinions off objective fact.

no u

I like how this sounds, but how would that be reliably enforced without a state of some kind?

The witch thing was just an example! In 2017 we have thousands of people desire to murder individual people over Twitter posts. The only thing that stops them is the threat of arrest afterwards. I want to know about what to do about this inside Anarchism.

Can you define this please? How does that work? How is it better? I always hear Anarchists wanting direct democracy.
I always hear this exact thing about from ayncraps but about corporations. Also how do you leave if you are dead? A lot of the answers about what happens after when what I asked about is what would happen beforehand.

I like that, but I'll run out of bullets eventually. The problem with that is that if a mob believes you should be dead because of being a jew/vegan/witch/whatever and then you defend yourself, the reaction is just "See! He killed three of us! We were right! I knew he was bad!"

Yeah, this is my big problem. Problem though, your commune will probably ban guns if modern anarchists are still going to stay the way they are currently.

Thanks for giving the thread a perfect example of why we need to be armed. Rational arguments will have no impact on someone as flagrantly moronic as you.

is dis nigga serious

gb2 reddit

There is no state you retard, it's in the name, Anarchism
The point of anarchism is decentralized power structure, the problem with police is that they're given more rights than the average citizen that enables them into a centralized force they hold over citizens in society. Since they enforce the will of the bourgs, the bourgs in turn grant them special muh privileges, such as the ability to cover up their """""mistakes""""" when they shoot an unarmed civilian criminal, having their cop buddies lie for them during cases so they can get off more easily and with more merit because courts take the testimony of cops more seriously than civilians, 'civil forfeiture' AKA state-approved theft, or when they do get convicted, they get slap on the wrist punishments and a paid leave, whereas a civilian who fucked up in their position would get 20 years or the chair. And I know what you're going to say in your retarded way;
That's only because the state is willing to sacrifice a few of their own every once in awhile to appease the masses, this makes the system seem "fair" and prevents retribution (i.e. rioting, personal hunts against cops) from the masses. the state is perfectly willing to eat it's own children to keep itself in power, and if you think that in most cases the team with the cheaters will 'play fair' with their little 'honor system' when thy themselves are making the rules, you can fuck right off back to your fantasyland. And yes there will still be investigators in Anarchism.
So long as it doesn't affect the individual. 51% can't vote to rob the 49%. Anarchism means "no leaders" NOT "no laws"

Read a fucking book.

If we base our decision making off research and hard, testable fact
then yes
also nice argument

firstly
you need to relax m8
secondly
the reason so many people act with disdain for things like these is primarily because groups that push certain ideologies in peoples faces.

Kill the spook=despooking the populace

It isn't easy, and people will resist at first. But with things like atheism on the rise around the
world, and our populations becoming more and more educated, I'd say your melodramatic cynicism and humorless posts are a little misguided

I officially like an-nils now

Collective bargaining is enforced only by the people taking part in the bargain. That's just how it works. Also, people don't really want to murder each other over twitter posts. Twitter should not be taken seriously. No, serious anarchists do not want to ban guns, you will be able to defend yourself when necessary. Granted, your enemies might have guns too. And "leaving the commune" is a perfectly viable option. What Ancaps advocated has nothing to do with us because tyranny will be everpresent in Ancapistan, while that won't be the case for us. Obviously you'd want to leave before the shit went down. You'd have to be pretty dumb to not see the warning signs.

It means making a stringent effort to have everyone on the same page before major decisions are made and perhaps requiring a larger majority than just 51% before passing or rescinding laws. Honestly, I think you should read more anarchist theory, all these issues have been debated at length before and you'll get a lot more out of reading Kropotkin or Bookchin than you will from an imageboard. At the end of the day - there's no easy solution because bigger groups will always beat smaller ones under any system. If you don't believe this is true, then you don't believe in revolution at all since the only thing we revolutionaries have on our side is numbers. As far as exactly how one strikes a balance between the perils of "mob rule" and oligarchy there are no easy answers. But anarchists have put a lot of time and effort into coming up with possible means by which we can mitigate these dangers, you just have to put in the time and effort to research them.

There'll be very minimal government (to the point that it no longer meets the definition of the state), which would serve as an accounting system and platform for negotiation. If you had lived in Somalia all your life, where people kill each other over disagreements and everything is run by violent, feudalistic warlords, wouldn't you see the method of operation of courts in the USA as being foreign and even utopian?

For long-time resentment already boiling over, such as that between blacks and whites in the American South or Turks and Kurds, it might be more difficult to establish a universally-accepted standard for peaceful negotiation. I don't think it's insurmountable, though.

What's your first instinct, to kill someone who rear-ends your car or to take them to court? Certainly, it's enforced by state violence now, but when people will likely agree to defend each other in the future, it will be no different. It might even be possible that there will be a quasi-police force (akin to a militia) which prevents violence but in which the courts are run on the basis of both parties negotiating without a strict set of a priori laws, and this would technically not constitute a state. This exact system worked for thousands of years in tribal Somalia under the name of "xeer" until Said Barre destroyed it. When his centralized Soviet-style regime collapsed, the absence of these traditional frameworks for self-governance (or any governance at all) led to the chaos (not anarchy!) of present-day Somalia. A system along these lines would not qualify as a state because it is not a centralized. hierarchical institution which strips people of their freedom like current governments do - it, instead, is oriented towards giving people the ability to protect their own freedoms in peaceful manners. Alongside a socialist mode of production, it would maximize individual freedom in all senses of the word given current societal conditions.
Not that guy, but the way it works is that, unless you find yourself unable to consent to a motion, it gets passed as a decision. I'm skeptical of it.

Thanks for using a shitposting meme from Reddit to prove that you don't belong here.
OUT

You're putting entirely too much faith in the average person, or at least the average Ameriblubber. They'll believe whatever satisfies the spooks they've been inculcated with because it's easier than thinking critically. Intelligent people shouldn't be held back by their lack of understanding and refusal to listen.

Smashing busybodies' heads into the pavement with a sledgehammer isn't meant to be funny. Except to us, of course. It's one of those "you had to be there" things.

Nice digits, though.

Except in Anarchism there aren't representatives it's supposed to be everyone involved in society whatsoever.

Well I say you have too little faith. At the end of the day there is no means to quantify who is right other than personal experience and anecdotal evidence. I will say this however; if you feel like our divisions now are insurmountable and social cohesion is a waste of time, why not just leave humanity? If in your mind, all our progress ends here, and people will just not get smarter, or will always vote for something dumb because reasons, why not just become an an-prim or anti-natalist?

What makes them right immediately? Maybe those "idiots" have something we didn't consider originally! Then that sure would make us hypocritical! All society is built on discourse, and as I said before

If we remove toxic ideology from our society we can beguine getting things done more efficiently. But it all starts with education!

I have enough experience to know better.

Evidence and reasoning.

When has that ever happened?

Anecdotal evidence as stated earlier

I consider those who follow to Austrian "idiots", yet they give good criticism of my ideas. Their criticisms are what make me smarter and more adept at defending my ideas.

This all seems to be going no where, we have both resorted to talking about our experiences, and have their for engaged in the cardinal sin you put forward earlier in the thread, that of putting ones feels over what we can prove. I think my job is done here.

Your assuming that everyone has an Autism Level of 200 and zero hopes, dreams, wants, desires and emotions.
If we are you build an anarchist society, it needs to be one were the manner in which it functions can work even if in one particular village, all members have the Autism Level of a mayonnaise jar and the emotional range of an Tumblr user. Because one person like that can ruin something for everyone if a system can't account for it.

More over, if the system of anarchism (or any system) does not have an answer for this and OPs question, then we won't be able to convince anyone, let alone a majority people to want anarchism.

sorry
meant to say Austrian economics

Here's my proof: Go to YouTube and head to the comments section of a Steven Crowder video.

gg no re
thanks for the giggle m8s
now I'm done for he evening

*the evening
I'm sleepy as you can tell ;^)

ITT: People who don't understand anarchism

No. That hypothetical situation that you gave does not take place in an anarchist society.
Why not?
Bigger angry mob, like antifa but better. I think fitness and learning self-defence should be encouraged in the general population.
Pick one. You don't have to worry unless you're literally asking for it, self defense only (inc. defense of others).
If a minority is having problems there will be a council or something to bitch to, even if they have to move and raise the problem elsewhere, if it's a major issue in the society there will probably also be groups that exist to aid them.

These aren't even arguments. You're just memeing at me for stating that some people are stupid and and leftist systems needs to account for and have answers to this.

I didn't.
Why? Shitty people will never magically stop existing.
Because you'd need some sort of institution to confirm people as being qualified to actually inspect a crime scene, take samples, identify materials, compare DNA, other people to confirm this, establish the science, etc etc etc
You're not getting what I'm asking. I'm trying to get an answer to how anarchism accounts for when the majority is wrong about something and are about to hurt someone over it.

No! You're not understanding what I'm asking! One person is enough to kill someone. 51% of a town is more than enough to kill someone.
But that's entirely subjective! I would say someone is only asking to be killed because they are currently trying to rob, rape, or murder someone. But that's me! There's a lot of people that would say I'm asking to be murdered because I'm wearing a belt made of leather and 'meat is murder.' An angry or spooked majority of a commune just being allowed to murder anyone they want with the criterion being "they asked for it" is chaos and barbarism.

If this council has any force that would actually aid protect the victim, wouldn't that not be anarchism?

What's stopping them?

I don't think it's even logically possible to design a system which would allow the people total power to implement "good laws" but prevent them from implementing "bad laws" because the definitions of good and bad are totally subjective. The only thing standing between an anarchist society and total abuse of power is unwarranted faith in the intelligence and benevolence of the average human.

It seems like pure idealism to believe that the ignorant, barbaric hordes who make up 95% of the human population would somehow develop wisdom and compassion if the state was abolished. We'd just end up with a slightly different state in its place, probably with even worse laws designed to appeal to the worst flaws of the common human character.

I'd love anarchism to work, but we need to fix humanity first.

Force, obviously.
I think the average human can distingush between laws of "don't kill other people" and "go out and kill everyone", this should be an obvious choice.
Most people are not violent barbarians. Also read this.

There are a lot of seemingly obvious things that average people have trouble distinguishing.

it's funny how right-wingers fear rule of the majority ('mob rule' as they call it) more than rule of a minority

your right, people are just too stupid for democracy and need to be told what to do
;^)

You're right, teenagers are just too stupid for freedom and need to be told what to do. It would be a lot easier to support anarchism if the American left wasn't stuffed with this kind of hypocrisy.

nibba we went over this yesterday

spooks are spooks
just ignore them and educate people and they will go away

Also checked

"Minority" is an idpol spook. There are no minorities and majorities.

That's the only time a YPG poster hasn't just told me to go die for telling them the facts. I was starting to hope the entire organization got rekt by turkroaches.

Scapegoating is a social phenomenon directly related to hierarchical structure. It takes place only when individual with perceived authority legitimises acts of violence.

I was using my shit posting flag

Oh. Never mind, then. Though now that you mention it, Rojava is a pretty good example of what this thread is talking about. They have serious problems with social conservatism, especially because they're in a Muslim-heavy area.

it's their weakpoint because they can only avoid their own furnaces for so long

I fail to see how that's an indictment of democratic confederatism which is what that flag represents

I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you accidentally stumbled upon the truth.
The problem is that people are also too stupid for us to trust any individual to be a benevolent dictator. The conclusion we reach is that we need to build a better kind of person.

admit I don't know about the americans, but in the European witch trials most of the people that got killed where actual maleficarum. The idea that they where innocents is an urban myth.

And thus we return to ==EDUCATION==

I'd argue that if people were ever going to listen to reason, a progressive political program would be much further along than it is. Very few people actually change their opinions out of intellectual conviction. Most people do it when they think their current opinion isn't serving their interests anymore. If capitalism was working for most people, there wouldn't be a burgeoning socialist movement right now, regardless of whether a minority was suffering unjustly under capitalism or not.

Define state.

People are always going to believe stupid shit no matter what.

All you do is shit up this board with condescending Reddit-tier analyses, and pseudo intellectual nonsense.

by the other 49% who aren't idiots and by common decency and people congregating among good company. you can't protect everyone user, some people will die unjustly. that's the way things are

Organized group that exercises authority over an area

Anarchists are cool with the organized group part, just not the authority or area parts.

So you want a "minimal" government without authority? What would be the power and the purpose of this government? Are you sure you're not minarchist at least?