Perhaps, we should stop calling it "anarchy," which most Americans have been conditioned to fear, and simply address it as a more free expression of democracy, which most Americans think they have experienced, but haven't.
"Anarchist people say, 'Abolish the cops.' But in this kind of society, you can't just do that," he says. "How are you going to go help vulnerable people if they're being attacked?"
So what's the solution?
"You need to create a healthy community before you can get there..."

And how do you create a health community that precludes the possibility of vulnerable people being attacked and the necessity of law enforcement? Other than expunging all the criminals?
Anarchy is nothing more than radical democracy.
That's not Anarchy. It's people making due with what they've got because the infrastructures have crumbled. Their only other choice is to sit on their asses and starve. Don't appropriate these people's misery to validate your ideology.
As your fearless leader posted:…

Anarchism is mostly a joke, the left wing version of libertarianism. It's fun to think about on a theoretical level, but I don't really feel like starving to death after the revolution. The only thing that can defend anarchists from unscrupulous assholes is the state.
And of course there are right-wing and conservative think tanks who support "anarchism." They share their anti-government sentiment and any argument that hurts the state or the notion of good government is useful to their cause. You can also find libertarians online who endorse living in Somalia because the lifestyle reveals that you don't really need a government. Sorry, but the big kids aren't falling for it.
I'd really like to know how anarchists propose dealing with the type of crime that happens behind closed doors (such as spousal and child abuse) without a mostly disinterested third party (i.e. *police*) getting involved. I assume they think the "community" would handle it? And how does the community handle it without taking one side or the other, almost invariably the side of the abuser (if history is any indication, which it is)?

Let's just entertain for a second the idea that an anarchist community would be so perfect and amazing not to assign women and children second-class citizen status, how does the community deal with a wife beater in the absence of prisons? Does he just get tossed out of the community? In a shit-hits-the-fan scenario how is that not a death sentence?
@ 4. Yes, "people making do with what they've got because the infrastructures have crumbled" is precisely what I'm talking about. What do you think I mean by anarchist (or anarch-ish)?

@ 8. If you could take a time machine to a Boston tavern in 1773 where the Sons of Liberty were planning their next demonstration and demanded to know how, exactly, they proposed to deal with "the type of crime that happens behind closed doors" in their new republic, what do you think they would've said?

And if they said something like, "you know, we haven't drawn the blueprint down to the micro level yet, but we know the status quo is not sustainable and we're kind of taking this thing one step at a time," what would you have said back?

I know exactly what they would have said. They would have said, "who fucking cares? Women and children are the property of their husbands and fathers."

Unless anarchists have practical suggestions for how to realize the society they want and what that society would look like, nothing they suggest is anything more than a fantasy; the same kind of fantasy that Ayn Rand fanatics go nuts for.

In short, there's a reason why American anarchists are largely wealthy, white, and young.

I think the idea is that it's up to every community to figure out their own solutions. The idea that nobody knows how best to solve the problems in a community than the members of the community. I believe in the case of spousal and child abuse it would be ideal to create a culture that allows for victims to feel safe to come out about the abuse they suffer and offer protection to them while offering healing-based solutions to address the abuser.

Anarchists don't have all the answers, because society is changing so rapidly. However, we do know that self-rule has been done. And furthermore, it has succeeded. Anthropological study shows this. Primarily in hunter-gatherer community models.
I dig the romantic pamphlets and garden retreats but states and capitalism seem to be in really strong form, and very popular (especially the hard-policed metropolises with little freedom of armament, like SF NY Lndn Paris)

new wealth of Korea, Singapore, China and importance of central bankers to recovery suggests any tendency away from liberal democracy is toward denser government. sure, there are ways to inhabit breakdowns but most people would rather just move to Houston from NO

"But most people would rather just move to Houston from NO"

And if a junkie loses their heroin dealer they would probably rather find another dealer than try to deal with their addiction. That doesn't make it the best or healthiest decision.
@6 - By "unscrupulous assholes", history shows that that actually is the state. Every serious and enduring anarchist arrangement has been actively crushed... by the state. French soldiers crushed the Paris Commune, Bolsheviks crushed the Free Territory, Spain's fascist state (eventually) crushed the anarchist Publicans during WWII, and on and on.

People aren't allowed to live free, they are forced to live within a state, ruled by some "strongman" (prime minister, president, king, whathaveyou), and his well-equipped army. Every time.

I reject the example of Somalia, because that was, again, borne out of war, and the people have little to no experience with self-organization beyond hierarchical leaders with weapons.

@8 - Have you ever read Ecotopia, or Ecotopia Emerging? (by Ernest Callenbach), they actually address the question of domestic violence in part. Worthy reads, very interesting from an anthropological viewpoint.

@10 - Black Anarchists.
"Anarchism" is largely white, because it came out of white western political theory. Duh.
@ 13 what do people do? normative politics can be fun but when you have a political subject (yet to be identified, yet to be recruited) that can only seize power in a disaster vacuum and then mostly doesn't I am not going to join that political subject

@ 14 crushability seems a weakness. my home state seems unlikely to b crushed

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.