Yeah as soon as the word “force” comes into play, he’s not an anarchist.
A lot of anarchy depends on the concept of equity.
If someone in particular is against the equity of his peers, then that individual would likely be kicked out of the collective for violating that tenet.
More than likely, the racist/homophobic individual was never allowed to join the group. If that racist/homophobe was a child raised in the anarchist society and held these views as an adult, then the real question becomes why did that individual form those beliefs if they were intolerable to the group. Action needs to be taken there.
I don’t think he ever said “force” explicitly, but he seemed to be in favor of bullying anyone who didn’t agree with him, so what’s the difference?
Also, what would anarchists do if there’s a whole group of racist homophobes? What if the racist homophobes outnumber the anarchist commune? How is ostracizing them going to address that?
We don’t need to imagine how a child raised in an anarchist society could grow up to be racist; we already live in a world where racists exist and there’s no practical way of bringing about an abrupt halt in that generational pattern. Describing a society that has already been anarchic for generations is merely an abstraction.
If the group of racist homophobic people outnumber us, how did we form our collective? They weren’t anarchist to begin with. They aren’t entitled to our resources.
Because the world is more complex than simply one community forming an anarchist collective and then suddenly all groups of people are involved some harmonious syndicalism where everyone agrees on a basic set of standard social norms and ethical behavior.
You might form an anarchist commune, and maybe a few miles away a remnant of the Hells Angels forms a white supremacist commune based on their own organizational structure. If they decide they want to attack and take your resources, you need a viable means of common defense. Which implies some form of social organization.
If there’s an overarching government, if it’s well-designed and effective, with the correct goals and priorities, then it should at a bare minimum protect against basic things like violence, theft, extortion, racketeering, abduction, and human trafficking.
And if your commune is powerful enough that it decides to be the one to enforce those norms, then it is a de facto government, no matter how decentralized you try to make it.
Yeah as soon as the word “force” comes into play, he’s not an anarchist.
A lot of anarchy depends on the concept of equity. If someone in particular is against the equity of his peers, then that individual would likely be kicked out of the collective for violating that tenet.
More than likely, the racist/homophobic individual was never allowed to join the group. If that racist/homophobe was a child raised in the anarchist society and held these views as an adult, then the real question becomes why did that individual form those beliefs if they were intolerable to the group. Action needs to be taken there.
I don’t think he ever said “force” explicitly, but he seemed to be in favor of bullying anyone who didn’t agree with him, so what’s the difference?
Also, what would anarchists do if there’s a whole group of racist homophobes? What if the racist homophobes outnumber the anarchist commune? How is ostracizing them going to address that?
We don’t need to imagine how a child raised in an anarchist society could grow up to be racist; we already live in a world where racists exist and there’s no practical way of bringing about an abrupt halt in that generational pattern. Describing a society that has already been anarchic for generations is merely an abstraction.
If the group of racist homophobic people outnumber us, how did we form our collective? They weren’t anarchist to begin with. They aren’t entitled to our resources.
Because the world is more complex than simply one community forming an anarchist collective and then suddenly all groups of people are involved some harmonious syndicalism where everyone agrees on a basic set of standard social norms and ethical behavior.
You might form an anarchist commune, and maybe a few miles away a remnant of the Hells Angels forms a white supremacist commune based on their own organizational structure. If they decide they want to attack and take your resources, you need a viable means of common defense. Which implies some form of social organization.
If there’s an overarching government, if it’s well-designed and effective, with the correct goals and priorities, then it should at a bare minimum protect against basic things like violence, theft, extortion, racketeering, abduction, and human trafficking.
And if your commune is powerful enough that it decides to be the one to enforce those norms, then it is a de facto government, no matter how decentralized you try to make it.
You can organize a response. The response does not need to remain organized after it’s accomplished what it’s purpose was.
Also no institutions in existence prevent violence, theft, extortion, abduction or human trafficking. They can only respond to it.