This is mostly a serious question. Also, not for the tankies/MLs. I already know what your answer to that question is. I may not always agree with you on everything, but you do have an answer that if the conditions became right, could actually work.

No, this is for the type of anarchist completely against the wall, gulags, seemingly any amount of getting hands dirty. What is the solution to those types of people? There are so many of them in the US, a lot of which are heavily armed, that they could easily topple a socialist system, and even if they didn't do that, their existence would be incompatible with any marginalized group living their lives, since they love to harass them at best, outright murder them at worse. So what's the solution? Anarchists often seem to avoid this, seemingly believing that if there was a socialist or communist society, they would just say "aw shucks, guess I was wrong about that. Guess I'll no longer be racist or xenophobic!"

So am I missing something, what's the answer?

  • weshallovercum [any]
    4·
    4 years ago

    So now the question becomes, why is it OK for anarchists to use authoritarian methods to deal with reactionaries? Why was it OK for the Catalonian anarchists to execute priests, implement discipline in the factories etc? I don't disagree with what the Catalonian anarchists did, but it strikes strange that no one sees it as example of authoritarianism. Whenever anarchists were in messy situations, they used violence and subjugation as much as MLs do.

    • kristina [she/her]
      2·
      4 years ago

      look, clearly what needs to happen is we just all use black flags and everything is good and ok

    • Amorphous [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      "authoritarianism" isnt a real thing to begin with, thats where your question fails

      • weshallovercum [any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Well, actually that's the point of my question. I wanted to show anarchists that authoritarianism implies some kind of moral judgement where some actions are authoritarian and some aren't. And since morals are inherently subjective, that means authoritarianism itself is a subjective term.

    • No_Values [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      As it is already been said in this thread self defence is not authoritarian

      The anti clerical violence in anarchistic Catalonia for example is not generally considered authoritarian because they were spontaneous acts undertaken on the agency of the perpetrators rather than being systematically carried out by a hierarchical organisation like with comparable ML 'terrors'

      • weshallovercum [any]
        1·
        4 years ago

        As it is already been said in this thread self defence is not authoritarian.

        Glad you agree that the gulaging of kulaks or the extermination of landlords is not authoritarian.

        anti clerical violence in anarchistic Catalonia for example is not generally considered authoritarian because they were spontaneous acts undertaken on the agency of the perpetrators rather than being systematically carried out by a hierarchical organisation

        So your violence is good because its done in a supposedly spontaneous manner, but violence by MLs is bad because it is more organized? Murdering people without a trial, without following any pre-defined rules(a.k.a no rule of law) is not authoritarian. But executing people after a trial, in accordance with rule of law is authoritarian?

        • No_Values [none/use name]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I think you're reading a few things into my comment that aren't there

          'Glad you agree that the gulaging of kulaks or the extermination of landlords is not authoritarian' is quite a jump from what I said(make some pedantic argument about what constitutes self defence if you wish but I was clearly referring to immediate physical danger)

          I didn't say 'my' violence was 'good', I explained why people don't consider the anti clerical violence authoritarian, as you asked

          Who makes said rules? Who carries out the trial? Are they members of a hierarchical state with more power than the individual on trial? If so imo that is authoritarian

          • weshallovercum [any]
            1·
            4 years ago

            The kulaks posed immediate physical danger of starving the Soviet people from their lack of cooperation. The landlords were actively suppressing the peasants.

            Who makes said rules?

            The rules come from the constitution voted upon by the people.

            Who carries out the trial? Are they members of a hierarchical state with more power than the individual on trial? If so imo that is authoritarian

            Tell me how would an anarchist society enforce laws then? And how would an anarchist society ensure every individual would have equal power?

            • No_Values [none/use name]
              ·
              4 years ago

              The rules come from the constitution voted upon by the people.

              When? Which people? Who wrote it? Who carried out this election? Who decided the ballot?

              Tell me how would an anarchist society enforce laws then? And how would an anarchist society ensure every individual would have equal power?

              Free association and self defence, same as an end stage communist society

              Anarchism(a philosophy that holds hierarchies to be undesirable) and anarchy (a society without hierarchies) are separate concepts, an anarchist society would have to be continually vigilant in identifying and abolishing hierarchy(ensuring each individual has equal power)