Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?
Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?
Yeah, if you still want a state you’re not an anarchist. And also if you believe a state either prevents violence or that people can’t behave themselves without one.
I think on a small scale, communities are self-governing and anarchism can work well.
I have seen evidence of this.
In my current understanding of this admittedly SUPER complex topic, the problem perhaps lies in the overpopulation by way of capitalist expansion.
It feels (if you won’t shame for attempting to take a stab in the dark at a reason) like at the scale of modern society, community policing can lead to an uptick in crime.
I have seen it in VT, CA, OR, and other places where this transition to a less punitive society is taking place. Ideologically, I actually wish for a society like that…but then I go to Brattleboro VT and get robbed at gunpoint by some guy who has been released from jail 2 times this month. I agree that ACAB. But then, I also want peace and I don’t want to have to fear for my safety when what we asked for is given to us.
I wish I had an answer…frankly, I have a hard time coming to terms with the real-world implementations of some of my ideas like this one. I want to eliminate the disgusting white supremacist police…but I also want to prevent Proud Boys from murdering me.
I don’t think it’s a belief that a state prevents violence so much as it is a belief that you cannot address violence when it occurs without some form of state.
Let’s say someone is raped in an anarchist society. What are your options of redress, short of simply lynching the perpetrator?
Any form of court, law, jail, etc all have “the state” as a prerequisite.
In either system the violence happens regardless. There is no preventing it. The question is, is “the state” a requirement to properly address that violence when it occurs?
Hold on, if the state can’t prevent violence then what is the point of addressing it? Just trying to get your thinking straight, seems a bit paradoxical to me.
We’re overloading terms here a bit. When I say “a state cannot prevent violence,” it might be better phrased as “ALL violence.”
Of course the state can prevent some violence. I don’t think anyone would argue against that? If the state imprisons or kills a serial rapist, they have prevented that person from committing future violence, no?