this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
958 points (100.0% liked)
196
16453 readers
1738 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's better because it's a society based on mutual aid instead of exploitation. There are different theories about how exactly it will look like or how you get there. But overall most agree that it's a non-hierarchical society, based on self-management and federalism. Decisions are made through direct democracy. If you want to read more there is a good chapter about it here Final Objectives: Social Revolution and Libertarian Socialism.
How will you stop people from exploiting others?
Well, that's the whole point of anarchism, really... dismantling the power structures that is enabling all the exploitation in the first place.
But when police is abolished what is stopping a person or a group from simply taking whatever they like from others? Or force them to do whatever for them? Exploitation doesn't just happen between corporations and "the people".
When was the last time you saw police stopping the rich from stealing everything that isn't nailed down?
If there were no laws and no police someone like Elon Musk could (and perhaps would) just bulldozer down whatever buildings are in his way when he wanted to build his production there.
Without laws and police I certainly wouldn't be safe on the street or even in my own home.
Do you really think the police would stop a billionaire from doing whatever they felt like? Really?
I guess you don't know why they invented police in the first place?
Why do you think billionaires aren't currently just doing whatever they like? Or are you really think they are already doing that? Quite naive.
I hate to be the one to break the news to you... they already are. See this...
Show me a building that Elon couldn't just buy with his pocket change - and then bulldoze - whenever he damn well felt like it. He could easily buy the building you're in right now - and guess who would be the ones throwing you out of that building for him?
Then show me how the police prevents Elon from doing whatever he wants. This should be easy for you - if there is any evidence to back up what it is you are saying.
Elon Musk had to discuss endlessly with the authorities in my country to find a spot he was allowed to build his factory in. When people protested he had to wait until the protest was over and couldn't just continue building because it could have been dangerous for the protestors. He has to pay a fine now and change his gray water waste handling. He doesn't just do it anyway because he know police and judge would arrest him.
Another example: a person owning casinos wanted to build a casino in the neighborhood where I live. He bought a property under false pretences and when the government learned he wanted to build a casino they denied that and forced him to pay a fine and now he will have to sell property again. The reason why he isn't just bulldozing down the building and build casino anyway is because he know police will stop him and his workers.
Shall I go on? There are thousands of things happening everyday that police and the state is doing. Who is going to stop rich or more powerful people if you abolish police and state?
Feel free... I will happily point out the gaping flaws in your reasoning with any example you could care to provide.
Of course he did - he knows the people in authority are his friends... so why wouldn't he? It's the people in authority that protects his exploitation... it's literally the reason capitalists invented police. Why wouldn't Elon work within the system that is designed to benefit him at the expense of poor people?
So you are saying that it was protestors - not police - that was putting up resistance to the rich's exploitation?
You don't say.
No, they wouldn't. Do you see police choke-holding millionaires and billionaires to death in the streets? Yes? No?
The exact same factors apply. This capitalist didn't work within the very system that protects capitalist exploitation... and got a mild little slap on the wrist for it as opposed to a death sentence - which is a de facto risk for any poor person forced into an encounter with the police.
Again... police and state exists to enable the rich's exploitation - not prevent it. This means the assumption underpinning your question isn't grounded in reality but in fiction.
Wow you are very naive. He had to discuss because he wasn't allowed to just bulldoze a village and put his factory wherever he likes. You gracefully ignore that part.
Without laws and without police someone who is stronger than you and/or has more resources than you will just fuck you over. That's exactly what you are criticising about the current system but you ingore that without laws and structures like police in place they would just fuck you over more. Because then nothing is stopping them.
You romanticise people by believing they would side by side storm Elon Musks factory, take his stuff and then be happily singing Kumba Yo.
What would actually happen is that he would pay people or promise them stuff to build his factory on the village, give his community weapons and shoot everyone down who comes near his property.
So maybe you have weapons as well and you win this fight. Now you are the group with all the weapons. What's next? Maybe you want to distribute them around the other villages as well. What if not everyone in your group agrees? What if someone in your group thinks: "Great, now I can finally get that nice house I always wanted that my neighbour is living in."
Yes, he could - it is simply cheaper and easier for him to work within a legal framework that is already designed to benefit him at the expense of the people he wishes to exploit. To use your parlance - you gracefully ignore that part.
Fixed that for you.
Yes. We would. That is why capitalists invented police.
You mean... literally the history of how the institution of police was invented?
There won't be any police around to help him do exactly that, would there? He'll have to deal with the community first... who now has all the guns - as you envisioned.
Do you live in a country without police, btw? How about you move to one without and see how well it works out for you.
So far, you've offered nothing to justify the existence of police except canned liberalsm and worn-out media tropes based on pure copaganda.
Do you have anything else you wanna try running past me or will that be it?
By removing the legal means that enable exploiters, e.g. private proterty.
The legal means also protect property. Otherwise someone who is stronger can just take whatever they like from someone who is weaker.
I specified private property (absentee ownership), which is distinct from personal property (active usage ownership).
A house that I live in: personal property. A house I rent to someone else so they can live in it: private property.
That doesn't change anything, does it? What's stopping people from kicking me out of whatever place I am living in because they want it instead?
The self-defensive mechanisms established by the community I live in.
Anarchism doesn't mean that humans can't form societal structures. It just means that decisions are made bottom-up instead of top-down.
Hierarchical society doesn't stop anyone with "higher rank" from claiming my house e.g. to build a highway or coal mine.
How would an anarchist society stop someone from claiming your house to build a highway or a coal mine? "The self-defensive mechanisms" is just police again you just call it differently and it can do whatever it likes.
No, the self-defense mechanisms aren't the same thing as "police", since the former is structured bottom-up and the other one is top-down.
An anarchist society would be organized democratically so that the people affected by policies have a say in these decitions proportional to howeit affects them.
So when you have 150 people in a society and 80 vote for people with red hair should be burned as witches what happens then?
I guess then the people with red hair will be burned. I don't think that's a realistic scenario, though.
If a state claims that a minority group deserves less/no rights and can be harmed without repercussions, what happens then?
People with red hair would be burned, but to get to that point you have serious assumptions. That's akin to saying "what if in a Utopia, everyone decided to kill themselves for fun?" It's unrealistic and purely serves to derail the conversation against Democracy.