this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
1086 points (96.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
5778 readers
2390 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
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
I'm trying to point out the flaw here. If you give the social worker the power to do that, suddenly you're creating power hierarchies, which goes against the whole idea.
no it doesn't. not necessarily, anyway. authorities don't need to automatically vanish in an anarchy. instead they may need to prove the purpose of their existence. there is literature on non-state justice systems. communism and anarchism comes from thinkers, economists and philosophers. it's not like they didn't just think of crime at all.
If you have power hierarchies and authorities, it is no longer anarcho-syndicalism. So I think you're proving my point. Also, when would these social workers with this authority ever vanish? After some sort of eugenics program to eliminate all dangerous mental illnesses from humanity?
so you think murder is or should be free in an anarchist society?
No, I think an anarchist society won't work on a large scale because mentally ill people commit murders and you will have to have a power structure to deal with them. And then suddenly you have classes of people with different levels of power.
yeah. anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness.
I never said it did. I'm talking about power structures and hierarchies. You keep putting words in my mouth.
not having any enforcement of the law is effectively lawlessness. idk how that's putting words in your mouth.
you either think anarchy is lawlessness or accept that am anarchist society would still have a way to enforce laws.
You go ahead and have the conversation with the straw man version of me you've set up on your own because you're not talking to me or about what I'm saying. Enjoy.
you know you can correct me instead of just denying my interpretation.
is the answer is yes to both then there can be certain authorities on certain issues in an anarchist society. if the answer is no to either of those questions you either think it's lawless (no for Q1) or effectively lawless (no for Q2). tell me which part of this is a strawman.
In an enlightened society, each man or woman would govern himself or herself.
yeah but there's no such society. checks and balances must be external or they don't exist.
I've corrected you more than once and you keep putting words in my mouth and trying to talk about something I wasn't talking about. I'm not interested. And I'm done.
sounds like you're just avoiding
That's lame AF.
And from what I've seen in my lifetime and in the history of the world it's almost unavoidable.
Anarchism is unavoidable? Where are you seeing that? Because I'm seeing the world spinning into an ultracapitalist death-spiral which will end with the deaths of billions of people.
And this was the personal attack that ended the discussion. Goodbye.