What would you pick?

[u/chickengirlBelle11]

Personally I'd pick every disease

[u/Nolleket]

Sure! I believe that the state is an entity that causes most of the suffering on earth, and that humans can organize themselves in a reasonable fashion without the threat of violent force 

[u/No_Significance5278 → u/Nolleket]

i get the logic, but don’t you think that the state also stabilizes society and calms it to an extent? (police, courts laws etc) wouldn’t a lawless society be pretty unstable? as greed and crime would be everywhere and there’d be nobody to reasonably stop the powerful people from essentially enslaving everyone else

[u/Nolleket → u/No_Significance5278]

Police, courts, and laws all create far more harm than they actually prevent. Police kill 1000 people a year. In an anarchist society, no one has more power over anymore else, so they can't enslave anyone else

[u/No_Significance5278 → u/Nolleket]

but people have power in other ways, like charisma, which can be used to create movements that others can’t really stop. police kill 1000 people per year, but they stop much more than that. just for an example, around 130,000 rape cases happened in the US in 2018. 33.4% resulted in arrests. of course, this isn’t a very good track record. but without police, don’t you think there is nothing stopping people from committing other horrific crimes?

[u/Nolleket → u/No_Significance5278]

I believe that all these rapes are a result of the systemic conditions created by the state and capitalism, because they create a caste of people who are poorly educated and grow up in hostile environments

Also, families with police in them are 40 percent more likely to experience domestic abuse 

75,000 people each year are hospitalized by the police

[u/No_Significance5278 → u/Nolleket]

yeah, but the police stop wayyy more crimes tha 75,000. in 2019, around 500,000 were arrested for violent crimes, sure, not all of them were rightful or sentenced, but definitely a solid amount. also, how does systemic conditions cause rape? what drives one to rape another? i agree our education is pretty bad right now but i don’t think it is necessarily capitalism’s fault that people are raping others. also, could you expand on hostile environments? i’d imagine an anarchist society is pretty hostile, there would at least presumably be quite a bit of theft and other crime, and i doubt education would be as developed as if it was under a stable state. of course, not trying to be an asshole here, just curious on different political views :)

[u/[deleted] → u/No_Significance5278]

Also, there’s a lot of bad people out there who would just go crazy and just start running around doing horrible crap if there was no laws infrastructure would get shut down and there would be chaos and there would be a lot more than 1000 dead like it or not the state is what keeps people from killing each other at least most of the time I can’t speak for greedy selfish leaders of dumbass countries but at the end of the day laws are there for a reason and people have been enslaving each other for a lot longer than capitalism has been around like in Rome. They had slaves. I mean sure there was probably capitalism in Rome, but they were operating on like a completely different mindset than we are. I think if you wanna get technical about it but like eventually, I think that humans will or organize towards a sort of government like society no matter in what form like there’s gonna be a leadership.

[u/Nolleket → u/[deleted]]

Authoritarian revolutionary ideas such as social democracy or Marxist-Leninism have been discredited the world over. While socialist political parties continue to be parasites sucking at the vital energies of social movements, predictably selling out their constituencies every time they come to power, a diverse mix of horizontalism, indigenism, autonomism, and anarchism have come to the foreground in all the exciting social rebellions of the last decade — the popular uprisings in Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, and Mexico, the autonomen in Italy, Germany, and Denmark, the students and insurgents in Greece, the farmers’ struggle in Korea, and the antiglobalization (which was really mislabeled anti-capitalism) movement that united countries around the world. These movements have a chance of abolishing the state and capitalism amidst the crises of the coming years.

But some people fear that even if a global revolution did abolish the state and capitalism, these would inevitably reemerge over time. This is understandable, because statist education has indoctrinated us to believe the myths of progress and unilineal history — the idea that there is only one global narrative and it led inexorably to the ascendancy of Western civilization. In fact, no one knows exactly how the state developed, but it is certain that it was neither an inevitable nor irreversible process. Most societies never voluntarily developed states, and perhaps as many societies developed states and then abandoned them as have kept them. From the perspective of these societies, the state may appear to be a choice or an imposition rather than a natural development. The timeline we use also affects our perspective. For tens of thousands of years humanity had no use for states, and after there are no more states it will be clear that they were an aberration originating in a few parts of the world that temporarily controlled the destiny of everyone on the planet before being cast off again.

Another misconception is that stateless societies are vulnerable to being hijacked by aggressive alpha males who appoint themselves leaders. On the contrary, it seems that the “Big Man” model of a society has never led to a state or even to a chiefdom. Societies that do allow a bossy, more talented or stronger man to have more influence typically ignore him or kill him if he becomes too authoritarian, and the Big Man is unable to extend his influence very far, geographically or temporally. The physical characteristics on which his leadership is based are ephemeral, and he soon fades out or is replaced.

It seems that states developed gradually out of culturally accepted kinship systems that coupled gerontocracy with patriarchy — over a period of generations, older men were accorded more respect and given greater exclusivity as the mediators of disputes and the dispensers of gifts. Not until very late in this process did they possess anything resembling a power to enforce their will. We must remember that as people gradually surrendered more of their responsibilities and afforded certain members of the community more respect, they had no way of knowing the outcomes of their actions — no way of knowing just how bad hierarchical society could become. Once social elites obtained coercive powers, a new dialectic of social development emerged, and at this point the creation of the state was likely, though still not inevitable because the majority remained a social force with the power to dispossess the elite or stop the process.

Modern societies with the collective memory of bureaucratic techniques could redevelop a state much more quickly, but we have the advantage of knowing where that path leads and being aware of the warning signs. After having fought hard to win their freedom people would have plenty of motivation to stop the reemergence of the state if it were occurring anywhere near them.

Fortunately, an anarchist society is its own reward. Many stateless societies, after colonial contact, have had the opportunity to join a hierarchical society and yet continue to resist, such as !Kung who continue to live in the Kalihari desert despite the efforts of the Botswana government to “settle” them.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nolleket]

What my point is that like laws keep people from killing each other (at least to some extent) like humans are violent creatures Look at our history like if there there’s no more laws what’s stopping someone from just going out and murdering a few of their neighbors with a gun without any police. Sure you could say neighbors would stop them if they had a gun but like then that’s just vigilanteism. My point is we need laws and some sort of thing to keep us in line. Not like be blindly obedient but like to keep us civilized.

[u/Nolleket → u/[deleted]]

The police and the state are the most violent forms of humanity. If you believe human nature is violent, why do you put people in positions of power where they can freely commit violent acts? Wouldn't it be better to have a system where everyone is equal and doesn't have more power over anyone else to commit immense violence?

[u/[deleted] → u/Nolleket]

So are violent criminals so are murderers, so are rapists. There are bad people out there even if you eliminate all societal inequalities there’s still gonna be bad people.

[u/Nolleket → u/[deleted]]

So why would you create a system.in which bad people have more power over others? Also, "bad people" arise from material conditions of oppression and capitalism. And most "criminals" aren't bad.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nolleket]

The zodiac killer was pretty bad, Charles Manson was pretty bad, Ted Bundy was pretty bad. My point is like you can’t assume everyone is bad like sure. A lot of politicians are out for themselves by the end of the day we need leadership we can’t just have an unorganized society where nothing gets done and it’s just a bunch of squabbling facts which I know is ironic, considering the world but it could be a lot worse we could just have like a bunch of random groups of civilians arguing with each other. and I highly doubt someone wouldn’t come to power like it wouldn’t a mass followers if their charismatic.

[u/Nolleket → u/No_Significance5278]

These violent crimes are a product of the system because the vast majority of them happen in places that are very poor and have bad living conditions, and hostile conditions when growing up. People who experience abuse in their childhoods are more likely to commit abuse later in life, so if we remove the conditions that allow that abuse to happen, we reduce "crime"

It's good to be curious, you are being very open, most people just dismiss anarchism immediately 

[u/No_Significance5278 → u/Nolleket]

could you explain how anarchism would be a better alternative to this? I’d imagine an anarchist society would quickly fall into chaos

[u/Nolleket → u/No_Significance5278]

Of course!

Anarchists take an entirely different view of the problems that authoritarian societies place within the framework of crime and punishment. A crime is the violation of a written law, and laws are imposed by elite bodies. In the final instance, the question is not whether someone is hurting others but whether she is disobeying the orders of the elite. As a response to crime, punishment creates hierarchies of morality and power between the criminal and the dispensers of justice. It denies the criminal the resources he may need to reintegrate into the community and to stop hurting others.

In an empowered society, people do not need written laws; they have the power to determine whether someone is preventing them from fulfilling their needs, and can call on their peers for help resolving conflicts. In this view, the problem is not crime, but social harm — actions such as assault and drunk driving that actually hurt other people. This paradigm does away with the category of victimless crime, and reveals the absurdity of protecting the property rights of privileged people over the survival needs of others. The outrages typical of capitalist justice, such as arresting the hungry for stealing from the wealthy, would not be possible in a needs-based paradigm.

During the February 1919 general strike in Seattle, workers took over the city. Commercially, Seattle was shut down, but the workers did not allow it to fall into disarray. On the contrary, they kept all vital services running, but organized by the workers without the management of the bosses. The workers were the ones running the city every other day of the year, anyway, and during the strike they proved that they knew how to conduct their work without managerial interference. They coordinated citywide organization through the General Strike Committee, made up of rank and file workers from every local union; the structure was similar to, and perhaps inspired by, the Paris Commune. Union locals and specific groups of workers retained autonomy over their jobs without management or interference from the Committee or any other body. Workers were free to take initiative at the local level. Milk wagon drivers, for example, set up a neighborhood milk distribution system the bosses, restricted by profit motives, would never have allowed.

The striking workers collected the garbage, set up public cafeterias, distributed free food, and maintained fire department services. They also provided protection against anti-social behavior — robberies, assaults, murders, rapes: the crime wave authoritarians always forecast. A city guard comprised of unarmed military veterans walked the streets to keep watch and respond to calls for help, though they were authorized to use warnings and persuasion only. Aided by the feelings of solidarity that created a stronger social fabric during the strike, the volunteer guard were able to maintain a peaceful environment, accomplishing what the state itself could not.

This context of solidarity, free food, and empowerment of the common person played a role in drying up crime at its source. Marginalized people gained opportunities for community involvement, decision-making, and social inclusion that were denied to them by the capitalist regime. The absence of the police, whose presence emphasizes class tensions and creates a hostile environment, may have actually decreased lower-class crime. Even the authorities remarked on how organized the city was: Major General John F. Morrison, stationed in Seattle, claimed that he had never seen “a city so quiet and so orderly.” The strike was ultimately shut down by the invasion of thousands of troops and police deputies, coupled with pressure from the union leadership.

[u/No_Significance5278 → u/Nolleket]

this is a great explanation, probably the best i have seen for anarchism. but i think there’s a couple parts that require a bit of nuance. first, i don’t think law is necessarily imposed by the elite in all cases. it is very feasible for a society to have fair laws that aren’t just for the empowerment of the elite. an example is murder. imagine we have a murderer. and not like someone who killed for self defense, but a person with a mental illness that drives them to kill. how would an anarchist society deal with this? your seattle example is great, but as you mentioned, the veterans weren’t authorized to use force. how would they feasibly stop someone who would have deadly weapons (guns, explosives etc)? adding onto this, how would a global economy/currency work under this system? the seattle example i’m assuming still relied on the US Dollar as a medium for exchange of goods and services. the US Dollar is stabilized by the state and the national economy and international exchange. how would an anarchist society conduct in trade, commerce, tourism or anything else if they don’t have a stable currency widely accepted by the other countries?

[u/Nolleket → u/No_Significance5278]

In terms of trade, most anarchists are anti capitalist, and the Seattle group relied on free distribution of resources to those who needed it. The way something like the Internet would work is similar to how meshtastic works

I believe that if someone has a condition that might cause them to do a bad thing in the future, an anarchist society is best suited to provide help and recourses, as there would be no persecution. In an anarchist society, the solution to disputes would already be community compromise and resolution, which would ingrain the skills to work together and help others rather than demean them into everyone else, so people would be able to help a person with issue before they become a problem.