Comment on Anti-government violence is growing. The response needs to be more than just increased policing
Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 days agoRight, that’s what I thought you might have meant, simple misunderstanding then. I’m not saying we don’t enforce things, just that we don’t need hierarchical systems of authority to do so. Someone putting the community at risk like this can be stopped without the use of violent state thugs, probably with much better outcomes too.
Sure, revolution isn’t on our doorstep, but I still want things to be different. I don’t think there’s anything wrong or objectionable about aspiring to a better society. Why would we talk ourselves out of the idea just because change isn’t right around the corner?
Demarchist? I afraid I’m not familiar with the term, so I won’t make assumptions. Regardless I still don’t think we should give up so easily.
shads@leminal.space 3 days ago
Democratic Anarchy, it is a system that would rely on a couple of generational leaps in computers and mind machine interfaces before we could even aspire to it. Nowhere near as appealing as the Culture would be, but also only dependent on moderately Clarke tech computers not massively Clarke tech.
Anyway I’m not defeatist, more just realistic. This guy would fall pretty squarely into the capitalist bootlicking Libertarian camp. He only really responds to violence (or the threat thereof) as motivation, in other words your typical boomer small business owner. He is never going to comply without some form of threat to back things up.
Its great to be idealistic, but I sincerely doubt we will see change in my life time, or that of my kids. We as a species are wired to listen to the ape that shrieks the loudest too much.
Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
Ah right, I guess I hadn’t heard the name but I know the vague concept (imo it’s a bad name because anarchy is usually democratic) Is it just the idea that instead of organising locally and then at larger and larger scales, you just have everyone everywhere voting without the intermediary steps? Even with the technology to do that, it seems like a bad idea.
When I say we would still enforce rules, I’m not saying we just ask nicely, there are still consequences for breaking rules and this person would have to face them. I’d say the idea that someone only responds to threats of violence is probably more a product of police almost exclusively using violence and violent threats. That said, it’s not like violence is a tool we can’t use, but I’m not well versed enough in the theory for community defense/justice to get into details.
Being idealistic is one thing, but there’s plenty of us here who are actively building anarchist communities, I’ve been heavily involved in one myself. There’s work that can be done to move things forwards, I hope we see something better in my time even if it’s operating within/alongside the current system rather than replacing it.
shads@leminal.space 3 days ago
It’s a fictional concept. Because it does rely on fantastically well integrated computers. But basically every matter of public interest gets loaded into a collectively accessible network that then sends out regular broadcasts with matters up for voting. Since the people in this scenario have networked implants they are constantly being polled for input on matters that match the criteria they have predefined. For a society changing decision it will surface for everyone, the more niche the topic the smaller the pool of people who are interested enough to venture an opinion. It would rely on universal acceptance of tech and some truly staggering intelligent systems to assess and surface matters that meet the thresholds of interest for each individual. Anything not explicitly prohibited is up to personal discretion until it becomes a matter that prompts a vote and is legislated. It would be a crazy system to live under for the first few years and would gradually become more livable. Also even in this fictional scenario the need for people to safeguard the sanctity of the voting apparatus is recognised and bad actors are anticipated.
As far as setting up an anarchic state I just don’t see it scaling particularly well. Homogenous ideologically aligned groups would seem eminently workable but what happens when you get a group that wants to live in a way that is morally antithetical to the overall community? A sect of people who want to live under an authoritarian dictatorship for example, are their wishes invalid because they don’t align with the larger social zietgeist? Who gets to enforce their will upon them? Who polices the worst extremes of this sort of self selected community to ensure that the only people it encompasses are those who have given their free and informed consent? Is the autonomy of the community embraced, supported, tolerated or ignored by its neighbours? How does it stave off the worst depredations of capitalist cultures it competes with, as soon as a collectivist culture emerges it is treated as an existential threat by any and all capitalists until it is destroyed or co-opted. Like I said I am not opposed to any of this, the worst excesses of the “Free Market Economy” are only going to make life worse for everyone over the next few decades and I believe that as a species we will need to come up with better ways to live. But I can’t help but feel we are going to see more to achieve that from violent uprising and political unrest than from any aspirational peaceful movements or demonstrations of a better path forward. Also alternative governmental structures are going to need to become a lot more approachable to Joe public. Right now a lot of more mainstream people are put off by the people who are advocating for change. It is after all a lot easier to pick up on the real or imagined hypocrisy and double standards of people who you don’t align with ideologically, such is the clannish nature of human beings.