- cross-posted to:
- libertyhub
- cross-posted to:
- libertyhub
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/15059816
transcript [text overlaid on several pictures of benches and outside windowsills. the benches have bars, or gaps to prevent someone from sleeping on them.
text reads “Ban anti-homeless arctithecture”]
sauce: https://mastodon.social/@AnarchistArt/112901196516297447
Hostile architecture is among the symptoms of the hostile modern city, where neighbours never say hi, and people die on the streets as people walk passivly by.
There’s a divers range of anarchist schools of thought & some of the oldest are forms of individualist anarchism, Max Stirner was contemporary with Marx. You should read his work it not only deals with formal hierarchies but also not being ruled by arbitrary concepts, he’s famous/infamous for using hagelian dielectics to deconstruct hagelian dielectics(I’m some what of a hagelian myself /meme).
I was using outsourced figuratively, I was trying to express that the vast majority of people are completely divorced from the violence committed on their behalf. An example is when someone calls the cops over something minor & the cops show up & immediately escalate until they kill someone.
Edit: You can have formal & informal systems in place to minimize/help prevent unnecessary violence under anarchism, they just need to avoid hierarchy.
Okay cool, so like a set of people whose role it is to go after people who act against the interests of the group, and who are authorized to do that?
sigh
Ranger, my guy, we’ve already discussed why a society without hierarchy is not possible. If one group has the unique authority to exert control over bad actors, a hierarchy exists. If everyone has equal authority, whoever threatens the most violence will see everyone else capitulate.
You can have societal structures and social systems without a stratified hierarchy.
Please do explain how a society with a justice system can exist without a hierarchy forming.
It has the sound that your belief is that a justice system must be courts and appointed judges. That justice must be the same as the current United States and United Kingdom justice.
I don’t think I will to have a good discussion with you on alternative ways of collective agreements with a strongly held belief like that. I may be wrong but what you have said on this topic so far has the sound of that (sigh a society without hierarchy is impossible).
“you can have a justice system without a hierarchy”
“how”
“fuck you”
every time i log back into lemmy i am viscerally reminded of why i left
We start with society where this is no state. Where private property does not exist. The wage system has been abolished. In this society we already eliminate factors that cause people to commit crimes. In this society you are not a slave to earning money to pay for private or personal property. Today if you do not earn money for private or personal property then you are homeless. Without aid you will die.
Justice in this society does not have the same character. Today it is two-party and it seems that the two-party model of disputes is a single unit of people, and a unit of the thinnest sort, whose only imply is “has property,” “is an aggressor,” “defends themself,” “kills so and so". This is a severely individualistic view of people that is not characteristic of an anarchist society of commune and mutual aid.
Any justice system is going to exist in the context of economic institutions. If there are inequality of power in the economic and society then you have to imagine society as bizzare and weirdly compartmentalized in order to believe that those inequalities will not to reflect themselves in justice or law. And the economically powerful will be unable to manipulate the legal and judicial system to their advantage. But this is the character of today’s two party so-called justice system.
Today, justice is not just.
I can see why people take the time to have deep and open discussions with you. You’re a pleasure to talk to.
I don’t have time to go read the works of a philosopher I’ve never previously heard of before continuing a conversation with you. Since you already seem to understand it and like it, you perhaps give me a summary of his ideas? By the way, I think you meant “dialectics” – a dielectric is something you put between two pieces of wire to keep them from shorting out.
Sounds like we need police reform and officers trained in de-escalation, not a complete abolition of the police. You’ll hear no argument from me that the current state of policing in the States is our biggest point of national shame and bordering on fascism, but I am truly tired of leftists seeing this fact and jumping to the conclusion that these problems extend to policing as a concept, and proceeding to work to abolish that.
My brain subconsciously corrects as I read so I often don’t see errors.
I am way too tried to summarize Stirner, I’d think I’d rather try to explain quantum physics to a five year old(exaggeration).
Yeah real police reforms would be nice. Anarchism I would say isn’t necessarily a simple policy change, yes anarchist have short term goals, but it’s really more of a ongoing process, for me less about a finite end of history but trying to build a space of respect for autonomy no mater how ephemeral.
A book on that subject for when you have time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone