Questions for anarchists

So, if a child "voluntarily" entered a relationship with a pederast, that would be acceptable in an anarchist society..
This morality system is pure idealism. Someone might voluntarily enter an agreement while not understanding the consequences, for example if he is naive, has mental health problem, is illiterate or under drugs. If there isn't a centralized authority to judge the circumstances and enforce the law, you can't have a society.

A childvis a child, and cannot make all decisions for itself in the same manner as adults.

Who says so in an anarchist society? What if a commune votes otherwise?

To be fair to anarkiddies that scenario is pretty ridiculous and could apply to any system

"Who says so in an ☭TANKIE☭ society? What if a central authority decrees otherwise?"

"Who codifies the rules that way in society y? What if the apparatus that codifies rules codifies the rules another way?"

Also

Mother fucker informed consent has been brought up ITT and you are just being intentionally dense probably trying to make screenshots to act as your own personal straw man to whip out at people. this post is clearly just really lazy bait and a mod should ban you for it.

That's not true, any other system doesn't really care about voluntaryism, they uphold class rule and the status quo.

The apparatus that codifies rules is controlled by the ruling class of each society.
Not wanting to cause riots, and while not in its direct interest, a ruling class wouldn't allow pederasty to be made legal, when most of the oppressed class are against it.

Yes? There is no age of consent without a state.

I'm not sure what you mean. Any country in the world could abolish the age of consent if enough people wanted it to be abolished.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

There are material reasons why a today's society wouldn't want that.

Of course with enough propaganda this could change, but that doesn't change reality.

Thing is, in an anarchist commune of say, a city with 10000 people, you can end up with people passing laws that are not acceptable to the majority of society because said people have a majority in their city.

This is a meme. If you choose to delegate then you are the one with power. The anarchists who speak of justified hierarchies are brainlets who almost certainly don't understand what a state is either. You might "submit" to a surgeon giving you heart surgery but you are also a member of the community and the surgeon's performance being in your interest is a prerequisite to be accepted as such in the community. Taking advantage of someone in a compromised position is not just a transgression against the individual, but against any person who may end up in a (necessarily) compromised position. Same as if you kill someone in their sleep. Such a person who would take advantage like that is a threat to others and is subject to their freedom to prevent such harm in the future.

A state by definition asserts its authority based on its ability to pragmatically enforce it (i.e. might makes right). Someone who enjoys a position within that entity has materially different interests than the "subjects" of it. They have a material interest in maintaining the power differential while those subject to it have an interest in ending it.

That's a stupid position that isn't a problem under any anarchist paradigm.
There is no protected right for a parochial body to secede from a higher body in order to enact a rule or set of rules that constitute in them selves a violation of a principle of justified hierarchy just because the right to secede is itself justified under that principle.
The higher body of society could and would discipline the lower just as if they had tried to voluntarily elect parochial capitalism on an out voted under class or any other unjust hierarchy.

You're an idiot and you really ought to breathe and give yourself time to think about what you are talking about.

Also this , I endorse this.

"An"Caps go home

This might be your ideological idea, but who enforces it? How is law established in the first place?

I don't agree that that's always the case. I see the state as the arm of the ruling class. In socialism the state acts in the interest of the proletariat.
This however doesn't answer my question, what is the material basis for this interest differential?

So, you would use a state…

is this a joke
hierarchy is a straightforward concept, intrinsically tied to consent. if someone can make you do something against your informed consent there is hierarchy. any other definition would imply legitimacy for coercing people.

If and when the people the law applies to decide it should be, but if there's a serious enough problem that people can't work it out between themselves then the community as a whole would figure out what to do with them. You don't need laws for that, and they are in fact an obstacle to handling the situation in the best way you can figure out to handle it specifically.

Btw, the first time I heard the phrase unjust hierarchy was from LSR, a guy that many internet anarchists agree with.
I know he doens't represent all of you and your ideas.

anarchists and statists usually have different definitions for a state. state =/= government. I define state here in the second part. A government, i.e. collective/public decision making is not inherently a state.

So after the revolution every community will hold those ideas of accepting certain people based on their performance being in their interest? People who yesterday lived in capitalist societies? What if a majority in a certain community is antivaccers and doesn't allow doctors in? What if they are creationists and don't allow teachers in?

There is no difference between the two. Either way your placing yourself on a list relative to others. Sometimes the list is forced and enforced, sometimes it’s all about your perception of the list. Regardless there will always be a list and as such you will always be subjected to one. Now as you choose to favor one list I choose to favor another and we have that freedom to choose which hierarchy we stick to. At its core that’s the anarchy.

A class implies that there are tiers in this hierarchy. And as such each tier serves some sort of purpose. On one tier you have the workers, then the overseers, then the thinkers, and so on. Now one of those tiers logical would host the “leaders”. Those may change or may be an overall body but the class is the people who lead the rest. Now in order to lead you must give orders, most of the time these orders come through laws or declarations. For those to have any weight over the populace they must come from a figure of authority, one separate from the group they are in. You wouldn’t take the person sitting next to you at lunch seriously when they start talking about increasing taxes to give more funding to schools. But if the same words come from someone who’s class is more in line with the topic then your more likely to take them seriously. There are talkers and those who listen. All the other “classes” can be linked to one of those two people.

In the Leninist sense of like and instrument of class rule I'm assuming you're saying.
In which case it's definitionally true that any revolutionary society is then a state, checkmate anarchists amirite.

But not in the anarchist sense of a state as our red and black poster has pointed out to you already.

Societies can't exist based on what you describe.

Ok, first of all, classes in dialectical materialism are defined based on their relation to the means of production. State officials aren't just born this way, something in material reality gives them the authority to be that, and that is their class interests.
I am paraphrasing here, but as Lenin said, the people of the Soviet Union wouldn't allow the Bolsheviks to exist a single day after the revolution if they didn't hold their interest.

Going from capitalism of today to anarchy of tomorrow doesn't happen literally overnight.

If people want to concentrate in communities of idiots they should be free to do so as long as they don't threaten other communities. There would probably be some debate as to what to do about them but that's up to the anarchic society to decide.

Free association. Has to meet a few criteria first:

For anarchists, a state is the entity that holds the monopoly on violence, it differs from the marxists' definition. They're a protected class that upholds laws to give the impression that everything is fair, but they have the power to violate the laws they make at any time usually without consequence. You see when laws are violated by the ruling class, most often always the only way they're prosecuted is by another ruling class member with different interests. They have power, pull, and bribe money. And they're the ones commanding the military & police.

What do you mean "doesn't allow them in?" To keep people out you would have to have borders, and that implies private property, so therefore, it's not anarchism. This is what NatAns don't understand.

Attached: 1487819449.aycee_regfaux.jpg (800x914, 327.35K)

This opens up the question of defending the revolution, but this thread isn't about that so lets leave it at that.
Thank you for the discussion.

So this reply is going to sound hella left unity but that's because I'm coming from a place of working class unity. Fuck the entire left, I'm about the w/c.

For most serious anarchists "the" revolution itself is partially a process which sets up the conditions fornthat. To us revolution is prefigureative.
It comes from within and underneath capitalism and grows out of the soil of capitalism's corpse. Both strangling it like a vine and feeding from it's death like a fungus.
The revolutionary method is the method of using a diversity of tactics to create tensions of transformation from within the capitalist state (out of fear or just having limited options) and also from within the working class itself (out of solidarity, yadda yadda). You're familiar with dual power concepts I'm sure.
So the cultural side of revolution is a part of that process and it's possibly never ending (a debated subject I don't care to get into).

This is just Zizek "the day after the revolution" talk rephrased.

As an anarchist I think that in Venezuela for example the state is allowing certain regions to have large amounts of parochial autonomy. Some sectors of industry are becoming worker self managed maybe or local community managed and same goes for the communities and community infrastructure.

That is laying the groundwork for anarchism imo.
It's not anarchism today, but it's the kind of space that anarchism can one day emerge from.

In the U.S. electing Cortez and Sanders could be a stepping stone for us to organize with more space for movements far more radical than what we would have otherwise been able to.

But that space has to be used.
Ideally the way this works is that it doesn't matter what kind of state the working class is under, it's the job of the working class to liberate themselves and if they exercise their power it doesn't matter who controls the state because the working class, when unified, can force any state to do anything it wants.

The "when unified" part is the catch though and that idealism fails because what's going on with the state affects our ability to organize.

Anarchists still seek to smash the state but we realize there is work to do first. Prefigureative work. So that the state cannot resurface OR stop us from stopping it.

That prefigureation is this tension I'm talking about.
Dragging the state left, but more importantly forcing the states hand from outside the state and from within the working class itself to give space for the working class to engage in unity and collective power has always been the core of anarchist action (not that there haven't been idealistic lifestylist digressions)
Through doing this the working class may one day be able to abolish both the state and itself.

This revolutionary outlook goes beyond the straw man of Zizek as well as the limited horizons of the past century of proletarian states.
It looks at how we actually transition into communism instead of LARPING about how we think it sounds fun.

nice try, lib

Oops

I went there anyway because I didn't see that you weren't trying to have that discussion.
Feel free to ignore my novella.

I don't "endorse electoralism" dipshit.
We are subjects of electoralism.
I "endorse" what I am subject to having less of a reason, desire, or ability, to fuck with me but I do not "endorse" being subject to it in the first place.

I'm not arguing that we should vote for the revolution.
I'm arguing that if the state exists then dragging it left is literally only giving us space to organize in.
Leninist states were too fucking stupid to respect this diversity of tactics/dual power thing but I would just as equally "endorse" a ML takeover of the U.S. so that I didn't have to organize under trump or Obama if they would give me the space.
Anything to get the state off our back so we can organize is GOOD.
Weather it be voting, ML overthrow, or brandishing pitchforks and molotovs until it backs off.

not explicitly; you're just arguing for electoralism through the backdoor, ala chomsky, by accepting false premises like we can't adequately organize in the present, "prefigurative" bullshit. sorry fam, never been convinced of that.

and you contradicted yourself a bit. so, which is it, do movements force legislators to ratify changes into law or do we need to beg them to give us "space" first? flatter me for a sec: what extra freedoms did sanders provide us to organize in, since you brought him up as an example? the dems had a razor thin minority in the senate when obama got in. he had a disproportionate ability to affect legislative outcome. what exactly did he do that was so helpful to us in those eight years? he was an (independent) party line stooge and the only time i can recall him doing anything rebellious is when he milked a few million extra in community health center funding out of the aca bill. woooooooah

i absolutely do not give a single fuck about brooklyn rose emoji liberalism and these vacuous Democrat Cops of America suits. fuck all of them. i can see the hot new grift already: say you're a "socialist", get free Democrat Cops of America canvassing labor, tack right as soon as you get to washington. once again fuck them. if they ever do anything positive (by anarchist standards) so be it. i fail we to see why we should divert our focal point away from creating solidarity networks OUTSIDE THE STATE to even momentarily glimpsing at the death valley that is electoral politics. it's a fucking dead end.

The most profound thing he did was cracking the seal on the word socialism.
Idk what kind of new you are but that whole red scare thing making social pariahs out of the left definitely qualified as a difficult space to organize in my book.
Branding/rebranding is at least a quarter of our problems as leftist.
Yeah DemSoc now means SocDem.
I'll take the trade on that one.

He also opend the seal on connecting US domestic policy with the political standards and ecosystems that exist abroad.
Suddenly it doesn't sound retarded to normals if I talk about nationalized healthcare or education.

Sure, maybe to actually get it we go back to the molotov, but again I'm not DEFENDING electoralism as some strategy to adopt.
I'm just saying there is a tension, maybe even a dialectical one, between legitimizing further left politicians and having space for proletariat organizing.

See that right there.
No you fucking rock brain.
Don't divert anything.
C R I T I C A LOT ~ 'S U P P O R T
Give a nod and cast a ballot as far left as possible on election day and then smashy smash on every other day that representative sits in office.
This isn't rocket math my comrade.

Tldr I'd rather organize under sanders or cortez than Hitler or Genghis kahn

Also p.s.s.s.s id like to be on record saying Trump is to the Left of Hilldawg. This isn't partisan electorals it's cold pragmatic material conditions.

cuz anarchists also grew out of the enlightenmen era and know that kids are kids - not yet fully mentally and physically matured humans

Of course there are creepsters in creepy communes where they play anarchist cult, but that has no barring.

What if the vanguard party votes that childhood is not a thing anymore and that pedophilia is a new norm

What happens if someone acts in a way that indirectly could harm others? Example, what if someone is sick and refuses to be cured or quarantined?

Also like the NAP, those are just principles. If someone/something doesn't enforce them why do they even matter?

So, in a Marxist sense it is not a class and thus you are criticizing it for being one using the term with another definition. Isn't that dishonest?

From my understanding, communes would be autonomous geographical areas. Also they wouldn't be made up exclusively by anarchists except if you think you should kill everyone who isn't one.

I have answered this above.

Attached: a.jpg (720x540, 21.54K)

To all the nay sayers anarchopac just released a video going over her PHD where she argues in favor of everything I've said itt unless yall can point out how im mistaken, so that's pretty cool.

youtu.be/ApB9G29O_II

I'll just say that defense is a weak point of anarchy relative to the state socialist model and requires a radically different "military" structure than a traditional state.

I think our Achilles heel with defense has always been an issue of scale.
What we need to do is smashy smash a state with nukes and have syndicated control of that kind of weaponry.

Well then they would have to be cured/quarantined because it risks the health and safety of everyone else. Negative liberty works both ways: you might have the right to stay sick, but what about my right not to be sick? Of course no one is going to break down your door and drag you to th hospital for a cold, but if it's serious shit like Ebola then yeah.
The community is the one that upholds them, not corporate mercenaries. The reason most people won't help out during a fight or such is because they are liable for criminal processing, unlike being protected by such processing by police (The police in the US for example, have their own Bill of Rights granting them more protections than civilians, also it makes suing an individual cop illegal; when cops get processed, you are suing the state, not the individual cop.) We just need to redistribute power which will help people 'act up' if they see wrongdoing by taking away their fear that if they do some technically illegal bullshit then they'll be sent to prison for the next 20 years.
Not entirely sure what you're saying, but the definitions differ. For marxists a state is the class that enforces its will upon the other class, which is why they have bourgeois states and proletarian states, the 2 classes. (I'm unsure if there could ever be a such thing as a lumpenprole state, why don't you tell me?)
Again, for anarchists, a state is the entity that holds the monopoly of force, they're the ones who are 'justified' in their use of violence against others, whether it's an authoritarian dictatorship or liberal 'democracy'. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough, but I mean no dishonesty. So, suppose Stalin had committed a crime (and I'm pretty sure by Soviet legal codes, he probably has), who would be there to have prosecuted him? If the only was to answer this is "by military coup" then for anarchists this counts towards being a ruling class.

I don't buy into the whole "need a state to defend the revolution" line, why does the auth-left assume the reason anarchist revolutions were suppressed was because they didn't have a hierarchy? Haven't they considered other possible causes? Stalin backstabbed both Ukraine and Catalonia and took away most of their guns, leaving large parts of the military/militia fighting unarmed, at that point, what good would having a hierarchy do? A soldier is only as good as his training and his tools. Furthermore, army size is also a factor, it doesn't matter if you instate a central hierarchy of your proletarian state of 10,000 people, you're probably not going to win against 10,000,000 people of an imperialist state.

Attached: Digital Crossing.jpg (736x613, 79.35K)

This means you are almost certainly wrong.

I think it's that traditional military structure requires authority and scale which anarchy lacks inherently and incidentally historically (respectively). An effective anarchist military would be more along the lines of a guerilla militia and cells of people who could form an insurrection as needed. The large modern military we think of today is effective at conquest and little else (look at how poorly they function as "peacekeeping forces" and so on).

solid roast tbh

Nice meme.