Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebratedrecluse wrote

How would anarchists deal with problematic people?

If we're being seriously honest and a bit cruel, most actual anarchists don't deal with any of these problems, and just ignore or alienate the people involved in them, perpetrator and victim alike. If you drill down on how this is not only unsatisfactory but also totally fucked up, usually they will say "well, in an ideal society, we will just kill the perpetrators", which is ironically the most authoritarian and unrealistic possible way of dealing with the problems; or, you get "let's rehabilitate everyone", which is totally idealistic, typically divorced from any concrete conception of how this would work in practice, and lends itself rhetorically to victim blaming and reperpetration down the road.

this is because anarchists are, as a subculture specific to this period in history, terminally unrealistic, disproportionately white, and most have very universalist and moralizing worldviews which they can never possibly follow through on. Since their politics is mostly posturing anyway, these discussions only ever happen in the abstract, despite the huge abuse problems within their community.

In this sense, anarchist and other radicool subcultures are an image of the dysfunctional dominant culture, which itself of course is actively reproducing abuse and hurtful behavioral norms all the time.

7

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

additionally, the attitudes most anarchists appear to have about how to deal with abuse are incredibly shallow in my experience, and have much more to do with who is friends with them rather than shared values and desires about how social space should be constituted. Again, I do not think this is unique, perhaps it is exaggerated due to the explicitly theoretical discourse of anarchist and other radical spaces, but you can see liberals doing the same thing, you can see people of all political and apolitical bents doing the same things on a very regular and constant basis.

7

[deleted] wrote

5

NoPoint wrote

One solution is uncoordinated societal exclusion. If a community decides an abuser cannot be rehabilitated, then they can exile them. Other communes can decide to adopt the orphan or let them wither. Communes who make bad decisions about who to adopt will be abandoned by any reasonable members, and their success will suffer as a result.

3

Mexica67 wrote

I’ve witnessed this so many times when rehabilitation or accountability or opportunity for discussion were NEVER on the table. I hate this approach.

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

the solution is marxism, but yknow yall dont wanna hear about that

−3

ziq wrote (edited )

because it's worked so well in the past. no bigotry, capitalism, rape or murder in the USSR or China.

3

keez wrote (edited )

"How many?" - how women in east berlin greeted each other during the occupation

1

GlangSnorrisson wrote (edited )

How so?

3

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

The creation of a proletarian state with a monopoly on violence to target anti-social behaviours like bigotry, sexual assault, etc..

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

if someone has a monopoly on violence, how could this address the issue I mentioned, which is a lack of accountability?

A monopoly on violence is the very definition of lack of accountability. It is the root reason why the patriarchy's r*pe culture has been historically upheld by police forces, which both commit these acts as well as protect powerful people from the consequences. A monopoly on violence is the material reason why statecraft has been both utterly impotent to stop, and utterly disinterested in, accountability politics which target anyone with privilege.

4

ziq wrote

proletarian state

Funny how that "prole state" is always ruled by bourgies like lenin.

4

ziq wrote

And if they weren't born a bourgie, they'll instantly become one when you appoint them party emperor.

4