Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Well no, the government does not "majorly" (yikes) rely on coercion, but rather on horizontal contamination/influence. That's at least the case in developed countries where a minority of people go to prison and police violence is usually deterrent, or at least confined to specific groups. Common obedience to laws does not require cops around to work, people work along with it, as codes of civility.

Nazi Germany had consolidated industrial power within a few corporations that merged with the Third Reich, like IG Farben, Thyssen, Krupps, Volkswagen and Bayer. These weren't "free markets" but a merger of state and big business power, that's been defined by Mussolini earlier.

Transnationalism isn't nationalism. Davos and the G7 are not nationalism. Not even NAFTA was. Don't try it. As it's about raising a governance above or beyond national territorializations that are based on ethnicity and culture (i.e. the core of nationalism).

That's why I, like many other radicals, agree with a form of transnationalism, one that seeks to liberate myself and other beings, with things like no borders, cross-linguistic interactions (over the net, but also IRL), support to refugees and maintaining clandestine spaces where everyone ezcept bigots and assholes are welcome. These are completely counter-nationalistic avenues.

−1

lentils wrote

police violence is usually deterrent, or at least confined to specific groups

how is police violence that’s mostly “confined to specific groups” not coercive?

These weren't "free markets" but a merger of state and big business power

i think that’s what the article i linked meant when it said it combined “free markets” with central planning because big business power is what “free markets” mean really. but like i said, i think a state-controlled economy is just as tyrannical as “free market” capitalism.

and transnationalism is just nationalism that focuses on more than one nation to me. if you support nations you’re supporting borders because they’re completely inseparable.

4

AnarchoDoom wrote

how is police violence that’s mostly “confined to specific groups” not coercive?

I didn't say it's not... I said that the whole of the state mostly does not rely on it, for the law to work. Road codes are the usual example, but the moment conformity becomes merged with Law and Order, and is being effectively enforced through the mainstream culture as we're seeing these days, the need for police repression become less demanding, as order is being "positively" enforced.

This is part of why I am so irritated with users pushing pop culture crap in here, as these celebs are only enforcing conformity, in the end.

This is the hidden reason behind things like state-sanctioned nonprofit groups pervading through minority milieus, like poor Black neighborhoods in the US or suburbs in France.

Underestimating the soft power is an expensive mistake for any antiauthoritarian.

Transnational capitalists only care about borders for when it comes to control/explpitation of the workforce. Also the '90s... where have you been? They were fully promoting the "global village" and "world citizens" back in the days. Globalization is what it's about. This is the expression of the movement behind the G7, Davos, etc.

−1

lentils wrote

the whole of the state mostly does not rely on it

idk about that. as far as i’m concerned police violence is still terrifyingly prominent.

Transnational capitalists only care about borders for when it comes to control/explpitation of the workforce.

borders are ok when they’re for capitalism?

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

Reluctantly I do think anacho doom is making one good point. The method of controlling most peoples behavior is not through open violence or threats. In my experience of america the cultural values mean people police themselves. Take for instance veganism. The government has no law requiring you to eat meat or really any initiate other than subsidies.

But if you are vegan often times family members and friends will berate you, tell you will be sick and other such things. And it does work as a lot of people who stop being vegan do it due to social pressure. This is an example of the masses policing dissent. The same way you can be a nonpassing trans woman in a dress in the street legally speaking. But members of the public will often go out of their way to discourage you. Or the requent idolizatoin of some people they will will shoot robbers stealing from a store or a bank.

Yes the police will crack down on you. Only after the public cultural battle to dis encourage your behavior fails. Not to mention people pushing their morals that being queer, a theif, not paying taxes, and other such things are wrong. Plus so much indoctrination on how to be a good citizen comes from ones parents and not the state.

5

lentils wrote

yeah coming to think of it i suppose i kind of do agree with this point actually. this type of coercion is very real and i haven’t seen it talked about a lot in anti-authoritarian circles.

3

AnarchoDoom wrote

I reluctantly had to upvote this comment.

Conformity is how social order mostly functions. It is exacerbated by the fear of state repression, but not limited to. Civil codes in the more developed imperialist countries/colonies are a manifestation of this "not obviously violent", horizontal power, that directly aims at people's morality and conceptions.

2

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

I did not deny police violence is all over the place. Yet that's not what makes people go to work in the morning, or get in some small business to get rich, or snitch on someone who's been stealing, or vandalizing. You can't deny how the "cop in your head" is more powerful than the actual cops.

borders are ok when they’re for capitalism?

You've clearly not read what I wrote... which is the total opposite. I'd suggest you look at prominent members of this forum for covert defense of capitalism, or at least its neolib manifestations.

3

lentils wrote (edited )

i think the cop in your head is still a cop though. that’s you being indoctrinated by the law which is also highly coercive.

You've clearly not read what I wrote... which is the total opposite.

i re-read it and i’m not seeing any anti-capitalist sentiment here.

2