Ask an Anarchist

[Terxpahseyton]

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking? I'm willing to meet coercive activity with violence (although reluctant; I'm really not the sort of person to whom violence comes naturally), but I don't think this itself constitutes another form of coercion. "You're coercing me against coercing you" is really just word-games.

Weather it is just a word-game really depends on who is asking I'd say. If my point was "See, you are not really anarchist!" I'd agree that this is at best a silly game.
But when we talk about how anarchism is supposed to be brought about or maintained, it to me seems to become very relevant how much anti-coercion-coercion is considered anarchist and how much an unacceptable anti-anarchistic means to an anarchistic end.
An extreme example of such an anti-anarchistic means would for instance be to raise an army fighting for anarchism but organized around strict hierarchy and punishment if that hierarchy is not maintained. So a regular run-of-the-mill-army. One anarchist may argue that the war for final freedom can only be won by such means, another anarchist may argue that this would defeat the purpose.
A more everyday example can be the difference between firebombing a police station or resisting the police by merely not cooperating.
But what I was interested in most of all was the role of anti-coercion-coercion ones anarchism was established. Could there perhaps be a sort of Anarchist police which enforces anti-coercion by coercion? Perhaps even an entire judicial system with laws stipulating which coercion receives what punishment? So in the end a political body following the modern orthodox textbook understanding of political, but outstandingly limited in scope and purpose.
I suspect that such an idea would be (to put it mildly) highly suspicious to anarchists. So are there alternative ideas about some kind of institutionalized binding of anti-coercion? If not, how is "mob rule" considered by anarchists? Is it simply assumed that the dangers associated are greatly exaggerated and things will kind of sort out themselves, perhaps that dangers are real but need to be accepted on the road to a freer society or something else?

edit: I just now read through the middle of the thread, and my post is kind of repetitive in some respects. So feel free to only go into what you feel still deserves an response.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, again, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You seem to be using "coercion" as a synonym of "violence", but it's not apparent to me that the two are the same. If you attack me, and I beat you off, then I have committed violence, but hardly coercion.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As much as "You coerced me into not coercing you" is a terrible tongue breaker - it still is technically absolutely correct to say so. No?
Take Jesus. He wouldn't coerce you into not coercing him, because he would never coerce anyone under any circumstances.

 

[Traitorfish]

It might be correct, but that's circumstantial. It depends on whether or not the potentially-coercive party is actually being coerced, or just being forcefully opposed.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What is the difference? I see none.

 

[Traitorfish]

Coercion means using force to compel someone to act in a certain way. It's a particular way of using force, not just the use of force itself.

 

[Takhisis]

Do you include the threat of force in your definition of coercion?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Is there no negative coercion? As in to use force to compel someone to not act in a certain way?
If so, then how do I forcefully oppose someone without coercion aka using force to compel him or her to act or not act in a certain way?

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you include the threat of force in your definition of coercion?

Yes.

Is there no negative coercion? As in to use force to compel someone to not act in a certain way?
If so, then how do I forcefully oppose someone without coercion aka using force to compel him or her to act or not act in a certain way?

See, now we're back to word games. Raping somebody and preventing somebody from raping you are not acts of the same category, however you spin it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Categories are abstractions, aren't they, so I see no general reason why they both can not be of the same category. Moreover, I see reason to group them together when we talk about how an ideology of non-violence deals with violence. But it is not something I'd insist on, I just find it a pleasantly simple and straight-forward way. No games, just trying to keep communication efficient.

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't mean to give the impression that I subscribed to an "ideology of non-violence". As I said, I accept the emancipatory use of force, even if I don't particularly like it.

Park is an anarcho-pacifist, so he'd be better able to comment, but his pacifism is deontological rather than political, so I doubt he'd give you the sort of answer you seem to be looking for.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Okay so if we assume that the aforementioned "anarchy police" I imagined could and would work just as intended. No power grabs. No corruption. Would you want to have it? Just to get an idea of your idea of the "emancipatory use of force".

 

[Traitorfish]

Nah, they sound like bawbags.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

They could wear penis heats if that is more to your liking.

 

[Borachio]

I imagine the ideal anarchist "police force" consists of everyday citizens who just happen to be in the neighbourhood of a criminal act.

Restraining violent criminals just consists of keeping the person in sight but out of range of any missile they might use. Occasionally trying to engage the person in conversation. Or maybe hurling abuse along the lines of "We know where you live", and such like.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Mind you there would be no criminal acts now would there? There would be just acts enough people disagree strongly enough with to take action to prevent those acts. Aka mob rule. Which carries its own bundle of problem. To which I introduced the counter-concept of an Anarchy police in the more orthodox sense of a police.
I find this whole topic very interesting, but so far I only got that institutionalized police officers sound like "bawbags".

 

[Borachio]

But that definition of criminal acts is the position now.

Or can you give me an example of a "criminal act that enough people don't disagree strongly enough with to take action to prevent"?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What definition? The one my police force uses?
Well suppose people think person X is a mean peace of crap and really really has it coming. Suppose they decide a beating is the beset course of action to teach the guy some manners. Good enough?

 

[Flying Pig]

Or can you give me an example of a "criminal act that enough people don't disagree strongly enough with to take action to prevent"?

Littering, defacing the Queen's currency, offering for sale a game bird killed on Christmas Day - the list goes on.

 

[Tahuti]

defacing the Queen's currency

Are ATM's in the UK ink protected?