many people react negatively to such questions because they're asked so often, but it is legitimate and important, and thus it bears repeating the answers
the first question is how to defend ourselves from war, the first part will of course be prevention through soft power : international solidarity, supporting pro-worker and anti-war sentiment and organisations abroad, whenever possible trying to build positive and constructive relationships with nearby states, and non anarchist orgs
as for the military part, I suggest you look into how anarchists (and anarchist adjacent ideologies) have waged war in the past, namely [the makhnovchina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurgent_Army_of_Ukraine), the [CNT-FAI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936#The_revolution,_the_Civil_War_and_the_militias), [the neo-zapatistas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation), and [the syrian democratic forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces), as well as [some theory on how an anarchist military could be organized](https://libcom.org/article/towards-citizens-militia-anarchist-alternatives-nato-and-warsaw-pact) and [some ideas on how it could outcompete authoritarian militaries](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-beaumont-defending-an-anarchist-society) (if you don't want to read that much or are interested in my own ideas on how to structure an anarchist military do ask)
for the question of how to deal with bigotry, I think there are several aspects to it, first of all as anarchists we want to make our organizations into safe spaces for all minority groups, and as a society tends towards anarchism, we hope that these spaces extend to everyone's benefit, secondly, whenever harm (no matter how significant or insignificant it might seem to some) is caused we aspire to community based restorative justice as often and as much as practically possible, thirdly, any successful anarchist society would need to engage in large popular education programs, the importance of supporting minorities would in my opinion be one of the many important fields to cover, in order for the wider population to learn how to prevent harm, finally, as part of anti-fascist resistance I argue that any and all organized groups that support bigotry openly should be opposed, resisted, and suppressed with varying degrees of intensity or even violence depending on how harmful and dangerous they prove
[here's a video that talks a little bit about the subject](https://youtu.be/W9K6ISx8QEQ) if you prefer videos to reading, it's not exactly how I would see an anarchist military, but I find there's a huge lack of military analysis in anarchist youtubers
>I wander without a state how would you deal with capitalist countries that will try to crush your ideology?
We'll fight back with force? What else would we do?
>I also want I know how will anarchist protect people like me who are gay or have different sexualities that aren’t straight or have different gender identities that are cis men or women?
In the absence of law, anarchist societies are likely going to be highly tolerant and accommodating of everything but the most egregious of behavior. So members of the LGBTQ community aren't going to be facing a lot of problems anyways.
We must also consider how repression actually works. People who dislike gay, trans, or non-binary people don't actually take it upon themselves to fight them, after most people don't have strong opinions on them. They use governmental avenues to force *all of society* to repress them. Other people deal with the costs of repression not them.
Take for instance how racists *call the police* they don't tend to go up to racial minorities by themselves and deal with them. And it's likely the costs of fighting anyone increases significantly if minorities aren't systematically barred access to social wealth and support.
Racism is dealt with by eliminating the structures which facilitate and maintain it. After all, racism is a hierarchy and must be dismantled to achieve anarchy.
But lot homophobic and racism people don’t kill their minorities because they know they will be punished by law. In a world where they don’t have laws, they could just come to getter to persecute the minorities and keep them away from them. Think of countries like Europe that have more white Christian than any other minorities. Wouldn’t they just attack anyone that is like them if they were motivated enough?
> But lot homophobic and racism people don’t kill their minorities because they know they will be punished by law
On the contrary, most crime isn't punished and goes unresolved. This is because only legal authorities can enforce the law and so if you commit a crime outside their view or if legal authorities don't care, you go scot free. It's far easier to kill a social undesirable in a society with law than a society without it.
Furthermore, without law, anyone can respond to your behavior however they want. That uncertainty deters even *benign* acts let alone killing. It is far more likely that racists or homophobes keep to themselves.
>In a world where they don’t have laws, they could just come to getter to persecute the minorities and keep them away from them.
Except that the amount of people willing to take the responsibility of killing other people is very low. Most people, even those who dislike minorities, don't care enough to do something about it and most certainly wouldn't want to risk their lives killing them.
>Think of countries like Europe that have more white Christian than any other minorities. Wouldn’t they just attack anyone that is like them if they were motivated enough?
Because most people aren't motivated enough and likely never will. Racists and homophobes use governmental avenues for a reason even when it is easy to get away with hurting a minority.
Oh I guess I’m just hung up on the idea that if countries like Cameroon became an anarchist country they will go out of their way to kill gay or trans people because they didn’t like them, but I guess I’m misunderstood how much motivation people feel to kill someone else
>Oh I guess I’m just hung up on the idea that if countries like Cameroon became an anarchist country they will go out of their way to kill gay or trans people because they didn’t like them,
I already pointed out how that's unlikely but you should also note that if a society has transitioned completely to anarchy, we've already seen such a widespread shift in mentalities that it's unlikely anarchists are going to be oppositional to gay or trans people.
>but I guess I’m misunderstood how much motivation people feel to kill someone else
People feel plenty of motivation when they're not actually the ones doing the killing. When it's a matter of voting for repressive legislation or getting the government to do the dirty work, they're all for it.
Just look at how willing conversative are to make their governments go to war but become completely averse to it if they are conscripted or forced to go to war.
Is that sarcasm??
Edit: I actually want to know because there still gonna have very bigoted people in this world. And if there isn’t a state to protect this minorities than how would this world in a communal place that hates gays or minorities?
Edit: I literally as what y’all will do to prevent capitalist countries from destroying y’all. Wft?
I think if you tally up the balance sheet, the state tends to cause minorities much more harm than it protects from, while making it essentially illegal to defend themselves.
How would we handle it? Depends! A state doesn't have room for ambiguity or context, but individuals do. Does justice look like deprogramming the bigots? Neutralizing an influential propagandist?
And an edit because you sound kinda young, but look at the history of police raids and BOMBINGS of gay clubs before Stonewall. And look at the state's capacity to actively oppress trans folks today, not to mention the very BS imprisonment of a huge proportion of Black Americans. What exactly makes you think the state is effective at protecting minorities? All it does, as another commenter said more thoroughly, is make it easier for individuals to escape culpability for their own hate by delegating the performance of that hate to an authority that turns that hate into legally sanctioned violence, clothed in the very mundane trappings of bureaucracy
But let’s say in this theoretical anarchist world there are still homophobic Christian places or racist people, wouldn’t they go and kill any minorities that show up in the places?
First of all Without the power to oppress homophobia and racism couldnt exist. Like The rhetoric is currently unpopular and thats with billions of dollars and corparate media backing it up. Plus under anarchism everyone (besides people deemed a danger to themselves or community) would be armed and well trained and the culture would be for community care and support. Meaning 100,000s-millions of people could and would (they do all the time right now just without guns) rally against racists or homophobes and the racists would only be able to rally a small group less than a 1,000 people
Well if you look closer into how people in rojava organizes their guerilla you might find some answers. I am aware that they are not anarchist but I my opinion thier attempt to create a just society comes closest to anarchist ideals.
The hypothetical answer to most hypothetical problems under anarchy is "build a community to solve it".
Worried about an external power? Recruit a voluntary diplomacy/defense core.
Worried about bigotry? Put together a group of like-minded people who make it clear that bigotry won't be tolerated. If someone refuses to make a cake for a gay marriage, nothing stops The Gay Marriage Alliance from arranging a boycott of the business. Or blocking the entrance. Or burning the whole business down, if it comes to that.
Without the police to protect bigotry, being a bigot is less attractive.
It won't be all crumpets and roses — people will form communities to do bad things too. Hopefully the Defense of Marriage Alliance and the Gay Marriage Alliance will be able to solve their differences with debate and dialog.
many people react negatively to such questions because they're asked so often, but it is legitimate and important, and thus it bears repeating the answers the first question is how to defend ourselves from war, the first part will of course be prevention through soft power : international solidarity, supporting pro-worker and anti-war sentiment and organisations abroad, whenever possible trying to build positive and constructive relationships with nearby states, and non anarchist orgs as for the military part, I suggest you look into how anarchists (and anarchist adjacent ideologies) have waged war in the past, namely [the makhnovchina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurgent_Army_of_Ukraine), the [CNT-FAI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936#The_revolution,_the_Civil_War_and_the_militias), [the neo-zapatistas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation), and [the syrian democratic forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces), as well as [some theory on how an anarchist military could be organized](https://libcom.org/article/towards-citizens-militia-anarchist-alternatives-nato-and-warsaw-pact) and [some ideas on how it could outcompete authoritarian militaries](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-beaumont-defending-an-anarchist-society) (if you don't want to read that much or are interested in my own ideas on how to structure an anarchist military do ask) for the question of how to deal with bigotry, I think there are several aspects to it, first of all as anarchists we want to make our organizations into safe spaces for all minority groups, and as a society tends towards anarchism, we hope that these spaces extend to everyone's benefit, secondly, whenever harm (no matter how significant or insignificant it might seem to some) is caused we aspire to community based restorative justice as often and as much as practically possible, thirdly, any successful anarchist society would need to engage in large popular education programs, the importance of supporting minorities would in my opinion be one of the many important fields to cover, in order for the wider population to learn how to prevent harm, finally, as part of anti-fascist resistance I argue that any and all organized groups that support bigotry openly should be opposed, resisted, and suppressed with varying degrees of intensity or even violence depending on how harmful and dangerous they prove
i think this is a great comment thank you for the contribution
I don't wanna read and I'm interested in your ideas, how would an anarchist military be organized?
[here's a video that talks a little bit about the subject](https://youtu.be/W9K6ISx8QEQ) if you prefer videos to reading, it's not exactly how I would see an anarchist military, but I find there's a huge lack of military analysis in anarchist youtubers
Thanks a lot, I do prefer videos yeah
>I wander without a state how would you deal with capitalist countries that will try to crush your ideology? We'll fight back with force? What else would we do? >I also want I know how will anarchist protect people like me who are gay or have different sexualities that aren’t straight or have different gender identities that are cis men or women? In the absence of law, anarchist societies are likely going to be highly tolerant and accommodating of everything but the most egregious of behavior. So members of the LGBTQ community aren't going to be facing a lot of problems anyways. We must also consider how repression actually works. People who dislike gay, trans, or non-binary people don't actually take it upon themselves to fight them, after most people don't have strong opinions on them. They use governmental avenues to force *all of society* to repress them. Other people deal with the costs of repression not them. Take for instance how racists *call the police* they don't tend to go up to racial minorities by themselves and deal with them. And it's likely the costs of fighting anyone increases significantly if minorities aren't systematically barred access to social wealth and support. Racism is dealt with by eliminating the structures which facilitate and maintain it. After all, racism is a hierarchy and must be dismantled to achieve anarchy.
But lot homophobic and racism people don’t kill their minorities because they know they will be punished by law. In a world where they don’t have laws, they could just come to getter to persecute the minorities and keep them away from them. Think of countries like Europe that have more white Christian than any other minorities. Wouldn’t they just attack anyone that is like them if they were motivated enough?
> But lot homophobic and racism people don’t kill their minorities because they know they will be punished by law On the contrary, most crime isn't punished and goes unresolved. This is because only legal authorities can enforce the law and so if you commit a crime outside their view or if legal authorities don't care, you go scot free. It's far easier to kill a social undesirable in a society with law than a society without it. Furthermore, without law, anyone can respond to your behavior however they want. That uncertainty deters even *benign* acts let alone killing. It is far more likely that racists or homophobes keep to themselves. >In a world where they don’t have laws, they could just come to getter to persecute the minorities and keep them away from them. Except that the amount of people willing to take the responsibility of killing other people is very low. Most people, even those who dislike minorities, don't care enough to do something about it and most certainly wouldn't want to risk their lives killing them. >Think of countries like Europe that have more white Christian than any other minorities. Wouldn’t they just attack anyone that is like them if they were motivated enough? Because most people aren't motivated enough and likely never will. Racists and homophobes use governmental avenues for a reason even when it is easy to get away with hurting a minority.
Oh I guess I’m just hung up on the idea that if countries like Cameroon became an anarchist country they will go out of their way to kill gay or trans people because they didn’t like them, but I guess I’m misunderstood how much motivation people feel to kill someone else
>Oh I guess I’m just hung up on the idea that if countries like Cameroon became an anarchist country they will go out of their way to kill gay or trans people because they didn’t like them, I already pointed out how that's unlikely but you should also note that if a society has transitioned completely to anarchy, we've already seen such a widespread shift in mentalities that it's unlikely anarchists are going to be oppositional to gay or trans people. >but I guess I’m misunderstood how much motivation people feel to kill someone else People feel plenty of motivation when they're not actually the ones doing the killing. When it's a matter of voting for repressive legislation or getting the government to do the dirty work, they're all for it. Just look at how willing conversative are to make their governments go to war but become completely averse to it if they are conscripted or forced to go to war.
This is a good point. We need hierarchies to prevent this. That's why capitalist states never have war or bigotry.
Is that sarcasm?? Edit: I actually want to know because there still gonna have very bigoted people in this world. And if there isn’t a state to protect this minorities than how would this world in a communal place that hates gays or minorities? Edit: I literally as what y’all will do to prevent capitalist countries from destroying y’all. Wft?
I think if you tally up the balance sheet, the state tends to cause minorities much more harm than it protects from, while making it essentially illegal to defend themselves. How would we handle it? Depends! A state doesn't have room for ambiguity or context, but individuals do. Does justice look like deprogramming the bigots? Neutralizing an influential propagandist? And an edit because you sound kinda young, but look at the history of police raids and BOMBINGS of gay clubs before Stonewall. And look at the state's capacity to actively oppress trans folks today, not to mention the very BS imprisonment of a huge proportion of Black Americans. What exactly makes you think the state is effective at protecting minorities? All it does, as another commenter said more thoroughly, is make it easier for individuals to escape culpability for their own hate by delegating the performance of that hate to an authority that turns that hate into legally sanctioned violence, clothed in the very mundane trappings of bureaucracy
But let’s say in this theoretical anarchist world there are still homophobic Christian places or racist people, wouldn’t they go and kill any minorities that show up in the places?
You're describing lynchings, which existed and still exist under capitalist democracy.
Yeah but couldn’t they exist in a state less society to?
Absolutely, and then you're gonna ask 'so what would we do about it,' and then I'll refer you to my "depends" answer, above
First of all Without the power to oppress homophobia and racism couldnt exist. Like The rhetoric is currently unpopular and thats with billions of dollars and corparate media backing it up. Plus under anarchism everyone (besides people deemed a danger to themselves or community) would be armed and well trained and the culture would be for community care and support. Meaning 100,000s-millions of people could and would (they do all the time right now just without guns) rally against racists or homophobes and the racists would only be able to rally a small group less than a 1,000 people
Well if you look closer into how people in rojava organizes their guerilla you might find some answers. I am aware that they are not anarchist but I my opinion thier attempt to create a just society comes closest to anarchist ideals.
That's a lot of words to say that you don't know. Thanks for contributing to the conversation
I wonder what contribution you think your comment made to the conversation?
The hypothetical answer to most hypothetical problems under anarchy is "build a community to solve it". Worried about an external power? Recruit a voluntary diplomacy/defense core. Worried about bigotry? Put together a group of like-minded people who make it clear that bigotry won't be tolerated. If someone refuses to make a cake for a gay marriage, nothing stops The Gay Marriage Alliance from arranging a boycott of the business. Or blocking the entrance. Or burning the whole business down, if it comes to that. Without the police to protect bigotry, being a bigot is less attractive. It won't be all crumpets and roses — people will form communities to do bad things too. Hopefully the Defense of Marriage Alliance and the Gay Marriage Alliance will be able to solve their differences with debate and dialog.
>How will racism be fix or prevented in this society? Education, primarily.
Transphobe and racist would be physically excluded or get community justice
It seems you want to pawn off your responsibility for self defence onto an external group. That’s not anarchy.