Those damned Anarchists

Post Reply New Topic

It wouldn't take long for anarchy to turn into chaos.

Anarchy is compete chaos. The idea that a world where anyone co do whatever they want including whatever they want to others will be peaceful is naive of our human nature.

Bullies picking on autistics in school is anarchy.

Income inequality and bullying linked in new study

Abelism also a social prejudice anarchists work towards dismantling.

I'm all for anarchy and socialism.

But I must admit whenever I hear "anarchy" I still think of this:

The idea behind anarchy is not that you can just do whatever you want, rather that restrictions on individual behavior should not be monopolized by an oligarchic body.

You always hear the same things: What about violence against women? Against minorities? The homeless? LGBT's? The disabled? Autistics?
Anarchy in general and the anarchism of some of the protesters is built upon opposition to these biases. Almost every feminist I've met is some shade of anarchist or socialist. LGBT Pride and BLM have gone hand in hand since the beginning. State capitalism has criminalized the homeless. Anarchism offers them compassion and assistance.

The neurodivergent are victimized under capitalism, because they are seen as less capable contributors to the economy. They are victimized under nationalism, because they are seen as social deviants and a burden on glorious homeland's resources. Where are their calls for universal mental healthcare? Is it just that children have to grow up without mental health treatment because their parents are too poor? How can we expect the neurodivergent to attain equality in a system that disadvantages those already disadvantaged? And yet those who call for universal healthcare of any kind are called radicals.
It is statism and capitalism that are based on hierarchy, subordination, and violence--not anarchism.

Lol, no, let me tell you why that's BS.

Autistic/queer/poor/whatever kid gets bullied by the NT straight kids, teachers turn a blind eye to it. Victim starts defending herself, then suddenly she finds herself being blamed and punished for "fighting". Sound familiar, anyone?

This is literally the same story I hear from anyone who experienced bullying in a public school setting. Bullying is inherently rooted in socio-economic hierarchy and is largely enforced by the government (protip: teachers are government employees).

Whoa!
Talk about misrepresentation.

How does the "economics" part relate to bullying?
Not arguing.
I just would like clarification.

Here in Australia,
Most teachers are heavily politically left-wing, btw.

I think my question may have been answered.

So the article is suggesting that kids growing up with inequality are presenting themselves as targets for bullies?

It does not take long for anarchy to return to order, not from collapsing in on itself but the creation of new rules that cement themselves into a new, often hierarchal, order.

The abolishing of letting having and nobles control society, that was anarchy.

Making it so people of different races could no longer be property of the rich people of society that bought them, that was anarchy.

Having girls not have to stay home to learn from her mother or act as a housekeeper but instead be able to go to school, that was anarchy.

Not letting the rich be the sole proprietors of force with things like mercenary groups like the Pinkertons but a tax funded force with the intention to help all, that was anarchy.

Letting women be able to choose careers that were generally reserved by men which would mean they would enter men only areas where men were not supposed to prevent it, that was anarchy.

Anarchy is hardly an ideology cemented as one thing across time, rather than a movement specific to a point in time to topple over the entrenched hierarchy, generally to take back from the oppressors and attempt to share it with everyone else. You can look back at all of those past examples of anarchy and think that they just seem obvious and maybe apart from things like nobles being beheaded think that they were very palatable movement, but truth is that things at that time were seen the same way as you might see current anarchy movements. They just all became a new normal, generally creating their own new order of society that created new hierarchy.

Do you think that current capitalism would exist if the peasants did not overthrow the aristocrats and send them to the gallows for not caring about the needs of the little people. That is where terms like the Left and the Right came from, where after revolution in France you saw the supporters for the king and tradition on the right and supporters for the revolution and change on the left. And yet Capitalism itself has created its own aristocrats, people that continue to exploit the common people to make itself unnecessarily fatter, that creates the picture of anarchy as the destruction of society. Ignore the fact that in history we have been in this dance so often, and only have our current rights anarchy reigned.

What does teachers being "Left" have to do with anything. I would argue that they only are so because education is so underfunded that those who undertake teaching have to be aware of poor socio economic issues in society.

And if we are going to go into how economics can relate to bullying, then I might have to go into what exactly economics even is. Economics is not just something like a study of how much money someone has or earns, that could be less relevant for children in schools and not explain why a kids from a poorer family might bully a kid from a richer family. Economics looks over things like productivity, resources, trade and use, which I think that can seem like obvious concepts when you are discussing things like macroeconomics, things that build up a country's GDP, what goods a country makes and such. But things can change to more abstract ideas when you look at things like microeconomics where you look at specific industries, where you might have to look at different things that you have to measure by, such as what consumers may think of businesses or entire industries.

And it gets even more abstract in areas when you are getting to the social economy of areas, socioeconomics. At that point you are not just measuring money, it can be a measure of success in areas, but you are also looking at what people that can make up a majority might think of things like minorities, how they might not fit the productivity of social society. Someone of a race could be seen as dirty, lazy, humourless, greedy or dangerous, things that are against what is valued socially. A disabled person can be seen as weak and a drain on society. A rich kid thinks they are better than everyone else. An LGBT person can be seen as weird and not like everyone else, in a larger society might be seen as a drain on baby making that some people measure how good society is. Bullying is like often a direct result of these things where people find minorities of different kinds against what they value.

Even that teachers might turn a blind eye to someone being picked on for seemingly being seen as a disruptive element to the social circle, regardless of how they might also be on the Left in regards to more macro things. This is why you have gotten things where people will say that boys will be boys in regards to a "normal" boy picking on the weird one, and saying just horrid things like bullying builds character. People of authority ignoring social problems because they see it as normal and even helpful for healthy minded people. It doesn't.

Like, poor kids being bullied for being poor.

^This, for the win!

Even when I was jumped by two or more bullies while sitting quietly and alone on the playground, the government-employed teachers would always say that I must have somehow "Asked for it", and then they would punish me for fighting back.

I hate bullies and the people who support and make excuses for them.