12
13

The SJ community is great at being critical of the status quo, but does anyone actually have a thought out plan, theory, or ideology to provide a solvency, and emancipate all peoples from oppression? (self.SRSDiscussion)

2k16throwaway が 投稿

Is there a consensus to what solvency we can provide to change the status quo? Is there a systematic or gradual plan we can push for that will better all lives?

EDIT: It says 60 comments but I only count 23... wtf

全 62 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]lordairivis 25ポイント26ポイント  (29子コメント)

Assuming you're posting in good faith, you'll be hard-pressed to pin down an actual general consensus since so many people in the SJ community have so many different ideas on how to accomplish this. You'll get responses ranging from FULL COMMUNISM (and within this group, you'll find a range of ideas on how to achieve specifically that, from peaceful transition to violent overthrow) to the gradual phasing out of oppressive societal structures through democratic means.

[–]barbadosslim 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The answer isn't full communism, that's just the goal. The answer is however we could achieve it.

[–]Protanope 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's pretty damn difficult and probably near impossible because of all of the social norms already set in place by thousands of years of society/culture. There's no one single, correct answer to solving all of the world's social problems.

What we can all try to do is diminish it as much as we can by calling out and challenging racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, classism, etc. You have to remember that not everyone wants to change the status quo. People in power benefit from ignorance and prejudice.

Treating a plan of action as something that will work on all people from all backgrounds would be ignorant in and of itself. We have to remember that people are individuals, with a huge array of ideas and ideals. A blanket approach wouldn't work.

[–]BATMANWILLDIEINAK 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

What we can all try to do is diminish it as much as we can by calling out

No, just simply "calling out" bigotry isn't enough, the oppressors won't listen. We need to FIGHT them.

[–]Protanope 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's totally fine if that's what you want to do, but it's unfortunate that many people aren't ready for that level of action. IMO, as long as you're not adding to ignorance you're doing some good. I don't expect everyone to be as invested in social justice as I am.

[–]captainlavender 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anyone correct me here, because I'm not familiar with the theory, but as far as I'm concerned there isn't one. Social justice right now relies solely on incremental change, and there is just so so much of it needed that it fills everyone's time. But the odd thing is, as injustices are corrected, social attitudes adjust, bending over time (or leaping across generations, like the norm of homosexuality). I think it's because there tends to be more conflict when there are these widely-known but hotly-debated injustices and everyone is either angry or kind of guilty. At any rate, we see healthier norms develop as rights are made symmetrical (obviously we can debate causality here). Sometimes nobody can really anticipate these changes. So although I have no idea where things are headed, it seems like it's in the right direction. One step at a time, let's go somewhere good, eh?

[–]successfulblackwoman 7ポイント8ポイント  (16子コメント)

Non serious: Yell at people who are behaving badly because that will surely cause them to change. Fight them until they realize they're wrong! Pretty sure that's the plan already in place, actually.

Serious: Shit's hard. I have ideas, but ideas are cheap and execution is what matters. The laws of unintended consequences are harsh. The free market sucks, but I don't trust centralized government to fairly and equitably distribute everything without becoming cronyism.

If I had to fix one thing it would be economic predators who target the poor and vulnerable. Absurdly high interest, badly disclosed fees, a complex and confusing system of medicine, a judicial system that ramrods though convictions and fines, a tax code which literally requires a degree to provide advice on, the sale of public infrastructure to private companies, this kind of shit.

In a world where people don't have to fear being broke and homeless, the rest of social change has a much better chance of taking root. Not only do the oppressed have the energy to actually address their issues, but the callous thoughtless participants in the system no longer feel like they have too many problems of their own to care about yours.

If someone is literally worried about how they're going to feed their children, and you tell them, "Hey here are some words you shouldn't use," you're a lot more likely to get told to fuck off.

I can't imagine passing a tax increase through congress right now, let alone what it would take to handle this no a global scale, so this is wishful thinking. No plan survives contact with the enemy, and the enemy in this case is everyone who has no desire to see things change.

So for me, personally, I try to get each person I meet to introspect a little more and get them to actually understand what's going on in the world. I don't have a grand plan, but I have convinced a few people to be a little less racist and sexist and they seemed happier for it.

[–]Skwuruhl 6ポイント7ポイント  (10子コメント)

Just fyi there's forms of socialism which have no central planning or even much government at all.

Anarchism specifically is against hierarchies of all kinds, including those in government.

[–]successfulblackwoman 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

Maybe I'm just really bad at anarchism, but I've yet to see a group of more than six people that didn't include some kind of hierarchy, even if its informal.

I remember being in high school. I remember being an outsider to some cliques -- self organizing cliques with no official power but plenty of ability to make my life hell.

You say anarchism and I think an endless high school with even less effective teachers.

I work in software. Pie-in-the-sky awesome visualization followed by horribly, hacky implementation is my life.

Seriously: I love the idea of no central government. I have a pretty antagonistic relationship with authority. I also fear modern lynch mobs. So if you wanna get into it, I have some good faith questions. If you can actually answer them instead of merely criticizing the existing system of authority, then you'd have a convert.

[–]Skwuruhl 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'll answer what I can.

[–]successfulblackwoman 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Cool.

I've got a neighbor. I don't want that neighbor blasting loud shit at 3 am and keeping us all up, or setting off fireworks first thing, etc. Or for a more extreme example, I really don't want him doing unsanitary butchering of animals in his front yard, or being a terrible beekeeper which sends angry bees into my house every day.

With the existing system with government: there's a set of codes which defines acceptable behavior. Sometimes these codes are racist and badly enforced, like "loitering." Usually, though, I can address this stuff and a means by which the public can vote on (or vote away) these restrictions has been tried across countless towns. Additionally (and far more importantly) these rules can be subject to higher rules that guarantee rights, an appeals process that keeps things sane.

With the anarchist system: I literally have no idea how I'd address this. I am assuming an uncooperative type who will say no unless I gather a mob, but anything that involves "gathering a mob" scares the shit out of me, because mobs have, historically, not been kind to minorities.

I want something which lets the majority of the town express their desire to not have badly run bee farms in city limits, but also doesn't let the majority one day up and decide to run all the Mexicans out of town (citizen or not) because they have more guns.

Right now the current system we have in place more or less does that. It's not perfect. You see failures all the time in the news, but usually in the form of "this failed and we're trying to redress it." Would anarchism even acknowledge that as a failure?

This is the basic fear I have. Mob rule where the mob is not on my side. Convince me that won't happen.

[–]Skwuruhl 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

An anarchist society would still have rules, laws, norms, practices, processes, systems, institutions, etc. These would be created and voted on locally. To prevent anti-minority laws from being passed a lot of anarchists support consensus democracy.

Your local community would likely have had the consensus that keeping each other up late into the night with loud music shouldn't be allowed. If someone is breaking this rule and continues to do so after a warning they'd be asked to leave the neighborhood. That neighbor can find a community that allows loud music late at night.

Probably the bigger question is "What if they won't leave?" Obviously you don't want a mob outside his house to make him leave. Anarchist societies could still have "neighborhood watch" or some other form of volunteer who would deal with people like this. So a few volunteers would go to the unruly neighbors house rather than a whole mob.

The major difference from police is that these people wouldn't have a monopoly of power over everyone else. They don't get any special privileges that normal citizens don't get. They're only allowed this position as long as the community lets them. I want to say though that he wouldn't get thrown in prison or something though. Removing him from the community is a last resort when he will not otherwise stop infringing on others in the community.

All that said: the community would ultimately be the one that decides how things are handled and I'm basically just providing an example of how it could work. However you'd be free to find a community that works in a way that you like best.

Also education would help a lot with prejudices. A lot of current prejudices exist because the current system enforces them. Without the enforcing factors, and with the knowledge that a mexican/black/whatever is literally just skin color and otherwise not a different species or race or anything, you don't have a logical reason to try and evict all of a minority. You wouldn't risk your life to do this when there's no apparent benefit. If a community were start to become fascist or something, neighboring communities would intervene because it's in their interest to prevent fascism from rising.

If I didn't quite answer something fully, you could ask me to clarify, or just post the specific question on /r/Anarchy101 and maybe get someone better than me.

[–]successfulblackwoman 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

An anarchist society would still have rules, laws, norms, practices, processes, systems, institutions, etc. These would be created and voted on locally. To prevent anti-minority laws from being passed a lot of anarchists support consensus democracy.

Ok, hold up though.

How, exactly, is that not government? It's different government, sure. It might be better government. But it sounds like government to me. Maybe it's government with more voting in the hands of the people, but someone counts the votes, records the laws, etc, but it sounds like government. Most everything that follows in your post sounds like "a better government."

The major difference from police is that these people wouldn't have a monopoly of power over everyone else. They don't get any special privileges that normal citizens don't get.

I mean, sure, that sounds good, but this just sounds like a better police system, that's not being called a police system. There's nothing about the police we have right now that says they should get special privileges. That's an artifact of our existing system being corrupt, which seems as likely to happen to any other group.

I want to say though that he wouldn't get thrown in prison or something though. Removing him from the community is a last resort when he will not otherwise stop infringing on others in the community.

Sure, I mean, I wouldn't want someone to get thrown in prison for public nuisance either. That does bring about the question of: "what about someone who is a rapist, though? Do we just send them away?"

All that said: the community would ultimately be the one that decides how things are handled and I'm basically just providing an example of how it could work. However you'd be free to find a community that works in a way that you like best.

I absolutely agree with having as much power in as low a level of governance as possible. However this kind of handwaving non-answer is what usually turns me off Anarchism. "You'd be free to find a community that works in a way that you like it best" assumes that such a community will for sure exist. Will it, though?

Also education would help a lot with prejudices. A lot of current prejudices exist because the current system enforces them. Without the enforcing factors, and with the knowledge that a mexican/black/whatever is literally just skin color and otherwise not a different species or race or anything, you don't have a logical reason to try and evict all of a minority.

Most Anarchists I've run across say this. "We just gotta educate people to stop being so racist." But what do you do with all the people who are racist as you transition them into the anarchist society? You think they're going to teach their kids differently? You think a town that's 95% white in the south is going to suddenly preach racial diversity to all its members now that there's no state or federal government over them?

You wouldn't risk your life to do this when there's no apparent benefit. If a community were start to become fascist or something, neighboring communities would intervene because it's in their interest to prevent fascism from rising.

This kinda sounds like the current US foreign policy. Also the fifth or sixth time it happens, it seems pretty likely some community will say "We're going to prevent this from ever happening again" and then what?

If I didn't quite answer something fully, you could ask me to clarify, or just post the specific question on /r/Anarchy101 and maybe get someone better than me.

I've read some Anarchy 101 and talked to various Anarchists, and I find, unsurprisingly, they all have different answers. I usually like to talk 1:1 with self declared anarchists because a subreddit with multiple people will give you two answers that solve different problems but those ideas don't reconcile.

I'll take any answer that seems consistent enough to solve my problems.

[–]Skwuruhl 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

How, exactly, is that not government?

Perhaps a better way to say it would be anti-state. A state is hierarchical in its being. A community directly voting on everything that affects them with no politician middleman of any sort is the "government" anarchists would aim for.

There's nothing about the police we have right now that says they should get special privileges. That's an artifact of our existing system being corrupt, which seems as likely to happen to any other group.

The police answer to themselves, or at best to the state. They are afforded use of violence with little to no consequence. The primary purpose of police is to protect business and enforce the status quo. To do this effectively they need to have their monopoly on violence. The system isn't so much corrupt as it is resultant of capitalism.

what about someone who is a rapist, though? Do we just send them away?

Certain crimes such as rape would need rehabilitative imprisonment. Focus on restoration.

However this kind of handwaving non-answer is what usually turns me off Anarchism.

It's hard to accurately depict what such a society would look like. The most we can do is say what it might (and/or want it to) look like. There's no way to know for sure. If you asked capitalists would capitalism would look like while the world was still under feudalism you likely wouldn't get a very accurate answer.

"You'd be free to find a community that works in a way that you like it best" assumes that such a community will for sure exist. Will it, though?

It's possible that your perfectly ideal community doesn't exist. While unfortunate, the options will be much better than capitalism provides and you can still choose your favorite.

But what do you do with all the people who are racist as you transition them into the anarchist society?

Education is a long term solution. Anarchism (or any other form of socialism, or even post-left versions of anarchism) as a whole will require a cultural shift. Elimination of racism will need to be part of that. It will help that capitalism is no longer there to perpetuate racist ideals.

This kinda sounds like the current US foreign policy.

US foreign policy is "invade other countries to further capitalist wealth." Intervening a rising fascist movement is literally self-defense for the targeted minorities. I don't see this comparable to recent US wars. Those that started the fascist movement won't just be simply dropped back off in the community to start the movement all over again.

[–]successfulblackwoman 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Perhaps a better way to say it would be anti-state. A state is hierarchical in its being. A community directly voting on everything that affects them with no politician middleman of any sort is the "government" anarchists would aim for.

I can see that. Being anti-state seems mostly sensible, though I'm not philosophically opposed to hierarchy when that hierarchy is actually appointed by people. I've seen people describe "anarchism" as having zero government and literally mean zero government, so it's good to see that's not the only way people use the word.

Certain crimes such as rape would need rehabilitative imprisonment. Focus on restoration.

Sure, I'm down with that. I'm not sure that's inherent to anarchism though. Any good justice system should do that. (And an anarchist system could easily be eye-for-an-eye.)

It's hard to accurately depict what such a society would look like. The most we can do is say what it might (and/or want it to) look like. There's no way to know for sure. If you asked capitalists would capitalism would look like while the world was still under feudalism you likely wouldn't get a very accurate answer.

This is true, and actually what concerns me. Big radical changes with unforseen consequences. But I can appreciate that "anything is better than what we have now." I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on how such a system might exist so long as it can be articulated and handles the most basic problems. So far you're speaking my language, at least much better than I usually get on this topic.

Education is a long term solution. Anarchism (or any other form of socialism, or even post-left versions of anarchism) as a whole will require a cultural shift. Elimination of racism will need to be part of that. It will help that capitalism is no longer there to perpetuate racist ideals.

Ok, this part, though, gets a bit handwavy. Cultural shift, sure, but you're talking about a global cultural shift. You'd literally need to define certain kinds of teachings as not allowed.

I'm all for getting rid of racist teachings, but I can't reconcile that with each community self-managing and each town taking their own path. Seems like you'd need a higher authority on what things must be taught.

I'm also not convinced on the idea that racism comes from capitalism. Pretty sure you can be racist without any concept of ownership. For some reason socialists seem to take it on faith that getting rid of capitalism will get rid of racism. This has always convinced me.

US foreign policy is "invade other countries to further capitalist wealth." Intervening a rising fascist movement is literally self-defense for the targeted minorities. I don't see this comparable to recent US wars.

That's a cynical view of US foreign policy. It's not unreasonable as a stated reason, but it's often not the stated reason or the reason voters are led to believe. "We know best and we're going to stabilize the area by removing this fascist leader" is an idea I've heard before. Now I'm being told that this time there's no ulterior motive. Can you see my skepticism here?

Those that started the fascist movement won't just be simply dropped back off in the community to start the movement all over again.

I never imagined they would be. The thing about fascism is, though, that it's liable to rise up time and again. I still have a hard time imagining anarchist groups putting down fascist uprisings again and again without becoming more authoritarian about what other groups can and cannot do.

Still, I'ma gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's say that there's a workable way to express the will of the people, that a small group manages to exist without too much interference from everyone else, and that no one is at the top of the hierarchy.

The intersection with socialism is the next bit that makes me go "wait what?" What happens in the anarchist-socialist society when someone says "I built this house, the nicest house in town, and I own it." I can't see an outcome that isn't some form of "ok fine you own it" or "that's not ok and we're going to distribute it to someone else, in accordance with the authority of our leadership."

[–]Skwuruhl 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't really know a clear way to create the cultural shift needed to eliminate racism. What I do know is that racism is often a scapegoat for peoples problems. It's because the jews control the banks. The mexicans are taking our jobs. The blacks are lazy. These exist as a way to shift blame from capitalism. It's not so much that capitalism explicitly promotes racism it's that it promotes any scapegoat, racism being a big one. There will still be the racism motivated by other reasons. It's a difficult issue to tackle since it's pretty much the only issue not based in any tangible reason, just feelings.

Final thing on capitalism perpetuating racism:

Capitalism creates a hierarchy. It is in capitalists' interests to maintain that hierarchy. Anything that controls the population (racism, fear, religious persecution, etc) is something the capitalist class is going to get behind.
Because conflict between ourselves means more profit for them.

Anarchists are generally extremely intolerant of fascist or racist views. We don't believe that someone deserves a platform to spew hate speech. Their "free speech" doesn't cover fascism, racism, or other hateful views. It's against peoples self interest to let them spread and normalize these views. We'll oppose these hateful views where ever they appear. It's not like currently where the government "protects your right to say blacks are subhuman" or some other garbage. I sort of already said it, but it's because racism (and other forms of bigotry) and especially fascism threaten peoples' well being and freedom.

That's a cynical view of US foreign policy.

The US has regularly stages coups in other countries. This is almost always to secure business interest at the expense of said country's population. Chile for example had elected a president who vowed to kick US corporations out of the country because they were exploitative. The CIA staged a military coup and put Augusto Pinochet into power. His regime killed thousands to stay in power. In return, US corporations got to continue operating in Chile without interference.

Covert United States involvement in regime change:

  1. 1949 Syrian coup d'état
  2. 1949-1953 Albania
  3. 1951-56 Tibet
  4. 1953 Iranian coup d'état
  5. 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
  6. 1956-57 Syria crisis
  7. 1960 Congo coup d'état
  8. 1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
  9. 1963 South Vietnamese coup d'état
  10. 1964 Bolivian coup d'état
  11. 1964 Brazilian coup d'état
  12. 1966 Ghana coup d'état
  13. 1971 Bolivian coup d'état
  14. 1973 Chilean coup d'état
  15. 1980 Turkish coup d'état
  16. 1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
  17. 1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
  18. 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
  19. 2011 Libyan civil war
  20. 2011-present Syria

The entire Cold War was because US capitalists were afraid of communism (which is a threat to capitalism and corporations). Granted the USSR turned into an authoritarian shit-hole, it wasn't that when we started the Cold War. The atrocities committed in Vietnam by the US were done in the name of capitalism, not "freedom." My Lai Massacre where US soldiers raped and killed between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians, including men, women, children, and infants. Napalming children. I'd also like to highlight: Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest.

I'd say I sugar coated US foreign policy the first time around.

I haven't touched on middle eastern wars, but they're either from securing oil, or dealing with Al Qaeda whom the CIA created during the cold war to fuck with the USSR.

Regardless of the war crimes Saudi Arabia is committing in Yemen, the US is still selling billions of dollars in weapons and explosives to them.

Anyway.

I built this house, the nicest house in town, and I own it.

If you actually built it, it's all yours. However, that's really unlikely considering that building and gathering resources for the nicest house in town all on your own is pretty impossible. You'd probably need help. Unless you're stupidly charismatic you're going to have a really hard time convincing people to gather and build so much just for you.
But, if for whatever reason people want to build a super nice house for you, it's yours.

[–]mujahida3301 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Your local community would likely have had the consensus that keeping each other up late into the night with loud music shouldn't be allowed.

But how would this work in practice, does the entire community have to vote on every single rule to ensure things are fair? And how often do rules stand and what is the process to appeal or change them? I thought that sort of majority rule democracy eventually ends up being extremely time-consuming on the part of the people having to vote on every tiny thing, or it ends up being oppressive to the minoritys.

In anarchism is it not allowed to select a representative to make these decisions? And I'm not even so concerned about actual laws like noise, but what about things like OSHA rules, fire codes, electrical codes, plumbing, various other areas, etc, that require a trained professional to decide? How would laymen implement those unless they used a hierarchy?

[–]Skwuruhl 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

does the entire community have to vote on every single rule to ensure things are fair?

Yes. This is also one of the reasons why voting should be kept as locally as possible to reduce the complexity.

And how often do rules stand and what is the process to appeal or change them?

A possible solution is that a proposed law must get X signature before being put up to vote.

I thought that sort of majority rule democracy eventually ends up being extremely time-consuming

If you use old-school every person has to come to the same place on the same day at the same time to all vote for something, then yes, certainly. However this can be circumvented with mail in ballots or electronic forms. This could be a weekly/monthly thing, or if the law is urgent it could be expedited with X + Y signatures.

it ends up being oppressive to the minoritys

This is the purpose of consensus voting. A law doesn't get passed unless all those who it affects agree. It will result in laws taking longer to pass and more revisions needed, but it will result in a much more fair society.

In anarchism is it not allowed to select a representative to make these decisions?

This video describes why positions of power usually become corrupt.

but what about things like OSHA rules, fire codes, electrical codes, plumbing, various other areas, etc, that require a trained professional to decide?

These exist to regulate businesses that would otherwise cut corners endangering the people intended to use the building or what have you. Trained professionals would take part in building buildings, cars, etc. and wouldn't cut corners to save a buck because they don't have the threat of losing their job if it's not cheap enough. The only threat they have would be the community being upset with them if they designed an unsafe building that caused the deaths of people.

How would laymen implement those unless they used a hierarchy?

If needed laws can have a debate or something (that can be televised/recorded/whatever) where a professional can explain or debate a law.

[–]hipstergarrus 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is not a single, agreed upon answer to your question. Personally I think Anarchist theory does a pretty good job at articulating how oppression can be ended by eliminating unjustified hierarchies. That being said, achieving a fully egalitarian society is no small task and there are many different philosophies for how to get there, even just within Anarchism.

[–]kyleehappiness 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

most social justice people are liberals so their answer is reform. others see there needs to be social and economic upheaval to democratize other areas of our life outside of govt

[–]acidroach420 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm honestly not convinced most SJ activists have any conception of winning. This is an ever-present problem in progressive movements though. After all, when your politics are based on building a better future rather than preserving societal norms, visions for tomorrow will vary greatly.

Personally, I take a semi-Marxist view of progress, wherein the entire hierarchy has to be dismantled root and branch to achieve lasting change. Social Democracy as a transitional period seems like the best route to achieve these ends (at this point), but others on the Left would disagree.

[–]Doffillerethos 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think the core of social justice is being aware that power imbalances exist and that they lead to systemic problems that harm lots of people. And most of us realize that's never going to change (utopian visions of communism notwithstanding); people will always be people, and some will amass more power than others - either because they luck into better opportunities, or happen to have more of whatever their society currently values, or because they just want power more than others. So no, there's no magic bullet or single perfect ideology that will come along and save us all. The goal is always to work to mitigate the problems caused by power imbalances and to try to work to minimize those imbalances between different groups. And obviously there are many different ways to do that, and different people may have different priorities, but we do what we can as we can and hope for the best. Essentially, we work to push the system in a more just direction, not because we expect to achieve perfect justice, but because the result will be better than if we vacated the field and left the world to the mercies of those who are okay being oppressors.

[–]hailhydrofoil 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel like a clear path to upwards mobility would do a lot.