In libertarian socialism, the people are the police. There’s no States, so no state-organized and state-privileged police force. I could be wrong though, I still need a lot of education around libertarian socialism; I’m very much used to Capitalism.
Simply put, if people impose themselves by force on others then “they will be the government” and “we will oppose them with force” for “if today we want to make a revolution against the government, it is not in order to submit ourselves supinely to new oppressors.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 99] This applies to defending a free society against organised counter-revolution and against those within it conducting anti-social (“criminal”) activities. The principle is the same, it is just the scale which is different.
The “bunch of vigilantes” will be accountable to the people because they will be the people. They will act to reject anti-social activities, re-educate people that chose to do anti-social acts (so they have a pro-social understanding), and remediate any harms due anti-social activities.
So are you going to give the power and authority to rule over others and enforce rules to everyone? Does that not lead to things like tyranny of the majority and people with the most strength/resources/time/energy to rule over others?
I don’t personally have designs. But, libertarian socialism / anarchism does have perspectives, if not plans.
power and authority to rule over others
No one gets this.
enforce rules
Everyone does this.
tyranny of the majority
Anarchists reject the premise that freedoms of the minority can be removed by democratic vote. While votes can be informative, even useful, they are not binding.
people with the most strength/resources/time/energy to rule over others
My understanding is that the people, collectively, are considered more powerful than any individual, and any anti-social individuals will be corrected by the people.
I personally think that warlord-ism is a risk. It seems a common enough result of a governmental vacuum. But, as I understand the theory, any persons that attempt to rule will be resisted as if they were the government. Liberal socialism isn’t pacifistic; it argues that defensive violence is just. In particular, if someone is making a legitimate threat of violence to take away the freedoms of you or someone else, you should use violence to remove the threat. If the threat is significant or persistent enough, this (defensive) violence might require collective action.
I think that pretty much everyone would prefer to have a state where laws and heirarchies are well defined rather than some sort of make believe society that relies on every person being politically engaged and violence to exist.
How in the world is that going to be policed?
In libertarian socialism, the people are the police. There’s no States, so no state-organized and state-privileged police force. I could be wrong though, I still need a lot of education around libertarian socialism; I’m very much used to Capitalism.
That makes no sense. How are a bunch of vigilantes going to be accountable to the rest of society?
Maybe this will help: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seci58
I haven’t internalized all of it yet.
I think this is the most direct answer:
The “bunch of vigilantes” will be accountable to the people because they will be the people. They will act to reject anti-social activities, re-educate people that chose to do anti-social acts (so they have a pro-social understanding), and remediate any harms due anti-social activities.
The police, right now, are the people. The state is the people.
No, police and the State are not the people. They are given authority and privilege that the people don’t have, in particular qualified immunity.
So are you going to give the power and authority to rule over others and enforce rules to everyone? Does that not lead to things like tyranny of the majority and people with the most strength/resources/time/energy to rule over others?
This concept was invented by rich people who were afraid that the majority would vote to take away their wealth and property.
Just saying.
That’s not what tyranny of the majority is lol
I don’t personally have designs. But, libertarian socialism / anarchism does have perspectives, if not plans.
No one gets this.
Everyone does this.
Anarchists reject the premise that freedoms of the minority can be removed by democratic vote. While votes can be informative, even useful, they are not binding.
My understanding is that the people, collectively, are considered more powerful than any individual, and any anti-social individuals will be corrected by the people.
I personally think that warlord-ism is a risk. It seems a common enough result of a governmental vacuum. But, as I understand the theory, any persons that attempt to rule will be resisted as if they were the government. Liberal socialism isn’t pacifistic; it argues that defensive violence is just. In particular, if someone is making a legitimate threat of violence to take away the freedoms of you or someone else, you should use violence to remove the threat. If the threat is significant or persistent enough, this (defensive) violence might require collective action.
I think that pretty much everyone would prefer to have a state where laws and heirarchies are well defined rather than some sort of make believe society that relies on every person being politically engaged and violence to exist.