We anarchists are generally averse to cooperating with the police, for very good reasons. However, as I understand it, at times the only real way to protect the community in the society we currently live in seems to be talking with the pigs.

Suppose you believe yourself to have evidence incriminating a serial killer. In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely. But what about the modern day? Do you turn over the evidence to the police?

This question has been bothering me for about 3 days now. It was provoked by learning about Aufhebengate. It made me wonder under what circumstances snitching is justifiable.

  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    3·
    3 days ago

    I think that more anarchisms have problems with individuals (serial killers) imposing harm over other individuals.

    Collectivist anarchism doesn’t really have a problem with establishing rules, to my understanding.

    • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      3 days ago

      why go to extremes? Let’s say a thief? An alcoholic who gets aggressive every time they’re drunk? A man who beats their companion? Or a woman who beats their companion? A dog that shares the same space and bites your friends. A woodchuck in your garden?

      “collectivity” may establish rules but people who are sharing the same spaces, with or without similar world views, have no obligations to follow these rules. Solving these kinds of problems while trying to respect anarchist ideals are not as easy as you think.

      Communists are more comfortable with these kinds of solutions. One shouldn’t confuse the two (while there, of course, is an expansive common ground called anarcho-communism)

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        51·
        3 days ago

        why go to extremes?

        Extremes are interesting sanity checks for theories

        Let’s say a thief? An alcoholic …

        I’m currently not interested in these examples. You’re whataboutising my point.

        “collectivity” may establish rules but people who are sharing the same spaces, with or without similar world views, have no obligations to follow these rules

        You have an obligation to follow the rules of a community if you are a part of that community. Also, a community has an obligation to their members. That can include protection.

        Communists are more comfortable with these kinds of solutions. One shouldn’t confuse the two (while there, of course, is an expansive common ground called anarcho-communism)

        I’m an anarcho-communist myself so… thanks for the explanation, I guess?

        • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
          12·
          3 days ago

          you’re welcome

          anarcho-communists were always too communist for my anarchist tastes. Let’s part ways, nothing would come of our pseudo conversation.

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
            2·
            3 days ago

            You’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t confuse that with “most anarchisms”, please. Individualist anarchism is fine, but collectivist anarchism makes up a lot of the theoretic field.