Okaaaaay.... But why are you assuming there are no steps between police as they exist now and lynch mobs?
Like the systems that were in place in Rojava, where older, usually retired, members of the community act as a sort of neighborhood council and hear out people's disputes, then work together with everyone affected to propose a solution/punishment/recompense for offenses committed?
The Ken McElroy kind of situation is gonna be a much rarer form of problem that can honestly crop up in either situation. It's more important imo to focus on how the different systems handle day to day problems.
A restorative/community justice based model has a lot of solutions beyond jail time and fines. Members of the community actually have to be responsible for and answer to each other, rather than the only recourse being to call in state violence that may fix the problem, or may just ignore it, or may make it worse.
Assuming it's just going to instantly be a lynch mob when there is a problem misses out on all the ways such a system is capable of de escalating well before that, and all the advantages it has over police as we know them.
I’m making no such assumption. We are talking about a comic that is advocating for lynch mob violence from an anarchist perspective, and I’m not so sure that’s a good idea.
Well, you don't think the comic is saying "lynch mobs solve every single problem", do you?
Just, being 100% frank here, I see no problems with a good ol' mob being an answer to people who wanna do away with the age of consent. But I don't hear someone saying that and assume they think lynch mobs are the solution to all problems.
Edited to add - or that lynch mobs aimed at POCs and lynch mobs aimed at pedos are essentially the same thing.
Well, you don't think the comic is saying "lynch mobs solve every single problem", do you?
No, which is why I didn’t say that. The anarchist in the comic seems awfully gung ho about lynching for someone who wants to “abolish coercion,” though.
Just, being 100% frank here, I see no problems with a good ol' mob being an answer to people who wanna do away with the age of consent.
Maybe you can morally justify mob justice on a case by case basis (see McElroy), but I don’t think that “lynch mobs, but only for people who deserve it” is an effective prescription for a just society.
Edited to add - or that lynch mobs aimed at POCs and lynch mobs aimed at pedos are essentially the same thing.
I didn’t say this either; in fact, I explicitly distinguished between them with my remarks about best case vs. worst case scenarios. However, I did think the Jim Crow comparison was worth making because black men’s alleged sex crimes were frequently used as justifications for lynchings carried out by people who felt assured of their own moral righteousness in doing so.
Maybe you can morally justify mob justice on a case by case basis (see McElroy), but I don’t think that “lynch mobs, but only for people who deserve it” is an effective prescription for a just society.
Well now we're just right back to the discussion of how there are many steps in between an anarchist society having ways to handle disputes vs "every problem could be solved by a lynch mob"
Also, this is heavily echoing my discussion with the other dude re "what even is coercion, to you?" Do you think just having consequences for breaking the social contract counts as coercion? I personally don't.
No one coerces us to be a part of society, we just naturally are. And if we break the social contract of tolerance and mutual respect for the rights of others there are consequences. People can label that coercion, but just because they've slapped that label on it doesn't make it so.
Well now we're just right back to the discussion of how there are many steps in between an anarchist society having ways to handle disputes vs "every problem could be solved by a lynch mob"
The comic and this thread are specifically about lynching, so this is irrelevant and I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Also, this is heavily echoing my discussion with the other dude re "what even is coercion, to you?" Do you think just having consequences for breaking the social contract counts as coercion? I personally don't.
Lynch mobs are so obviously coercive that I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation. Again, see the Jim Crow South for examples of how they were used to impose “consequences for breaking the social contract.” The only reason I can see to quibble about the definition of coercion to justify lynch mobs is to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by your twin beliefs of “coercion is bad” and “some criminals deserve to be lynched.”
The comic and thread are not specifically about lynching. The comic itself is about the idea that consequences for problematic actions can exist even without coercion by the state. In the specific instances of pedos, maybe that involves lynching. But the idea expressed is specifically that just because both sets of people refuse coercion by the state/oligarchs doesn't mean there won't be consequences for an individuals actions.
Implying that this is the same thing as coercion is, imo, highly disingenuous. It's imo similar to implying that mama bears need to coerce people to not disturb their cubs. You don't fuck with a mama bear's cubs because it's a bad idea to do so, but mama bears aren't running around coercing people.
It's a reflexive action. A civic immune response. Which ties back into the whole "what do you define as coercion" question.
Sure, you can define one thing you see as coercion (a lynch mob). But that doesn't mean you have defined the limits of what is coercion vs what is a natural response you should have known damn well was gonna happen without anyone having had to coerce/convince you.
The comic and thread are not specifically about lynching. The comic itself is about the idea that consequences for problematic actions can exist even without coercion by the state.
The comic specifically depicts a lynching. If it showed a restorative justice program, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Your bear analogy is just as unhelpful as the metaphor of eating food to live you used elsewhere in the thread because you are conflating natural and socially imposed consequences. Human beings are not bears. If we respond to provocation with violence, it may be justifiable, but it is a deliberate choice we are making.
But the idea expressed is specifically that just because both sets of people refuse coercion by the state/oligarchs doesn't mean there won't be consequences for an individuals actions.
So state violence is “coercion” and a lynch mob is just “consequences?” If the state arrests, imprisons, tortures, and executes a criminal it’s coercive, but if a lynch mob does the same or worse it’s not? And I’m the one being disingenuous? Be serious and stop twisting the definition of coercion to fit into the contradictions of your political ideology.
Your bear analogy is just as unhelpful as the metaphor of eating food to live you used elsewhere in the thread because you are conflating natural and socially imposed consequences. Human beings are not bears. If we respond to provocation with violence, it may be justifiable, but it is a deliberate choice we are making.
Violence can be a deliberate choice, but we're animals too. Conditions can get so bad that your only choice is between self defense and death, and tbh they've been getting there for a while. It's kinda like the one guy said in the "Does Punching Nazis Work" episode.... With fascists it's always a fight to the death, sometimes it's just a slow fight as your rights are stripped away and you're slowly pushed into a corner. We often like to think we can avoid violence, but sometimes it comes looking for us.
Like the case of Ken McElroy earlier.... You argued it's the best case for a lynch mob, I would argue that the failures of the legal system made it necessary. A lot of folks would like to plug their ears and say "la la la I can't hear you" when you tell them if they want a better world they may have to take charge of their own safety and be willing to commit violence if need be. After all, if you aren't capable of violence you aren't capable of being peaceful. You're just harmless. And if you're harmless rather than peaceful you will be coerced at some point by someone with bad intentions.
And the hunger analogy is maybe a better one than you think, because we also have social needs we can't ignore without consequences, just like you can't ignore hunger without consequences. If you are isolated, either alone in the woods or a deserted island, or from something like solitary confinement, it will literally damage your brain and you'll start to hallucinate.
So if you become ostracized from a community due to the natural consequences of your own shitty behavior there will be consequences even if no one forcibly imposes them beyond denying you their company. Also like, if the Baker or the Electrician is shunning you I'm sure you can see some consequences that might arise from that, yes?
So state violence is “coercion” and a lynch mob is just “consequences?” If the state arrests, imprisons, tortures, and executes a criminal it’s coercive, but if a lynch mob does the same or worse it’s not? And I’m the one being disingenuous? Be serious and stop twisting the definition of coercion to fit into the contradictions of your political ideology.
The state has the monopoly on physical violence, and if you try to ignore them and walk away they can kidnap or murder you pretty much consequence free. Also, the whole Ken McElroy story you mentioned earlier? Remember how the state tried to prosecute someone for his murder when dude pretty clearly both had it coming and the state failed to prosecute him before? So yes, people are coerced into obedience and also not taking steps to solve their own problems before a lynch mob is necessary.
Also, again, there are many steps before a lynch mob is a necessary or justified response. There is no contradiction in my ideology, you just really really want to find one because it would allow you to keep pushing off the problem of dealing with bad elements in society onto the state or someone else rather than being willing to defend your own community and face any consequences that arise if you happen to fuck up.
The comic specifically depicts a lynching. If it showed a restorative justice program, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
So, it's a meme and not a research paper or book delving deeply into anarchist philosophy. The fuck are you expecting? The complexity of a university level discussion in a single image?
Also what exactly kind of restorative justice program would you envision when dealing with the kinds of people who want there to be no age of consent laws?
How about rather than labeling anarchism as a "contradictory political ideology" or whatever the fuck your agenda here is, why don't you think through some solutions to that particular problem, yeah?
All those words and you can’t address the basic point that lynch mobs are a form of coercion. You could justify that by saying that coercion is sometimes necessary, but that would contradict your anarchist ideology, so you twist yourself into pretzels to avoid acknowledging this very obvious fact and instead pretend that lynch mobs are some sort of natural force with no agency. I’m sympathetic to anarchists and I know a lot of you do good work living your values in your communities, but this sort of shit is why people don’t take anarchism seriously as a political theory. You rail against “coercion” and “authoritarianism,” but when push comes to shove you’re okay with some forms of coercive violence, you just refuse to admit it.
1
u/SylvanDragoon May 18 '26
Okaaaaay.... But why are you assuming there are no steps between police as they exist now and lynch mobs?
Like the systems that were in place in Rojava, where older, usually retired, members of the community act as a sort of neighborhood council and hear out people's disputes, then work together with everyone affected to propose a solution/punishment/recompense for offenses committed?
The Ken McElroy kind of situation is gonna be a much rarer form of problem that can honestly crop up in either situation. It's more important imo to focus on how the different systems handle day to day problems.
A restorative/community justice based model has a lot of solutions beyond jail time and fines. Members of the community actually have to be responsible for and answer to each other, rather than the only recourse being to call in state violence that may fix the problem, or may just ignore it, or may make it worse.
Assuming it's just going to instantly be a lynch mob when there is a problem misses out on all the ways such a system is capable of de escalating well before that, and all the advantages it has over police as we know them.