this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
61 points (95.5% liked)
chat
8506 readers
186 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anarchism obviously is a very large umbrella, and part of the whole having everything decentralized and not have a central authority dictating everything means anarchists tend to expect people to have different ideas of what anarchy means, and for those to more or less co exist. Same way as there wouldn't be a universal authority, there wouldn't be a universal moral code. So while all would be definitionally anti-authority, that doesn't necessarily mean anti-violence. Indeed, I think we can all agree on some violence that is justifiable, for example in self defense.
Part of the beauty of free association is that it acts as a sort of decentralized justice system. If there's a person doing truly awful things, such as a Nazi, you may face no real consequences for your actions. But another action, even if less harmful in magnitude but for less justifiable reasons, could see stronger repurcussions by virtue of people no longer associating with that person.
(And of course, this kind of violence would largely only be considered justified in situations where both transformative and restorative justice have failed to resolve the issue)