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
    51·
    1 month 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·
      1 month 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·
        1 month 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.