[andi999]

So I am playing a bit of devils advocate here, but then isnt the KKK a good example of Anarchy? The community agreed that part of the residents should not live there anymore, they made there own laws and tried to enforce them.

[vidarh]

No, because the KKK itself represents a coercive power structure acting without the consent of those it attempt to enforce power over, which is inherently not anarchist.

If the KKK only tried to harass or harm people who had consented to be subject to them, then you'd have an argument.

[andi999]

This doesnt tally with the previous comment. Then you are saying anarchy has laws, but they cannot be enforced. So your interpretation is no laws (which can be enforced): then how would you prevent the KKK in forming (violating your rule) without a government to enforce "no minority killings, please"

[likeclockwork]

To call the KKK anarchist is to ignore that they had the tacit approval of the state and contained within their ranks many state actors. It seems odd to me to ask how Anarchism would prevent the rise of the KKK when the state permitted the creation of the KKK.

One view is to see the KKK as basically raiders/marauders who left their own communities to terrorize other communities. Without a state to intervene on their behalf obviously the affected communities would have to rise up in self-defense. So, what really happened? The state didn't intervene on the behalf of black communities. The state would've brutally put down any attempt to resist the KKK with force, black communities were not permitted to use force. The KKK were a state sanctioned paramilitary group carrying out a mission of terror with the aim of preserving the racial hierarchy at the center of the south's the social order.

You might ask "How would this be better with Anarchism?" but I find myself asking "How could it be any worse?"

[vidarh]

No, I'm saying anarchy implies laws arranged by consent.

The existence of the KKK is not in violation of anything I suggested. If they want to be an abhorrent debating club, they should be free to.

But the moment they try to initiate aggression, it is justified for anyone to defend themselves, an anarchism would generally consider it justified for anyone to band together to defend themselves, against that aggression, up to and including e.g. creating militias or a standing police force.

The key points throughout are consent and voluntary association, and the ability to withdraw that consent at any time. Not absence of structure, but the minimal structure needed at any time, arranged by consent.

If anything, anarchists are obsessed with structure of society - that is why there are so incredibly many different anarchist ideologies.

I frankly find it bizarre that this is a difficult concept to understand, because conceptually it is very simple: Consider what happens if we delegate power bottom up, instead of appointing representatives who delegate power top to bottom.

In theory nothing needs to change other than that, if we believe that current systems accurately reflects the will of the people.

The reason we're even discussing this is that nobody - not supporters of anarchism or its detractors actually believe that current societies accurately reflects the will of the people.

But detractors assume that people will withhold consent to every structure they believe are needed to maintain a functioning society.

Ultimately it reflects a fear of democracy - a fear that most people will opt to let society collapse, and it's really quite odd to behold these arguments.