Is it sociopathy or anarchism?
Is it sociopathy or is it anarchism?
Depending on who you ask, the end of hierarchy implies a place where anyone can commit crimes (sociopathic understanding) or a place where all must show respect to each other so as not to miss key information in a mutual shared power zone of mutual checks and balances (very similar to the scientific ecosystem; actual anarchism).
Here are some common misunderstandings and understandings of anarchism.
“Go crimes” understanding. F in anarchism.
No, anarchism doesn’t mean you find what law considers a crime and commit it. That does nothing to understand the deeper architecture of why crimes, before rich people infest the criminal ecosystem, are committed. The rich have shown time and time again they are parasitic to the poor and strip their ideas without pay; that is an arm of the machine of rape. Therefore, most wealthy should not be wealthy. Therefore no deeper understanding is possible for them. Deeper understanding includes poverty analysis, effects of poverty on distress tolerance, as well as inability-to-control disability vs. moral failure debates. The use of crimes as a free for all is absolutely disgusting and not what anarchism is about at all. It is extremely low comprehension and causes even more damage, not less. As funny as this is to imagine cats doing or something similar, any signs of delusion in a human wanting to commit crimes for their own sake especially if rich and using money for this should be noted, viewed as part of an inability-to-control psychology, and no longer enabled and if possible removed from its financial power for purposeful abuse with fraudulent causality.
Does this mean that we should just let criminals do what they need to do? D in anarchism.
No. Similar to how the UN structures itself, shared boundaries about what is and isn’t acceptable must occur as long as everyone is on board and everything is well analytically specified so there is no error. This therefore means civil and criminal are sending collective messages about the strength of boundaries. While we are still in a contractual understanding and not ready for the next level, and some people may never be ready for the next level similar to the fact there are people with intellectual disabilities all over the world, the difference in strength of boundaries depending on the impact of the act should not be eroded until the understanding is internalized and what I call "multiply answerable" (high comprehension). However, we reserve the right to decide that someone absolutely needed to do something because the collective comprehension could not meet them where they were in time. Emergencies happen; nobody competent is going to deny this. However, people not analytically skilled, echoing and unable to answer things even one question in should not be self-awarding themselves emergency privileges unless they clearly have hit on something critical and don't have the full picture yet but certainly have this one thing. As for collective sensemaking, yes, sometimes this may look like outdated legal standards, however, the difference is where before they were passed down by kings that had many incompetent generations and did not specify their laws clearly until the Constitutional revolution in America which truly set the standard for many places across the globe, the difference is in this case everyone has an understanding of why that boundary is being held and mutual comprehension and sensemaking is prioritized. This can include boundaries against theft of content without pay and other things identified to be in the consort of rape and rapists as specified by the Sexual Contract. Anybody is capable of creating these actions that create an ecosystem of rape; it is not specific to the police or the people, one ethnic group or another. If one group does it, regardless of who they are, they deserve that boundary. If one person does it, regardless of who they are, they deserve that boundary. Previous espousal when behavior suggests no comprehension or even opposite actions is a no. The difference between a kingship is that it is outdated and the body did not share the comprehension, and sometimes the king did not even share it in the case of the Mad King which was why these often collapsed or broke out into war way more often than was necessary. In collective comprehension, as many people as possible share the comprehension, leading to less experiences of violation when met these boundaries and more collective intelligence as one absorbs and embodies the boundaries. It also acts as a protection and buttress against "Mad King" syndrome because the comprehension is distributed across the population.
Does this mean Nazis should get a say? F in anarchism.
No, because they have proven repeatedly to the point of abysmal collective credit that they are not capable of speaking without trying to enforce it like they got it correct (self-assuming, narcissistic, antithetical to anarchism). Nazis show extreme hierarchy. They use anarchism to undermine democratic rule of law only to swoop in with extreme hierarchy, the opposite of anarchism. This is a failure understanding. Nazis can express analytically whatever they want; however, this is not what Nazis do historically--if their analysis fails, instead of taking in good spirit, they often try to avoid their failure through use of force which is power and control and the beginning of the end of intelligence. They simply assume they are correct and try to install it with force. That creates an ecosystem that can lead to the lowest intelligence levels over time.
What is sociopathy and what is anarchism? If you're asking this question, you're passing. C+
Sociopathy, without going into the scientific and psychiatric understanding which you can read up on at any time on google.scholar.com is the “go crimes” understanding; it is still parasitic to the rule of law to understand what is not allowed and then to do it. It is simply intention to harm. Usually these individuals show the telltale signs of inability-to-control, about which whether or not they are disabled or moral failures is up for debate.
Anarchism. A
Anarchism seeks to eradicate hierarchy in the same way you wouldn’t solve a sudoku puzzle by screaming and yelling at it. By taking things as they are and working with the ecosystem in a cooperative manner, only then do you learn how things work and achieve true causal mastery. This can look like investigating the police without trying to destroy them to understand the ecosystem of their successes or failures. There is no such thing as a puritan anarchism. Ultimately, anarchism strives to increasing collective intelligence through collective sensemaking that minimizes echoic parroting that when examined shows no deeper comprehension by engaging in dialogue and research. It also seeks to increase consent which actually creates a stronger social fabric by having a strong understanding of equity and buy-in which preserves social ecosystems and makes them very resilient and more equitable. Overall, its final effect is a far more sustainable, kind, intelligent, scientific society that is also much more creative because it feels safe to be so without being abused, damaged, shamed, or hit with jealous rages. It is a great cure for collective narcissism.
Official definiton:
“a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.”
People in narcissistic rage are trying to say anarchism is “all things are permitted”. Similar to go crimes, but not necessarily fixated on doing what is wrong. D-.
Please refer them to https://theanarchistlibrary.org/ where they can enter the questions or terms they are interested in and high quality anarchist content will pop up. As time permits, I will find good content to be read on the difference between anarchism and this and put this here. That's not to say we cannot absorb this understanding, it is simply to say it is not absorbed at the foundational level as anarchism is inherently non-self-harming.