Is anarcho-pacifism the most sound form of anarchism?

Is anarcho-pacifism the most sound form of anarchism?
I feel like although violence may be neccessary to defend an anarchist commune, the attitude that violence is a useful tool could easily lead to mob violence within the community, mob lynchings among American towns come to mind, and I could easily see something like that popping up.
So is anarcho-pacifism the way? Surely if the community is founded on peaceful ideals they won't go around attempting to get rid of minorities and people they dislike.
It also sidesteps the idea that use of violence is a coercive force and at odds with anarchism.

How do you prevent someone from using violence?

Hard mode: do not use violence.

Impossible mode: do not use coercion (you are an anarchist)

OH RIGHT YOU FUCKING CAN'T

I never said it was flawless, my post wasn't supposed to be some smug >when did you realise anarcho-pacifism is the one true anarchism

I was merely trying to point out that if you accept the use of violence, then violence could easily pop up in your community you create, and that it could have very, very ugly consequences if the mob decides to go in that direction.

alright we fucking get the "violence creates violence" bullshit/circlejerk shit

I'm not trying to circlejerk. I'm asking a legit question, not trying to assert some kind of point.

Until you find an answer to my question, there is no way to make AnPac function.

this post makes no sense, its like asking

"why don't we just make a society where no-one breaks the law and we have lots of money"

the big problem most ideologies are trying to solve is that people sometimes don't want to follow the rules. Simply saying "everyone will follow the rules in our society" does not actually make it so people will follow the rules in that society.

I didn't intend for it to be a glowing endorsement of anarcho-pacifism, I intended it to be a springboard to talk about the use of violence, especially if you are giving the power to the community.
I was pointing out that AnPac seems to sidestep a lot of these problems, I never denied that it didn't have it's on problems or that it could even work.

The soundest form of anarchism would be anarcho-individualism or stirnerism or whatever - but it would be an attitude towards the world around you rather than an actual way of society to function. Really, there would be no reason to topple a state you can profit from.

>How do you prevent someone from using violence?
Nbd, Nobody else has figured out how to prevent people from using violence either.

No form of anarchism is possible because psychopaths make up around 2% of the population. No form of pacifism is possible for the same reason.

Yes we have, it's called "the police". How does an anpac society prevent violence?

>Yes we have, it's called "the police"
Where are you living that the police have put an end to all violence?

Yes, pretty much. Go outside and try to solve all your problems using only violence, see how long you manage before the police arrest or shoot you. Now go do the same experiment in an anpac society.

Okay guys, imaging there's this giant Country of insanely treacherous territory, think Mordor here. Now at the center of this hellish place there exists a perfectly fertile, sunny, cool region about the size of Switzerland.
Now WHAT IF we could take some helicopters and populate this uninhabited utopia with a bunch of true anarcho-pacifists, then I think maybe it could work. No threats coming from outside (ignore the fact they got there by helicopter and others could too, maybe it's UN defended airspace), and maybe have a giant AI monitor everyone to make sure there's no plotting to overthrow the anarchy.
It could work.

Nothing about history suggests it would work, and even if the first generation lived in hippy paradise, their kids won't.

>Yes, pretty much.
"Yes" is not an answer to 'where'.
>Go outside and try to solve all your problems using only violence,
Where I live violence still happens, so it wouldn't exactly prove much.
>see how long you manage before the police arrest or shoot you.
Why would the police ever do this? If violence has already been abolished, the police would never have to shoot someone.

Are you actually trying to claim that the police do not decrease general levels of violence significantly?

No, I'm claiming that that is a separate claim from claiming you've figured out how to prevent violence.

So you admit that the police prevent violence but consider this unrelated to your complaint that the police don't prevent violence?

that's fucking irrelevant than lol.

Since the police prevent violence, according to you, why do we still have an army?

To prevent invasion from outside. Any more stupid questions?

>To prevent invasion from outside.
How can this happen since the police prevent violence?

Why do you imagine the police would prevent violence in other countries? You really are a stupid cunt aren't you?

can you stop being a faggot

>Why do you imagine the police would prevent violence in other countries?
Because, according to you, the police solved the problem of violence ages ago. How are other countries even going to maintain their monopoly on violence now that the police have solved that? How are they going to stop the police?

No, I said the police are how non-anarchist societies prevent violence. The rest is your strawman. You really are a dope.

>Make stupid claims
>other people are faggots if they ask you to elaborate.
I'm not the one who brought up the claim that police ended all violence.

No single sociopolitical system is "the way," because no system is robust enough to stand up to humanity.

>No, I said the police are how non-anarchist societies prevent violence
So what, anarcho-pacifist 'societies' are the only places in the world where violence happens now?

Actually yes you are.

Try reading teh chain of replies you dopey cunt.

I feel like the only acceptable anarcho-anything is individualist anarchism. Maybe with a little Christian anarchism thrown in. Make your own decisions about how you'll personally live and leave it at that

Nope, that happened here.

The post before that, my first post is here
In which I claim no society has managed to prevent people from using violence. The only way to argue against that is to try and produce a violence free society, which I'm still waiting to hear an example of.

OK, so if anarchist societies aren't the problem, and societies with police don't have violence, where is the violence coming from, and what is impeding the police?

See how the word "all" isn't in any of my posts, you dopey cunt?

then get raped by the mob

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You've stopped trying to hammer language into misleading questions, and started to use some precision.

So, since we're being precise now, are we asking "How would an anarcho-pacifist society go about preventing all violence?" or "How would an anarcho-pacifist society go about preventing some violence?"

>most sound form of anarchism?
>anarchism
I'm gonna have to stop you right there kiddo.

Since we're not wizards and can't do the impossible it is self evident that we can only mean the latter. You truly are the stupidest cunt I've talked top on this site, and I've posted here for 10 years.

>Since we're not wizards and can't do the impossible it is self evident that we can only mean the latter.
Then there wouldn't have been any contention with the claim that no society has prevented violence.

But, since the question is what steps a pacifist society could take to prevent violence, there are plenty of options.

Looking for the material and emotional well being of all people is obviously the biggest. The usual first thing people talk about when they imagine a society of pacifists can't do anything to prevent violence, someone just going out and waving a pistol around, really only is a regular occurrence of late capitalist societies. When people aren't treated as discardable commodities, they rarely learn to treat themselves that way. Material insecurity, is a common basis of violent crimes, and addressing that would obviously prevent the second scenario that comes to mind.

But of course the one people forget, and don't think about, is the amount of violence that goes on in order to secure the future use of violence, which is sort of a background radiation of most societies, and most people are well indoctrinated to consider 'not violence' for ideological reasons. With no monopoly and legitimating institutions of violence to fight over, that's another source of violence repelled.