interesting you seemed willing to communicate when you thought you had the higher ground. once you found you can’t answer simple question, you are the one running away and you are trying to mask it with badly played confidence 😆

you think you have the “higher ground”? Pathetic! What a needy person.

Please leave this thread. I’m going to post updates and you have nothing to bring. Please leave.

it’s pathetic to seek superiority on online communities and that’s all you do in your comment history. You have nothing to share. Go away.

even “classical” anarchism had different branches (schools?). We shouldn’t treat it as one monolithic movement.

Today anarchist movements are scapegoated as “ultra-left”, to pull frightened masses towards extreme-right (banalised as right) but anarchists, refusing to participate in the government, had no place in the left-right seating of politics.

What do you mean by “post-left anarchy”?

in practice, i completely agree with you

can you elaborate your question?

the need to have laws is already a sign of dysfunction

call me an utopianist 🤷

i posted this under the thread i started, but i’m reposting here too. It’s a well written explanation

Unlike in Germany or the Netherlands, French unions, while they may strike often, are not formal government negotiating partners. The top-heavy, presidential structure of the Fifth Republic marginalises institutional consultation.

That means a heavily centralised state often passes laws with little popular agreement, making the “power of the street” one of citizens’ few viable means of forcing concessions. Protest here is regarded as a civic duty and a legitimate democratic tool.

That creates a vicious circle. French authorities see large crowds as an existential threat, so send in the police. Their military-style tactics entrench the aggression and alienate peaceful demonstrators. This prompts the more radical groups to opt for more violent tactics. But rather than isolating those elements, police respond with baton charges and munitions. And that turns protests into battles.

the rest of the article may complete the picture ☞ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/20/france-culture-violent-policing-protests-riots

oh no, does someone challenging your kinder-anarchism make you nervous?

No. But i checked your post/COMMENT history. Bye.

Unlike in Germany or the Netherlands, French unions, while they may strike often, are not formal government negotiating partners. The top-heavy, presidential structure of the Fifth Republic marginalises institutional consultation.

That means a heavily centralised state often passes laws with little popular agreement, making the “power of the street” one of citizens’ few viable means of forcing concessions. Protest here is regarded as a civic duty and a legitimate democratic tool.

That creates a vicious circle. French authorities see large crowds as an existential threat, so send in the police. Their military-style tactics entrench the aggression and alienate peaceful demonstrators. This prompts the more radical groups to opt for more violent tactics. But rather than isolating those elements, police respond with baton charges and munitions. And that turns protests into battles.

Last month, thousands marched in protest at a proposed “licence to kill” law seeking to establish a legal “presumption of self-defence” for police officers and gendarmes using firearms in the line of duty.

The law, opposed by civil rights groups, leftwing politicians, the magistrates’ union and the UN, would in effect shift the burden of proof on to victims and their families to demonstrate that a police shooting was disproportionate.

In essence, critics argue, it would institutionalise police impunity; reinforcing, once more, a security culture that treats public dissent and social tension not as democratic realities to be managed, but as insurrections to be repressed. The battle for France’s streets is far from over.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/20/france-culture-violent-policing-protests-riots

Live, let live - if you’re not doing that, shame isn’t a real solution - it’s more of a way to push the undesired behaviors out of the public eye.

people of a different epoch where they had principles, hence shame.
I don’t understand that shame as the shame of a sinner, but more of an idealist’s shame (which prevents you from doing what you think is wrong)

we’re living in a shameless world where donald trump is the perfect symptom :\

not to forget his religiosity

most(?) of the theoreticians of that period were from privileged classes. Literacy wasn’t yet at today’s rates

that fruit-animal is very confusing

people like you do anarchism bad name.

you know nothing about me.

what a concidence, i am not talking about any protest. i am talking about mindless illiterate mob performing an act of vandalism. destroying invaluable cultural artifact is not a protest, it is a crime. and the severity of the crime should dictate severity of the response.

france is proud of its ‘french revolution’, for example. I guess, if you were there at the time, you would be talking “about mindless illiterate mob performing an act of vandalism. destroying invaluable cultural artifact”. Go kiss your king’s arse and get the fuck out of here.

or they will be shot with live ammo 🤷‍♂️

are you on this community by mistake? I didn’t post on politics@lemmy.world

this post is about what’s happening in france. The day “live ammo” is used to repress protests, you’re no longer talking about a “protest” or “policing”

direct link to the video for those who can’t get through www.bbc JavaScript nightmare ☞ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85f6Tn_BfPI

a proverb that politicians need to learn

“If the young are not initiated into the tribe they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth.”

is beanswithbones using the same name everywhere? https://noai.duckduckgo.com/?q=beanswithbones

is this about “Iron lung” ?

define “cope with”