Well from an anti-state perspective, supporting a country that commits radical acts such as monopoly of violence is by extension radical
This view is flawed because it mislabels the stateās monopoly on violence as inherently radical. In reality, this monopoly exists to prevent chaos by centralizing and regulating force. Calling it radical ignores the distinction between structured authority and unregulated violence. Supporting a state doesnāt mean endorsing oppression, it can mean recognizing the need for order over anarchy. The reason why humans have evolved to favor order over anarchy is because order provides stability, and this allows people to built up complex societies in relative safety.
Iād say tankies are also patriotic, just not for USA. Fatherland is a quite important concept in post-leninism forms of authoritarian communism. From my experience, itās much more common to find anti-patriotism in libertarian communism / anarchism than in despotic communism.
Patriotism at itās core is just a sense of pride, and thatās a universal emotion that everybody has. Everybody wants to feel like they belong to something greater. It gives us a feeling of nobility. All people share a feeling similar to patriotism, even if itās labeled as something elseā¦ even anarchists.
There is a lexical error/approximation here. Anarchy does not oppose to order, anomy is. Anarchy just says that order must not emerge from authority but from solidarity. You can disagree, but saying that anarchy is disorder by definition is a mislabeling.
mislabels the stateās monopoly on violence as inherently radical
I disagree with this being a mislabeling (though i understand that it remains an opinion and you disagree with it). It is common to see any form of violence as radical, and iāve seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying āViolence is never a solutionā. Adding distinction of organized/disorganized violence is an arbitrary choice, and there is no logical imperative of doing so : holding all types of violence accountable, no matter their positive potential, is not a mislabel, it is a take on violence. On another note, iāll add that organized violence can be undoubtedly far worse than disorganized one at times of war and massacre. Also, evolution from anarchydisorder to āorderā is not that simple. From what we currently know, humanity lived far longer without structured power, and when those came with sedentarization, came wars and massacres too.
thatās a universal emotion that everybody has
Labeling something as āuniversalā without involuntary hyperbole is blatantly false. Humanity is made from diversity, and there are very few affirmations outside of physics that can correctly be applied to all of humanity. Everyone is unique, youāll find some people without any patriotism (way more than you think) and even without pride.
Anarchy just says that order must not emerge from authority but from solidarity. You can disagree, but saying that anarchy is disorder by definition is a mislabeling.
This is just a semantic deflection. Youāre appealing to a niche theoretical definition of anarchy while ignoring how the term functions in political discourse. The phrase āorder over anarchyā reflects a real world tension between structured authority and the absence of it. You can argue that anarchist theory envisions a different kind of order, but thatās an ideal, not a demonstrated reality. In practice, large scale societies without centralized authority have consistently struggled to maintain stability. So no, itās not a mislabeling, itās a recognition of the risks that come with power vacuums.
It is common to see any form of violence as radical, and iāve seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying āViolence is never a solutionā. Adding distinction of organized/disorganized violence is an arbitrary choice, and there is no logical imperative of doing so : holding all types of violence accountable, no matter their positive potential, is not a mislabel, it is a take on violence.
Youāre collapsing moral judgment with structural analysis. Calling all violence āradicalā might feel principled, but it flattens critical distinctions. The difference between a lynch mob and a court ordered arrest isnāt arbitrary, itās the difference between chaos and legitimacy. The stateās monopoly on violence isnāt radical, itās foundational to modern governance. You can critique how that power is used, but denying the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is intellectually lazy. And yes, pre-state societies existed, but they werenāt peaceful utopias. Sedentarization brought war, but it also brought law, infrastructure, and medicine. Romanticizing statelessness doesnāt make it viable
Labeling something as āuniversalā without involuntary hyperbole is blatantly false. Humanity is made from diversity, and there are very few affirmations outside of physics that can correctly be applied to all of humanity.
Youāre nitpicking language. āUniversalā in this context clearly refers to the widespread nature of pride and belonging, not a literal claim about every human being. Patriotism taps into those emotions, which is why itās so politically potent. The fact that some people reject patriotism doesnāt disprove its cultural force, it proves that itās significant enough to be worth rejecting. If you want to critique patriotism, start by acknowledging its emotional appeal, not pretending itās some fringe anomaly.
Iām just refering to anarchy as it is defined in politics, not in common talk. Anarchy as disorder is not politics, itās something wider (a chaotic room could be called anarchy in that sense). Anarchy as politics is a system minimizing authority. You cannot say in good faith that disorder is the concept of political anarchy, it is (in your opinion) a consequence of it.
thatās an ideal, not a demonstrated reality
Anarchist societies of modern times are short lived indeed, but if you take a close look at them itās always because of states intervention (Paris commune, Ukrainian revolution, Spain libertarian communists, and nowadays Chiapas and Rojava).
it flattens critical distinction. [ā¦] isnāt arbitrary.
Distinction is arbitrary in essence. You choose on which axis to operate the distinction. You can differentiate violences based on their organization, on their legitimacy, on their targets, on their respect of any arbitrary moral values, etc.
The stateās monopoly on violence isnāt radical, itās foundational to modern governance.
Governance is a monopoly on violence. You can precisely not govern without enforcing it through monopoly of violence. Itās like saying āX is not radical, because itās necessary for Xā.
denying the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is intellectually lazy.
Iām not as much denying the distinction as denying its actual positive impact. If you want another way to put it than āall violence is badā, see it this way : organized violence is easier to hold back but far worse when unleashed, disorganized is the opposite. Iām not denying their difference, iām saying in the end the amount of violence is the same, so the difference does not matter here.
pre-state societies existed, but they werenāt peaceful utopias.
Neither are states. My goal is not to romanticize either past stateless societies or current states, itās to get the best of both. I donāt like the āAll weāve known was bad one way or another so why bother making something better ?ā argument.
āUniversalā in this context clearly refers to the widespread nature
Well mb, you were actually making a involuntary hyperbole. Just to be clear, āuniversalā is used to mean āliterally allā. You also used expressions āthat everybody hasā and āAll people shareā which makes me think that you are of bad faith here, and were clearly meaning to encapsulate everyone, but anyway, letās say thatās not the case.
I then stand by my take : most anarchists i know do not feel patriotism, especially as in āpride to belong to a nationā, and more generally as in āpride to belong to something greaterā. I certainly do not. I can not say much more since your claim is both vague (assimilating patriotism to simple pride makes it even less definable) and not verifiable (you cannot point out every people feeling patriotism, and i can only say i know people that do not feel patriotism but you can always say thatās exceptions).
Anyway, this discussion is beginning to be very splitted in subdiscussions, and i see that you engaged in a similar fashion with other people, so iād guess it would be useful to sum up. I think all our points can be moved under those respective banners : it seems that your more important value is stability of a civilization, from which you conclude that current states are good, and therefore patriotism, monopoly of violence are too. You also seem to deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are the only good option, and therefore anarchism and anti-state theories necessary leads to disorder. My take is to start from solidarity rather than stability, making monopoly of violence and by extension patriotism bad, and therefore current states too. I deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are a dangerous form of organization for anything else, and therefore state theories, from fascism to authoritarian socialism along with bourgeois oligarchies, necessary leads to violence.
If iām not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after. Iād propose to stop there if we cannot bring anything useful other than āthere are multiple opinions hereā.
You cannot say in good faith that disorder is the concept of political anarchy, it is (in your opinion) a consequence of it.
So your argument here isnāt about the actual application of anarchy, itās just that on meaninglessly theoretical version of political anarchy, it is technically not defined as disorder, right? If so, then yeah, sure I guess, but like I said thatās quite meaningless since it doesnāt reflect reality.
Anarchist societies of modern times are short lived indeed, but if you take a close look at them itās always because of states intervention (Paris commune, Ukrainian revolution, Spain libertarian communists, and nowadays Chiapas and Rojava).
Theyāre short lived because anarchy is flawed as an ideology and it always collapses in on itself. The world doesnāt exist in a vacuum. The rest of the world is not going coddle some anarchist ideologues so they can play with their political anarchist fantasies in practice. We live in a world where people want stability and order, where states exist out of necessity for self defense, where resources are scarce and competition for them can get violent, where evil actors who pry on the weak do exist. This is our reality, any ideology that ignores it is not one to be taken seriously.
You choose on which axis to operate the distinction. You can differentiate violences based on their organization, on their legitimacy, on their targets, on their respect of any arbitrary moral values, etc.
The critical difference is the source where all of these things are derived from. A normal state derives these things from society as collective while in anarchy theyāre derived from individuals. In a normal society, violence is monopolized, streamlined, and itās application is utilized to make sure society is stable and orderly enough to be functional. In an anarchist society, there is no such monopoly or centralization as there is no government. Thus, without a central authority things like crime, fairness, and safety are up to individuals to come up with and enforce. This will inevitably end up in bloodshed, disorder, and injustice as different people with different opinions are going to be acting on their own and competing with each other to enforce different standards. Thatās an incredibly stupid idea that will result in a lot of unnecessary violence and dysfunction. You canāt leave things like justice in the hands of individuals, it never works.
You can precisely not govern without enforcing it through monopoly of violence. Itās like saying āX is not radical, because itās necessary for Xā.
Yes, thatās the point. Itās not radical because itās necessary for something essential and always has been. For something to be radical it has to be extreme and a drastic shift from the ordinary. Governance through monopolized violence is the norm. Simply labeling as radical anyway doesnāt make it bad or any less necessary.
organized violence is easier to hold back but far worse when unleashed, disorganized is the opposite. Iām not denying their difference, iām saying in the end the amount of violence is the same, so the difference does not matter here.
This is just false. The amount of violence is not the same because you never get stability or order at any point in an anarchist society. Self righteous individuals and bad actors will always be fighting each other and amongst themselves because they want to take advantage of the chaos and take matter into their own hands. Thereās a reason why through 10,000 years of human civilization, anarchy has never come out on top even once. Keep in mind, youāre not arguing against tyranny here, youāre arguing against the monopolization of violence as a means to govern in general. Well, as history shows us, anarchy is just as bad tyranny.
My goal is not to romanticize either past stateless societies or current states, itās to get the best of both. I donāt like the āAll weāve known was bad one way or another so why bother making something better ?ā argument.
Anarchy isnāt a better solution. Itās one of the bad ways that we collectively moved past as a species. As it turns out, there IS something better than complete anarchy or complete tyranny, itās called liberal democracy. Checks and balances in the government, direct citizen participation in governance, establishing liberal values such as freedom of speech as rights, a society gets to enjoy both structure AND liberty.
Just to be clear, āuniversalā is used to mean āliterally allā
Oh come on, donāt be pedantic and argue semantics. You knew exactly what I meant. My statement was painfully obvious, true, and straightforward. If youāre actually willing to sit here and tell me that humans as a collective lack pride as an emotion, then youāre just engaging in bad faith.
most anarchists i know do not feel patriotism, especially as in āpride to belong to a nationā, and more generally as in āpride to belong to something greaterā. I certainly do not.
This is anecdotal though. Humans feel pride in being a part of a greater collective, weāre tribal creatures. Just because you have a negative view of patriotism as a label, that doesnāt mean that you donāt feel this emotion under a different one.
I can not say much more since your claim is both vague (assimilating patriotism to simple pride makes it even less definable) and not verifiable (you cannot point out every people feeling patriotism, and i can only say i know people that do not feel patriotism but you can always say thatās exceptions).
Well, how would you define patriotism if not taking pride in your nation? Youāre right that patriotism is vague and hard to verify because itās an inherently subjective concept. The only thing thatās objective about is the underlying emotions. Things like a desire to see your group do better, pride in belonging to something greater, and a sense of responsibility to your people.
it seems that your more important value is stability of a civilization, from which you conclude that current states are good, and therefore patriotism, monopoly of violence are too.
Not quite.
Iām not saying I personally value stability, Iām saying that this is what humanity favors given our history and the trajectory it has led us to.
2 I donāt think current states are good, Iām saying that having a state in general is necessary.
Iām saying that patriotism is a reflection of human nature, itās not an entirely artificial concept.
You also seem to deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are the only good option, and therefore anarchism and anti-state theories necessary leads to disorder.
Can this even be considered an opinion? I see it as an observation of something objective in human history.
My take is to start from solidarity rather than stability, making monopoly of violence and by extension patriotism bad, and therefore current states too. I deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are a dangerous form of organization for anything else, and therefore state theories, from fascism to authoritarian socialism along with bourgeois oligarchies, necessary leads to violence.
Let me ask you a simple question. If youāre not up to replying to everything else, you can skip it all and just reply to this. Iāll bold so youāll find it easier.
Letās suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US government has collapsed in favor anarchy. In this scenario, you have the country in itās current state but just without the US government (federal, state, and local) or any of the American state apparatus. So that means no military, no federal reserve, no public schools, no police, no FDA, no CDC, no NOAA, nothing. The state has completely collapsed.** How would an anarchist society take place and how would it function in practice in this situation? **
Walk me through your logic step by step. For example, what āsolidarity meansā? How a society can function without a government? How would justice be enforced? How would you deal with people who reject this idea and want to reestablish a central authority? How would the economy function (as in, how would people get their new smartphones)?
If iām not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after.
Of course we have different values, why else would be arguing? Iām not here to change your mind nor do I expect you to change mine. Iām having this discussion with you because I see value in talking to people who see things differently than I do. Challenging the views of others and having yours challenged is what makes to debates fun imo.
Hey there ! Thanks for your reply. Thanks also for making the discussion centered around a specific question, i indeed tried to reply quote by quote and found myself pointing out the same flaws over and over.
Iāll first talk about these flaws, which i think can be summed up to one : you do not argue (at least not here). I think iām right to say itās not an argument
because you use circular reasoning to say āThere are only states, therefore they are necessaryā and then āthey are necessary, therefore there are only statesā. If you donāt see the problem here, it will be hard to discuss, as it already has been.
you make an continuous use of the āgeneral statementā argument that i talked about in my previous comment. You say something universal if taken as is, then claim itās hyperbole, and then say that examples i give are āanecdotalā. This makes your argument pointless since no one can either prove it (it has no universal value), either disprove it (every counter example is discarded as anecdotal). Iām sorry if i sounded pedantic to you, but this is the way i debate, and i think the basis for every proper logical debate : we cannot just state vague facts about humanity as proof of our arguments, since their value comes from how common they are, and there is no way to prove this. We either have to take universal takes that enables proper counter-argument, either accept that the fact does not apply to a possibly large number of people.
because you jump from theory to practice and vice-versa. When talking about political theory, its āThen why donāt we see anarchists societiesā. When itās about examples of anarchist societies, its āThey failed because anarchy is flawed as an ideologyā. More generally, you do not answer directly to the passages you quote. You choose on which axis to operate the distinction. : you did not explained why the legitimity of violence is not an abritrary choice, you explained why state is legitimate. You strawman my points : on pride, i didnāt push that āhumanity as a collective lack pride as an emotionā (= most people lack pride), i said some people lack it, most anarchists lack it, i lack it.
You ignore historical facts. you never get stability ororderatany point in an anarchist society is plain wrong, look at the examples i gave (we needed more than a century to get back some of the social advances of the Commune, factories were more productive in Spanish War anarchist territories, ukrainian anarchist communes were functional). The reason you give for their short duration is not the one given by history : itās not an expression when i say that each of them resulted in a massacre by a state, it is the actual case. You also contradicted yourself on this point : ā[anarchy] always collapses on itselfā cannot be true at the same time than āThe rest of the world is not going to coddle some anarchists ideologuesā : either it collapses on itself, either it is some external intervention (spoiler alert : it was the second option).
About your question, iāll answer it in a more general fashion than just about the US, because 1) i donāt know the US that well and 2) the case of a state and its branches suddenly disappearing is quite a fantasy.
How a society can function without a government?
Most anarchists and (left) libertarians base their theories on federalism. This idea, existing already in a weak shape in a lot of state-linked organization (including the states of US), is that entities can band and disband together. The idea is to create different groups on an individual basis (you can be part of multiple groups, such as the group of your neighbourhood, of your workingplace, of your political expression, etc.), and those groups can form greater groups (like the council of multiple neighbourhoods for a city, the association of multiple factories of the same sector, etc.). This network of groups is meant to replace the main advantage of state-like organization, which really is organization itself : communication and exchanges on great distances, optimization of knowledge, ressources, etc.
This can seem very complicated, but itās akin to what already exist : there are councils for my building, my neighbourhood, my city. My boss works in a cooperative, which regroups around 15 winemakers, and this cooperative is part of a broader network which includes around 15 cooperatives. This stratification already exists in a rich way, the only question is to make it go from bottom rather than from the top.
You can have people dedicated to help those organizations work. They can be viewed as administrative/representative, but there are some differences anarchists promotes : people are delegated tasks, they do not represent you. The difference is that they cannot take any decision, they have one or more task to complete but canāt act outside. Yeah, but what if they do, you ask ? The other important part of anarchist delegation of tasks is immediate recall : mandate for people can be ended by a simple vote. What if people abuse this to prevent someone to be effectively mandated ? Itās probably the sign that either this person is not the right one, either there is a profound fracture in the group, which should encourage the creation of a new group (which is a good thing under anarchist ideas, each groups having their rules means that more groups means more chances for you to find or create the right one).
Really, you should be quite familiar with federalism since weāre having this discussion on the Fediverse, from different servers with different softwares.
How would the economy function ?
One of the question you can have is : how to make sure everyone gets a house, food, clothes, etc? Well, there are workers and workplaces for those, and each group can produce and give according to peopleās needs. If you really need people to have an interest to believe this will work, it is mutual aid viewed in a negative way : if you donāt give food to the carpenter, they wonāt build your house (the positive way is, you give food to whoever needs it, and the carpenter builds houses for whoever needs it). Note this is close to what we have in capitalist states : you got to work if you want food or house. The only thing is, in our current societies, money and state enables people to do nothing or stuff we donāt need/want (banks, administration, mines, etc.).
How would justice be enforced?
There are two things here : the justice part, and the enforced part. The justice definition from a state perspective is easy, itās what says the law. Anarchist societies propose to see it from the individuals perspectives : the goal is not to find a victim and a culprit to punish, nor to get to the āstate of balanceā where the society was before the unjustice, it is to bring the society to a point which everyones agrees to, ideally to prevent the unjustice from happening again. Now comes the enforce part : once an agreement is reached, it is far easier to enforce since everyone agrees to it. For the situations where this does not apply (before the argument is concluded, if it is not respected), it either comes from the good faith of everyone included, either falls back to forms of violence/authority, ideally limited (such as imprisonment until argument is reached for dangerous persons, etc.).
How would you deal with people who reject this idea and want to reestablish a central authority?
This is quite a hard question. Since everyone is asked to participate in multiple groups, one part of the answer is people could recreate groups that federate in a more central way. The difference with what we have currently, is they could be able to leave them at any time to build something else.
The other part of the answer is for people that want to impose central authority to everyone (which is a common will through most states, and is to my eyes the cause of states hegemony : they need people to provide the services they promise, so they cannot accept people outside of them. In the worst form, you get imperialism, when state not only feed on their people, but try to feed on other statesā peoples). I donāt have a good answer for that, the movment is quite divided between accepting agreements with states and fighting against the imposition of central authority (this is the weapon/bombs part of anarchy)). Neither is satisfying to my eyes, probably both will have to be used anyway.
Thanks again for this final question which, iām happy to admit, resets the debate and will, i hope, show that every flaw i listed were only relative to our previous discussion.
This view is flawed because it mislabels the stateās monopoly on violence as inherently radical. In reality, this monopoly exists to prevent chaos by centralizing and regulating force. Calling it radical ignores the distinction between structured authority and unregulated violence. Supporting a state doesnāt mean endorsing oppression, it can mean recognizing the need for order over anarchy. The reason why humans have evolved to favor order over anarchy is because order provides stability, and this allows people to built up complex societies in relative safety.
Patriotism at itās core is just a sense of pride, and thatās a universal emotion that everybody has. Everybody wants to feel like they belong to something greater. It gives us a feeling of nobility. All people share a feeling similar to patriotism, even if itās labeled as something elseā¦ even anarchists.
There is a lexical error/approximation here. Anarchy does not oppose to order, anomy is. Anarchy just says that order must not emerge from authority but from solidarity. You can disagree, but saying that anarchy is disorder by definition is a mislabeling.
I disagree with this being a mislabeling (though i understand that it remains an opinion and you disagree with it). It is common to see any form of violence as radical, and iāve seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying āViolence is never a solutionā. Adding distinction of organized/disorganized violence is an arbitrary choice, and there is no logical imperative of doing so : holding all types of violence accountable, no matter their positive potential, is not a mislabel, it is a take on violence. On another note, iāll add that organized violence can be undoubtedly far worse than disorganized one at times of war and massacre. Also, evolution from anarchydisorder to āorderā is not that simple. From what we currently know, humanity lived far longer without structured power, and when those came with sedentarization, came wars and massacres too.
Labeling something as āuniversalā without involuntary hyperbole is blatantly false. Humanity is made from diversity, and there are very few affirmations outside of physics that can correctly be applied to all of humanity. Everyone is unique, youāll find some people without any patriotism (way more than you think) and even without pride.
This is just a semantic deflection. Youāre appealing to a niche theoretical definition of anarchy while ignoring how the term functions in political discourse. The phrase āorder over anarchyā reflects a real world tension between structured authority and the absence of it. You can argue that anarchist theory envisions a different kind of order, but thatās an ideal, not a demonstrated reality. In practice, large scale societies without centralized authority have consistently struggled to maintain stability. So no, itās not a mislabeling, itās a recognition of the risks that come with power vacuums.
Youāre collapsing moral judgment with structural analysis. Calling all violence āradicalā might feel principled, but it flattens critical distinctions. The difference between a lynch mob and a court ordered arrest isnāt arbitrary, itās the difference between chaos and legitimacy. The stateās monopoly on violence isnāt radical, itās foundational to modern governance. You can critique how that power is used, but denying the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is intellectually lazy. And yes, pre-state societies existed, but they werenāt peaceful utopias. Sedentarization brought war, but it also brought law, infrastructure, and medicine. Romanticizing statelessness doesnāt make it viable
Youāre nitpicking language. āUniversalā in this context clearly refers to the widespread nature of pride and belonging, not a literal claim about every human being. Patriotism taps into those emotions, which is why itās so politically potent. The fact that some people reject patriotism doesnāt disprove its cultural force, it proves that itās significant enough to be worth rejecting. If you want to critique patriotism, start by acknowledging its emotional appeal, not pretending itās some fringe anomaly.
Iām just refering to anarchy as it is defined in politics, not in common talk. Anarchy as disorder is not politics, itās something wider (a chaotic room could be called anarchy in that sense). Anarchy as politics is a system minimizing authority. You cannot say in good faith that disorder is the concept of political anarchy, it is (in your opinion) a consequence of it.
Anarchist societies of modern times are short lived indeed, but if you take a close look at them itās always because of states intervention (Paris commune, Ukrainian revolution, Spain libertarian communists, and nowadays Chiapas and Rojava).
Distinction is arbitrary in essence. You choose on which axis to operate the distinction. You can differentiate violences based on their organization, on their legitimacy, on their targets, on their respect of any arbitrary moral values, etc.
Governance is a monopoly on violence. You can precisely not govern without enforcing it through monopoly of violence. Itās like saying āX is not radical, because itās necessary for Xā.
Iām not as much denying the distinction as denying its actual positive impact. If you want another way to put it than āall violence is badā, see it this way : organized violence is easier to hold back but far worse when unleashed, disorganized is the opposite. Iām not denying their difference, iām saying in the end the amount of violence is the same, so the difference does not matter here.
Neither are states. My goal is not to romanticize either past stateless societies or current states, itās to get the best of both. I donāt like the āAll weāve known was bad one way or another so why bother making something better ?ā argument.
Well mb, you were actually making a involuntary hyperbole. Just to be clear, āuniversalā is used to mean āliterally allā. You also used expressions āthat everybody hasā and āAll people shareā which makes me think that you are of bad faith here, and were clearly meaning to encapsulate everyone, but anyway, letās say thatās not the case.
I then stand by my take : most anarchists i know do not feel patriotism, especially as in āpride to belong to a nationā, and more generally as in āpride to belong to something greaterā. I certainly do not. I can not say much more since your claim is both vague (assimilating patriotism to simple pride makes it even less definable) and not verifiable (you cannot point out every people feeling patriotism, and i can only say i know people that do not feel patriotism but you can always say thatās exceptions).
Anyway, this discussion is beginning to be very splitted in subdiscussions, and i see that you engaged in a similar fashion with other people, so iād guess it would be useful to sum up. I think all our points can be moved under those respective banners : it seems that your more important value is stability of a civilization, from which you conclude that current states are good, and therefore patriotism, monopoly of violence are too. You also seem to deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are the only good option, and therefore anarchism and anti-state theories necessary leads to disorder. My take is to start from solidarity rather than stability, making monopoly of violence and by extension patriotism bad, and therefore current states too. I deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are a dangerous form of organization for anything else, and therefore state theories, from fascism to authoritarian socialism along with bourgeois oligarchies, necessary leads to violence.
If iām not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after. Iād propose to stop there if we cannot bring anything useful other than āthere are multiple opinions hereā.
So your argument here isnāt about the actual application of anarchy, itās just that on meaninglessly theoretical version of political anarchy, it is technically not defined as disorder, right? If so, then yeah, sure I guess, but like I said thatās quite meaningless since it doesnāt reflect reality.
Theyāre short lived because anarchy is flawed as an ideology and it always collapses in on itself. The world doesnāt exist in a vacuum. The rest of the world is not going coddle some anarchist ideologues so they can play with their political anarchist fantasies in practice. We live in a world where people want stability and order, where states exist out of necessity for self defense, where resources are scarce and competition for them can get violent, where evil actors who pry on the weak do exist. This is our reality, any ideology that ignores it is not one to be taken seriously.
The critical difference is the source where all of these things are derived from. A normal state derives these things from society as collective while in anarchy theyāre derived from individuals. In a normal society, violence is monopolized, streamlined, and itās application is utilized to make sure society is stable and orderly enough to be functional. In an anarchist society, there is no such monopoly or centralization as there is no government. Thus, without a central authority things like crime, fairness, and safety are up to individuals to come up with and enforce. This will inevitably end up in bloodshed, disorder, and injustice as different people with different opinions are going to be acting on their own and competing with each other to enforce different standards. Thatās an incredibly stupid idea that will result in a lot of unnecessary violence and dysfunction. You canāt leave things like justice in the hands of individuals, it never works.
Yes, thatās the point. Itās not radical because itās necessary for something essential and always has been. For something to be radical it has to be extreme and a drastic shift from the ordinary. Governance through monopolized violence is the norm. Simply labeling as radical anyway doesnāt make it bad or any less necessary.
This is just false. The amount of violence is not the same because you never get stability or order at any point in an anarchist society. Self righteous individuals and bad actors will always be fighting each other and amongst themselves because they want to take advantage of the chaos and take matter into their own hands. Thereās a reason why through 10,000 years of human civilization, anarchy has never come out on top even once. Keep in mind, youāre not arguing against tyranny here, youāre arguing against the monopolization of violence as a means to govern in general. Well, as history shows us, anarchy is just as bad tyranny.
Anarchy isnāt a better solution. Itās one of the bad ways that we collectively moved past as a species. As it turns out, there IS something better than complete anarchy or complete tyranny, itās called liberal democracy. Checks and balances in the government, direct citizen participation in governance, establishing liberal values such as freedom of speech as rights, a society gets to enjoy both structure AND liberty.
Oh come on, donāt be pedantic and argue semantics. You knew exactly what I meant. My statement was painfully obvious, true, and straightforward. If youāre actually willing to sit here and tell me that humans as a collective lack pride as an emotion, then youāre just engaging in bad faith.
This is anecdotal though. Humans feel pride in being a part of a greater collective, weāre tribal creatures. Just because you have a negative view of patriotism as a label, that doesnāt mean that you donāt feel this emotion under a different one.
Well, how would you define patriotism if not taking pride in your nation? Youāre right that patriotism is vague and hard to verify because itās an inherently subjective concept. The only thing thatās objective about is the underlying emotions. Things like a desire to see your group do better, pride in belonging to something greater, and a sense of responsibility to your people.
Not quite.
Can this even be considered an opinion? I see it as an observation of something objective in human history.
Let me ask you a simple question. If youāre not up to replying to everything else, you can skip it all and just reply to this. Iāll bold so youāll find it easier.
Letās suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US government has collapsed in favor anarchy. In this scenario, you have the country in itās current state but just without the US government (federal, state, and local) or any of the American state apparatus. So that means no military, no federal reserve, no public schools, no police, no FDA, no CDC, no NOAA, nothing. The state has completely collapsed.** How would an anarchist society take place and how would it function in practice in this situation? **
Walk me through your logic step by step. For example, what āsolidarity meansā? How a society can function without a government? How would justice be enforced? How would you deal with people who reject this idea and want to reestablish a central authority? How would the economy function (as in, how would people get their new smartphones)?
Of course we have different values, why else would be arguing? Iām not here to change your mind nor do I expect you to change mine. Iām having this discussion with you because I see value in talking to people who see things differently than I do. Challenging the views of others and having yours challenged is what makes to debates fun imo.
Hey there ! Thanks for your reply. Thanks also for making the discussion centered around a specific question, i indeed tried to reply quote by quote and found myself pointing out the same flaws over and over.
Iāll first talk about these flaws, which i think can be summed up to one : you do not argue (at least not here). I think iām right to say itās not an argument
because you use circular reasoning to say āThere are only states, therefore they are necessaryā and then āthey are necessary, therefore there are only statesā. If you donāt see the problem here, it will be hard to discuss, as it already has been.
you make an continuous use of the āgeneral statementā argument that i talked about in my previous comment. You say something universal if taken as is, then claim itās hyperbole, and then say that examples i give are āanecdotalā. This makes your argument pointless since no one can either prove it (it has no universal value), either disprove it (every counter example is discarded as anecdotal). Iām sorry if i sounded pedantic to you, but this is the way i debate, and i think the basis for every proper logical debate : we cannot just state vague facts about humanity as proof of our arguments, since their value comes from how common they are, and there is no way to prove this. We either have to take universal takes that enables proper counter-argument, either accept that the fact does not apply to a possibly large number of people.
because you jump from theory to practice and vice-versa. When talking about political theory, its āThen why donāt we see anarchists societiesā. When itās about examples of anarchist societies, its āThey failed because anarchy is flawed as an ideologyā. More generally, you do not answer directly to the passages you quote.
You choose on which axis to operate the distinction.: you did not explained why the legitimity of violence is not an abritrary choice, you explained why state is legitimate. You strawman my points : on pride, i didnāt push that āhumanity as a collective lack pride as an emotionā (= most people lack pride), i said some people lack it, most anarchists lack it, i lack it.You ignore historical facts.
you never get stability or order at any point in an anarchist societyis plain wrong, look at the examples i gave (we needed more than a century to get back some of the social advances of the Commune, factories were more productive in Spanish War anarchist territories, ukrainian anarchist communes were functional). The reason you give for their short duration is not the one given by history : itās not an expression when i say that each of them resulted in a massacre by a state, it is the actual case. You also contradicted yourself on this point : ā[anarchy] always collapses on itselfā cannot be true at the same time than āThe rest of the world is not going to coddle some anarchists ideologuesā : either it collapses on itself, either it is some external intervention (spoiler alert : it was the second option).About your question, iāll answer it in a more general fashion than just about the US, because 1) i donāt know the US that well and 2) the case of a state and its branches suddenly disappearing is quite a fantasy.
Most anarchists and (left) libertarians base their theories on federalism. This idea, existing already in a weak shape in a lot of state-linked organization (including the states of US), is that entities can band and disband together. The idea is to create different groups on an individual basis (you can be part of multiple groups, such as the group of your neighbourhood, of your workingplace, of your political expression, etc.), and those groups can form greater groups (like the council of multiple neighbourhoods for a city, the association of multiple factories of the same sector, etc.). This network of groups is meant to replace the main advantage of state-like organization, which really is organization itself : communication and exchanges on great distances, optimization of knowledge, ressources, etc.
This can seem very complicated, but itās akin to what already exist : there are councils for my building, my neighbourhood, my city. My boss works in a cooperative, which regroups around 15 winemakers, and this cooperative is part of a broader network which includes around 15 cooperatives. This stratification already exists in a rich way, the only question is to make it go from bottom rather than from the top.
You can have people dedicated to help those organizations work. They can be viewed as administrative/representative, but there are some differences anarchists promotes : people are delegated tasks, they do not represent you. The difference is that they cannot take any decision, they have one or more task to complete but canāt act outside. Yeah, but what if they do, you ask ? The other important part of anarchist delegation of tasks is immediate recall : mandate for people can be ended by a simple vote. What if people abuse this to prevent someone to be effectively mandated ? Itās probably the sign that either this person is not the right one, either there is a profound fracture in the group, which should encourage the creation of a new group (which is a good thing under anarchist ideas, each groups having their rules means that more groups means more chances for you to find or create the right one).
Really, you should be quite familiar with federalism since weāre having this discussion on the Fediverse, from different servers with different softwares.
One of the question you can have is : how to make sure everyone gets a house, food, clothes, etc? Well, there are workers and workplaces for those, and each group can produce and give according to peopleās needs. If you really need people to have an interest to believe this will work, it is mutual aid viewed in a negative way : if you donāt give food to the carpenter, they wonāt build your house (the positive way is, you give food to whoever needs it, and the carpenter builds houses for whoever needs it). Note this is close to what we have in capitalist states : you got to work if you want food or house. The only thing is, in our current societies, money and state enables people to do nothing or stuff we donāt need/want (banks, administration, mines, etc.).
There are two things here : the justice part, and the enforced part. The justice definition from a state perspective is easy, itās what says the law. Anarchist societies propose to see it from the individuals perspectives : the goal is not to find a victim and a culprit to punish, nor to get to the āstate of balanceā where the society was before the unjustice, it is to bring the society to a point which everyones agrees to, ideally to prevent the unjustice from happening again. Now comes the enforce part : once an agreement is reached, it is far easier to enforce since everyone agrees to it. For the situations where this does not apply (before the argument is concluded, if it is not respected), it either comes from the good faith of everyone included, either falls back to forms of violence/authority, ideally limited (such as imprisonment until argument is reached for dangerous persons, etc.).
This is quite a hard question. Since everyone is asked to participate in multiple groups, one part of the answer is people could recreate groups that federate in a more central way. The difference with what we have currently, is they could be able to leave them at any time to build something else.
The other part of the answer is for people that want to impose central authority to everyone (which is a common will through most states, and is to my eyes the cause of states hegemony : they need people to provide the services they promise, so they cannot accept people outside of them. In the worst form, you get imperialism, when state not only feed on their people, but try to feed on other statesā peoples). I donāt have a good answer for that, the movment is quite divided between accepting agreements with states and fighting against the imposition of central authority (this is the weapon/bombs part of anarchy)). Neither is satisfying to my eyes, probably both will have to be used anyway.
Thanks again for this final question which, iām happy to admit, resets the debate and will, i hope, show that every flaw i listed were only relative to our previous discussion.
Removed by mod