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.
Reading what you wrote as an answer to this question, it sounds like youāre just an advocate for true direct democracy. I mean thatās fine, but the point is that what youāre advocating for isnāt true anarchy. Youāre still in favor of a central authority, just one thatās structured differently. Now direct democracy does have itās strengths and drawbacks, and we can discuss the merits of that later, but for now I want to focus on a particular concept, and thatās the idea of entirely voluntary governance.
The idea of an entirely voluntary government sounds very appealing, however, I think itās one of those ideas that sounds better than it actually is. Letās think about it from a fundamental level, in order for something to be voluntary, there needs to be a person with free will making consensual decisions. However, consent is an inherently subjective concept and thus the standard for who can consent will always be arbitraryā¦ and if thatās the case who gets to decide the standard? This is something that has to be established at the very start.
Well who can consent? Can children consent? Where is the cutoff, and who decides it? If a community is split on whether or not 16 year olds can consent, do the 16 year olds get a vote in this discussion or are they sidelined? What if they donāt like the decision, can children disassociate and join other groups that say they can consent or not? How about disabled people, can they consent or do they not get a vote? Do they perhaps have someone else be their representative and make decisions on their behalf? But if thatās the case, and decision making can be outsourced for kids and the disabled, can consenting adults also outsource this power? Letās suppose people want to have a representative, is that allowed or is individual participation mandatory? If itās mandatory then who is enforcing this rule?
I hope you catch what Iām trying to demonstrate here. This is a concept thatās vague, and its implementation is rather complicated.
How would the economy function?
Economics is definitely not your forte lol
Youāre trying to combine standard market capitalism with the Marixst resource distributionā¦ but these two ideas contradict each other. Marxist socialism requires a strong, central, and authoritarian government in order to seize and collectivize all the means of production, property, wealth, and resources and then to centrally plan every single aspect of the economy to properly distribute the resources from ability to need. However, market capitalism is literally the opposite. It requires government to allow the markets to have some autonomy so they can function independently. Capitalist economies are decentralized and unplanned, and resource distribution is done through the markets on the basis of supply and demand. You canāt combine the two.
It seem your idea of economics is not based in reality. This isnāt the 1500s, our modern economies arenāt based on a bunch of framers and craftsmen who open up little shops to sell their labor and crafts. A carpenter building a house? Lol. Do you understand just how much labor goes into building a modern house? Not to mention that there are things that require way more labor, way more resources, and insane global supply chains to produce like cars, planes, and smartphones. These are not things that you can build without strong multinational corporate structures, and you canāt get them trade them through bartering.
Also, you think things like administration, banks, and mines arenāt necessary? Lmao, you canāt be serious. Iāll just say this, capitalism is a system that favors efficiency above all else for better or for worse, and itās really good at it. Everything that industry that exists and every product you see on sale exists because there are people out there who buy them. The demand exists, and so the companies provide. Things like banks provide value to the economy as they fill a niche, and thatās the reason why they exist.
How would justice be enforced?
Bring society to a point where everybody ideally agrees to prevent injustice? What does that even mean? The point youāre talking about is an ideal, itās literally a fantasy by definition. How can you possibly govern a society when your concept of justice hinges on the realization of something imaginary? Is an anarchist society just going to remain lawless until this ideal point?
The enforcement part is equally ridiculous. You can only enforce laws once everybody has agreed to the punishments? Why would any criminal or wannabe criminal ever agree to implementing any punishments against themselves? Good faith? Lmao, if criminals were operating in good faith then they wouldnāt be criminals. I think you understand the absurdity of this notion, which is why you acknowledged that prisons and authority might make a come back in an anarchist societyā¦ but if thatās the case then doesnāt that defeat the whole point of the anarchy experiment?
How would you deal with people who reject this idea and want to reestablish a central authority?
Ah ha! Finally stumbled you good, didnāt I? I think this is the core issue with anarchy and I think itās an inherently flawed ideology. Everything you said here relies on good faith whether itās governance, economics, law, justice, or self defense. However, we donāt live in an ideal world, we live in a flawed world, and in our flawed world good faith is a rather scarce resource. There are a lot of people in our society who are greedy, egotistical, selfish, jealous, hateful, evil, violent, and contrarian. Weāll always have murders, pedos, rapists, bigots, thieves, morons, frauds, and zealots. These are people who exploit the good faith of others for their personal benefit at the expense of others.
In a normal society, these bad faith actors are either deterred by the entity that has monopoly on violence or theyāre squashed by it. However, in an anarchist society, there is no monopoly on violence and so bad faith actors have no filters and are set loose. These people have no issue with violence or forcing others to do what they want, and so they will use violence to enforce their standards on to normal people and onto each other. Because each group or individual will have their own values, morals, and ideals there will be a competition of violence on who gets to enforce their standard. This type of chaos, disorder, instability, and violence is the reason why anarchy mostly exists as a fun thought exercise rather than a practical, viable ideology.
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.
it sounds like youāre just an advocate for true direct democracy.
I equate true direct democracy with anarchism. If there is a central authority, as in someone making decisions about me without me being able to either oppose their mandate either switch to another federation, then itās not direct democracy.
Youāre still in favor of a central authority, just one thatās structured differently.
As far as iām aware, there is no central authority in what i described.
Consent
This is a very good question, and has multiple answers, as multiple groups can have multiple standards. Handling kids is an especially tricky part, but you could suppose having different schools with different systems, allowing kids to vote or not, and kids could choose where to go.
Economics
Your first paragraph is just you not understanding i guess ? You just seem to be unable to think outside of capitalism or marxism. Ultimately, you donāt give any reason as to why decentralized distribution of ressources is impossible, other that it is not either capitalism, either marxism ?
We also clearly miss eachother on a point, as i deduce from the cars, planes, and smartphones.. My view of anarchism is coupled with an anyway necessary degrowth. Complicated objects like cars, planes and smartphones can obviously not be obtained on the same scale as current capitalist system. They could be obtain in a much much little number though, and then be distributed to people needing it most, and the repair/reuse system would fill in the rest (which would be the majority i guess). Weād also need less cars since you would be more free to choose where you live and work.
On the how much labor goes into building a modern house i clearly think it could be done in a communal way. I mean, the trickiest part are the spread of knowledge meaning many people have to intervene, and the machines used to accelerate the process, which could ultimately be transformed in either time or workforce. Sure, itās a long thing to do, not saying the opposite. But in the end, itās all made by workers, not by money or organization.
Your talk about capitalism shows that capitalism favors profit, not efficiency. Those two aspects may intersect, but not all the time. For example, having multiple intermediaries in the process of selling food is good for profit, but is clearly not efficient.
Justice
You still think of laws as general object, the whole point that i made was to have no general laws, and rather local rules and decisions specific to each case, to adapt at best to every situation. This is precisely the more down-to-earth approach, rather than thinking that applying the same rule to thousands is going to have the same positive effect, we try to get the best result according to each situation.
Yes, there are criminals that acknowledge they did bad things, and are cooperative with people, even outside of people doing bad things out of emotions or other situation where they do not control themselves. They have an interest in doing so, since it would appease everything and enable them to live a normal life again. Ultimately, their main interest can be that if they are not cooperative, then the whole process gets stuck and they could be de facto kept in prison by their own choice, which is more ridiculous that what you describe.
People who [ā¦] want to reestablish a central authority ?
You take a huge step in a wrong direction here. Anarchist societies do not need everyone to be of good faith, they need everyone to partipate. There is room for greedy, egoistical, selfish, healous, contrarian people, even hateful, evil and violent in some contained ways. We donāt need everyone to be nice, we need everyone to participate to groups where they feel confident, which i think youāll agree is a way more common trait than just good faith. There is of course still room for a lot of problems, but itās not based on good faith.
Itās also wrong to say that in anarchy bad faith actors have no filters andareset loose.. They also face consequences as people will try to stop them : the difference is that they know they wonāt have to face an arbitrary punishment, but a kind of repayment that theyāll accept. You canāt say that there wonāt be consequences, you can say though that there wonāt be forced consequences.
And in the end, states do not prevent such violence either : once again, wars, genocides, arbitrary violences and murders, organized crime, mafia, pedos etc. also exist, and worse than that, they may be amplified by state itself. So, while it will probably exist in anarchy, it exists in states too, in a different way, sometimes better, sometimes worse. Amusingly, These people have no issue with violence or forcing others todo what they want, and so they will use violence to enforce their standards onto normal people and onto each other. is like the exact definition of monopoly of violence.
Iām going to split my response into two separate comments as I feel like weāre having two conversations at the same time, and I donāt want to mix them up. Iāll reply to your criticisms in this reply, and then reply to your answers in another. I originally didnāt want to respond to your criticisms at all as our previous conversation is no longer relevant, however, thereās a lot that you said that doesnāt sit right with me and I just want to set the record straight before I move on. You donāt have to reply to this comment if you donāt want to, itās just here to voice my disagreements with your criticisms. You can just read and move on to my other comment.
Anyway, my response:
Youāre conflating two separate statements. I said that if you look at the evolution of human history, youāll quickly find out that states have won out over their alternatives. I think we can both agree (hopefully) that this is an objective statement. My point here is that there have to be reasons why things turned out the way they did, perhaps itās best to understand those reasons instead of dismissing them. My second statement is that states are necessary because they are the most efficient answer we have to govern on a large scale. States provide an institutional framework that allow for stability, order, justice, and large scale organization. Our disagreement on the second statement is the root of our debate. However, as you can see, these two statements arenāt used to justify each other, and thus combining the two and calling it circular reasoning is just a misunderstanding on your part.
I take big issue with this criticism specifically because youāre being dishonest. My original statement was that āpride is a universal human emotionā. Thatās an objectively true statement. People express pride differently, people are proud of different things, and different cultures have different ideas about it. However, all humans have it. You have it, I have it, we all do. Itās like happiness, sadness, or anger. The entire reason why I said this in the first place is to make the point that patriotism is a reflection of a universal human emotion. Keep in mind, I am not saying that patriotism is a universal trait, just that itās a form in which an actual universal trait, pride, manifests itself.
If you disagreed with the notion that patriotism is a reflection of pride, then thatās fine, we could have had a discussion about it. However, you chose to sideline my point in favor of taking up the position that pride is not a universal emotion, and specifically focusing on the literal meaning āuniversalā. However, this focus was just the red herring fallacy. You were focusing on a minor detail to distract from the point being made. If you actually want to double down on the notion that pride is not a universal human emotion then weāre moving past political opinions and entering the realm of science, and that means that you have to actually show me an academic study that counters the established science (example). Itās why I pointed out that your anecdotes donāt mean much in this case.
Now, I donāt think itās that deep and I donāt think youāre going to double down on this position, but I do think our exchange about this specific point up until now has been particularly frustrating because itās unnecessary. Iām sure you understood what I meant from the beginning because it was a very simple point.
Theory and practice are intertwined. Anarchy is a failure in practice because itās a flawed ideology in theory. Itās like talking to a islamists. Theyāll tell you that islamic rule produces utopiasā¦ so you point out examples of it being a complete failureā¦ then they start talking about thatās not ārealā islam and how the quran is perfectā¦ so you start pointing out the flaws in the quran to explain the connection. Iām not saying youāre doing this, but Iām just pointing out that trying to pretend that theory and practice and are two entirely separate categories is silly.
Also, I find it weird how youāre accusing me of engaging in bad faith by saying Iām turning your arguments into strawmans, when the first example you gave is just you not following the chain of responses. You said that I didnāt answer why the legitimacy of violence isnāt an arbitrary choice. Well, letās find out why:
Original topic: whether or not someone supporting their country is radical.
Your response: someone supporting their country means supporting the monopoly of violence and thatās radical
Me: monopoly of violence isnāt inherently radical as it exists to regulate force which prevents chaos
You: all types of violence is radical and adding the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is arbitrary
Me: the distinction is the point, and the difference between regulated and unregulated violence is the difference between chaos and stability
You: distinctions in general are arbitrary in nature
Me: the distinction is critical as not all violence is equal, regulated violence by a society helps establish order which prevents unnecessary violence while unregulated violence by individuals does the opposite
And that was the last direct reply. Notice how the my responses directly respond to your responses? Notice how the conversation got specific but didnāt go off topic? Notice how you never asked me why the legitimacy of violence is not an arbitrary choice nor was that ever brought up? That means I didnāt misinterpret what you said, therefore I didnāt strawman you. If you felt like you need to add clarification or nuance or ask that either of me then just do that, but donāt call my direct responses to your points as strawman arguments when theyāre not.
Thereās three parts to this. First, youāre trying to pass off your opinions as facts. What you define as stable and orderly and what I define as stable and orderly are clearly different, and thatās fine, but we still have to acknowledge that theyāre opinions. Take the Spanish anarchists as an example, the whole experiment lasted a granted total of 3 years. During this time, there was A LOT of internal fighting between the different types of anarchists as well as communists and republicans. A lot of people tried to enforce their own justice and take governance into their own hands and thousands of people died because of this. A lot of anarchist leaders ended up joining the republican government which undermined the very movement they led. The lack of centralization led to piss poor coordination which led to the anarchists to get absolutely crushed by Francoās fascist troops. If this is what you define as stable and orderly then I donāt want to know what you consider to be unstable and disorderly.
Second, Makhnovshchina was not truly anarchist. They had an actual government that was backed by a military. So they had a full monopolization of violence and everything. The Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine stayed as the de facto government for 5 years until the bolsheviks took over. Thatās the reason why they were more functional than their anarchist counterparts elsewhere, like in Spain for example.
Third, similar to the point I made earlier, the failures of anarchy are intertwined. Anarchy collapses on itself because it lacks the means to do what a functional government can, and that is to maintain order, organize the people to do large scale projects, and defend itself and itās people. Because of this, anarchy will always result in another, more centralized form of government from crushing it and taking its place. The only way anarchy can work in the real world is if everybody in the world magically agreed to leave the anarchists alone, if some major power decided to protect them for some reason, or if thereās extreme levels of chaos and dysfunction in a society. Since none of these options are realistic or sustainable, anarchy is simply not capable of being a viable alternative to a state. I donāt think thatās a contradictory position.
Thanks for the splitted answer, it is a very nice choice. So here we go on the meta-discussion, cuz i think we still have disagreements on the nature of what we both said.
A - The circular reasoning
We indeed agree on the fact that human history shows that states have won out over their alternatives during the last 5 000 years, approximatively.
You seem to pretend that i dismiss the causes of this. As i said two comments ago in the summary, i simply hold a different explanation : you think states dominate because theyāre efficcient for stability, i think states dominate because they prey on other forms of organization. If you really think i dismiss this, i just give another explanation.
I maintain the circular reasoning part : to sum up how you turned it in your last answer, you say 1) states are the norm because states are necessary, and 2) states are necessary because they have advantages. But why do they have advantages that the other forms of governement do not have ? Your proof before that was āthere is only states that succeed, the other forms disappearā. So you just add one step, but in the end itās the same thing : on one hand, you explain the dominance of state by their necessity, on the other you explain their necessity by their advantages, which are prooved by their dominance. Either i misunderstand some part of your position, either it is circular.
B - The pride & the pride of being part of something greater
I owe you an apology here, as my last comment taken as is was indeed focusing on pure pride. I should have added that not only did i claim only some people lack it and not humanity as a collective, but more than that, i did not talk about pure pride, but āpride of being part of something greaterā, which we both agree is less common than pride itself. I donāt know why i didnt, probably just skipped to another part. This makes my strawmaning complaint stronger though.
C - Practice and theory
I dont say that practice and theory are entirely separate categories. They are different level of debate though, and you cannot answer one with the other. You can support one with the other, but not answer one with the other. To explain better, in your example of anarchy being a failure, there should be an actual problem (misorganization, miscommunication, etc) that leads to anarchy failure, and this problem could be linked to theory. Exactly as you said in your islamists example, the actual problems of islamists systems can be linked to qoran theory.
Funnily enough, the point i criticize you for is exactly what you criticize islamists for : when you give an answer on the practical side, they jump to the theoric side, and vice-versa. Itās strange that you can see that for them, but not for you.
D - Strawmaning
There is a misunderstanding here. My accusation of strawmaning is on the pride part, not on the arbitrary distinction of how to classify violence.
E - On historical matters
Thanks for acknowledging the historical examples. We indeed have a very different definition of stability and order (especially on political unstability, and internal fighting), but itās not the only explanation to our difference of explanation here.
One of them is the way you attribute the causes of events. When you say āAnarchists were crushed by Francoās fascist troopsā, it seems that you take it as a proof that anarchy leads to unstability. But to my eyes, the people responsible for unstability here are the state troops. I guess the first one is true on a broader sense, and the second one on this specific situation.
Another one is on the knowledge we have of it : iām not sure what you mean by A lot of people tried to enforce their own justice andtake governance into their own hands and thousands of people died because of this.. If itās about war, yes, anarchist armies are as other armies, they cause a lot of useless death. If itās about something else, iād be glad to learn about it !
Last one is a bit of nuance, especially on the Ukrainian part : there was indeed a system of governement backed by an active military, and this leads to a form of monopolization of violence. But i would not call it a full monopolization of violence, as the military government did not take every decision, and let the regional committees take a lot of decisions, and the local soviets organize freely. Also, all of those systems (both military and governement) were organized along anarchist principles : direct election of delegates, immediate recall, autodiscipline (this one specific to army). To be clear, what i challenge precisely is : the extent of centralization of power (it existed, but it was quite diminished compared to actual state), the extent of monopolization of violence (it existed, but as there were fewer decision to enforce, the monopolization was less important), the non-anarchist aspect of the movement (it is clearly an anarchist movement using partially non-anarchist methods (but not only non-anarchist methods)).
Lastly, and iām sorry to bring the language part again, but here youāre giving good examples that the examples i gave were far from perfect. But the point you made before was that you never get stability ororderatany point. I claim that you did, during a few months in the Commune, a few years in some regions of Spain, and by short intermittences during the Ukrainian revolution. Sure, itās not much. And the reason why itās such little is another topic we discussed. But not much is not the same as nothing. This is, i think, the main explanation of our disagreement here, beyond slight adjustments (causes, knowledge, nuances). In the end, we are saying the same thing : i say āthere is a little bit of stability and orderā, you say āthere is not much stability and orderā.
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.
Reading what you wrote as an answer to this question, it sounds like youāre just an advocate for true direct democracy. I mean thatās fine, but the point is that what youāre advocating for isnāt true anarchy. Youāre still in favor of a central authority, just one thatās structured differently. Now direct democracy does have itās strengths and drawbacks, and we can discuss the merits of that later, but for now I want to focus on a particular concept, and thatās the idea of entirely voluntary governance.
The idea of an entirely voluntary government sounds very appealing, however, I think itās one of those ideas that sounds better than it actually is. Letās think about it from a fundamental level, in order for something to be voluntary, there needs to be a person with free will making consensual decisions. However, consent is an inherently subjective concept and thus the standard for who can consent will always be arbitraryā¦ and if thatās the case who gets to decide the standard? This is something that has to be established at the very start.
Well who can consent? Can children consent? Where is the cutoff, and who decides it? If a community is split on whether or not 16 year olds can consent, do the 16 year olds get a vote in this discussion or are they sidelined? What if they donāt like the decision, can children disassociate and join other groups that say they can consent or not? How about disabled people, can they consent or do they not get a vote? Do they perhaps have someone else be their representative and make decisions on their behalf? But if thatās the case, and decision making can be outsourced for kids and the disabled, can consenting adults also outsource this power? Letās suppose people want to have a representative, is that allowed or is individual participation mandatory? If itās mandatory then who is enforcing this rule?
I hope you catch what Iām trying to demonstrate here. This is a concept thatās vague, and its implementation is rather complicated.
Economics is definitely not your forte lol
Youāre trying to combine standard market capitalism with the Marixst resource distributionā¦ but these two ideas contradict each other. Marxist socialism requires a strong, central, and authoritarian government in order to seize and collectivize all the means of production, property, wealth, and resources and then to centrally plan every single aspect of the economy to properly distribute the resources from ability to need. However, market capitalism is literally the opposite. It requires government to allow the markets to have some autonomy so they can function independently. Capitalist economies are decentralized and unplanned, and resource distribution is done through the markets on the basis of supply and demand. You canāt combine the two.
It seem your idea of economics is not based in reality. This isnāt the 1500s, our modern economies arenāt based on a bunch of framers and craftsmen who open up little shops to sell their labor and crafts. A carpenter building a house? Lol. Do you understand just how much labor goes into building a modern house? Not to mention that there are things that require way more labor, way more resources, and insane global supply chains to produce like cars, planes, and smartphones. These are not things that you can build without strong multinational corporate structures, and you canāt get them trade them through bartering.
Also, you think things like administration, banks, and mines arenāt necessary? Lmao, you canāt be serious. Iāll just say this, capitalism is a system that favors efficiency above all else for better or for worse, and itās really good at it. Everything that industry that exists and every product you see on sale exists because there are people out there who buy them. The demand exists, and so the companies provide. Things like banks provide value to the economy as they fill a niche, and thatās the reason why they exist.
Bring society to a point where everybody ideally agrees to prevent injustice? What does that even mean? The point youāre talking about is an ideal, itās literally a fantasy by definition. How can you possibly govern a society when your concept of justice hinges on the realization of something imaginary? Is an anarchist society just going to remain lawless until this ideal point?
The enforcement part is equally ridiculous. You can only enforce laws once everybody has agreed to the punishments? Why would any criminal or wannabe criminal ever agree to implementing any punishments against themselves? Good faith? Lmao, if criminals were operating in good faith then they wouldnāt be criminals. I think you understand the absurdity of this notion, which is why you acknowledged that prisons and authority might make a come back in an anarchist societyā¦ but if thatās the case then doesnāt that defeat the whole point of the anarchy experiment?
Ah ha! Finally stumbled you good, didnāt I? I think this is the core issue with anarchy and I think itās an inherently flawed ideology. Everything you said here relies on good faith whether itās governance, economics, law, justice, or self defense. However, we donāt live in an ideal world, we live in a flawed world, and in our flawed world good faith is a rather scarce resource. There are a lot of people in our society who are greedy, egotistical, selfish, jealous, hateful, evil, violent, and contrarian. Weāll always have murders, pedos, rapists, bigots, thieves, morons, frauds, and zealots. These are people who exploit the good faith of others for their personal benefit at the expense of others.
In a normal society, these bad faith actors are either deterred by the entity that has monopoly on violence or theyāre squashed by it. However, in an anarchist society, there is no monopoly on violence and so bad faith actors have no filters and are set loose. These people have no issue with violence or forcing others to do what they want, and so they will use violence to enforce their standards on to normal people and onto each other. Because each group or individual will have their own values, morals, and ideals there will be a competition of violence on who gets to enforce their standard. This type of chaos, disorder, instability, and violence is the reason why anarchy mostly exists as a fun thought exercise rather than a practical, viable ideology.
Itās all good.
I equate true direct democracy with anarchism. If there is a central authority, as in someone making decisions about me without me being able to either oppose their mandate either switch to another federation, then itās not direct democracy.
As far as iām aware, there is no central authority in what i described.
This is a very good question, and has multiple answers, as multiple groups can have multiple standards. Handling kids is an especially tricky part, but you could suppose having different schools with different systems, allowing kids to vote or not, and kids could choose where to go.
Your first paragraph is just you not understanding i guess ? You just seem to be unable to think outside of capitalism or marxism. Ultimately, you donāt give any reason as to why decentralized distribution of ressources is impossible, other that it is not either capitalism, either marxism ?
We also clearly miss eachother on a point, as i deduce from the
cars, planes, and smartphones.. My view of anarchism is coupled with an anyway necessary degrowth. Complicated objects like cars, planes and smartphones can obviously not be obtained on the same scale as current capitalist system. They could be obtain in a much much little number though, and then be distributed to people needing it most, and the repair/reuse system would fill in the rest (which would be the majority i guess). Weād also need less cars since you would be more free to choose where you live and work.On the
how much labor goes into building a modern housei clearly think it could be done in a communal way. I mean, the trickiest part are the spread of knowledge meaning many people have to intervene, and the machines used to accelerate the process, which could ultimately be transformed in either time or workforce. Sure, itās a long thing to do, not saying the opposite. But in the end, itās all made by workers, not by money or organization.Your talk about capitalism shows that capitalism favors profit, not efficiency. Those two aspects may intersect, but not all the time. For example, having multiple intermediaries in the process of selling food is good for profit, but is clearly not efficient.
You still think of laws as general object, the whole point that i made was to have no general laws, and rather local rules and decisions specific to each case, to adapt at best to every situation. This is precisely the more down-to-earth approach, rather than thinking that applying the same rule to thousands is going to have the same positive effect, we try to get the best result according to each situation.
Yes, there are criminals that acknowledge they did bad things, and are cooperative with people, even outside of people doing bad things out of emotions or other situation where they do not control themselves. They have an interest in doing so, since it would appease everything and enable them to live a normal life again. Ultimately, their main interest can be that if they are not cooperative, then the whole process gets stuck and they could be de facto kept in prison by their own choice, which is more ridiculous that what you describe.
You take a huge step in a wrong direction here. Anarchist societies do not need everyone to be of good faith, they need everyone to partipate. There is room for greedy, egoistical, selfish, healous, contrarian people, even hateful, evil and violent in some contained ways. We donāt need everyone to be nice, we need everyone to participate to groups where they feel confident, which i think youāll agree is a way more common trait than just good faith. There is of course still room for a lot of problems, but itās not based on good faith.
Itās also wrong to say that in anarchy
bad faith actors have no filters and are set loose.. They also face consequences as people will try to stop them : the difference is that they know they wonāt have to face an arbitrary punishment, but a kind of repayment that theyāll accept. You canāt say that there wonāt be consequences, you can say though that there wonāt be forced consequences.And in the end, states do not prevent such violence either : once again, wars, genocides, arbitrary violences and murders, organized crime, mafia, pedos etc. also exist, and worse than that, they may be amplified by state itself. So, while it will probably exist in anarchy, it exists in states too, in a different way, sometimes better, sometimes worse. Amusingly,
These people have no issue with violence or forcing others to do what they want, and so they will use violence to enforce their standards on to normal people and onto each other.is like the exact definition of monopoly of violence.Iām going to split my response into two separate comments as I feel like weāre having two conversations at the same time, and I donāt want to mix them up. Iāll reply to your criticisms in this reply, and then reply to your answers in another. I originally didnāt want to respond to your criticisms at all as our previous conversation is no longer relevant, however, thereās a lot that you said that doesnāt sit right with me and I just want to set the record straight before I move on. You donāt have to reply to this comment if you donāt want to, itās just here to voice my disagreements with your criticisms. You can just read and move on to my other comment.
Anyway, my response:
Youāre conflating two separate statements. I said that if you look at the evolution of human history, youāll quickly find out that states have won out over their alternatives. I think we can both agree (hopefully) that this is an objective statement. My point here is that there have to be reasons why things turned out the way they did, perhaps itās best to understand those reasons instead of dismissing them. My second statement is that states are necessary because they are the most efficient answer we have to govern on a large scale. States provide an institutional framework that allow for stability, order, justice, and large scale organization. Our disagreement on the second statement is the root of our debate. However, as you can see, these two statements arenāt used to justify each other, and thus combining the two and calling it circular reasoning is just a misunderstanding on your part.
I take big issue with this criticism specifically because youāre being dishonest. My original statement was that āpride is a universal human emotionā. Thatās an objectively true statement. People express pride differently, people are proud of different things, and different cultures have different ideas about it. However, all humans have it. You have it, I have it, we all do. Itās like happiness, sadness, or anger. The entire reason why I said this in the first place is to make the point that patriotism is a reflection of a universal human emotion. Keep in mind, I am not saying that patriotism is a universal trait, just that itās a form in which an actual universal trait, pride, manifests itself.
If you disagreed with the notion that patriotism is a reflection of pride, then thatās fine, we could have had a discussion about it. However, you chose to sideline my point in favor of taking up the position that pride is not a universal emotion, and specifically focusing on the literal meaning āuniversalā. However, this focus was just the red herring fallacy. You were focusing on a minor detail to distract from the point being made. If you actually want to double down on the notion that pride is not a universal human emotion then weāre moving past political opinions and entering the realm of science, and that means that you have to actually show me an academic study that counters the established science (example). Itās why I pointed out that your anecdotes donāt mean much in this case.
Now, I donāt think itās that deep and I donāt think youāre going to double down on this position, but I do think our exchange about this specific point up until now has been particularly frustrating because itās unnecessary. Iām sure you understood what I meant from the beginning because it was a very simple point.
Also, I find it weird how youāre accusing me of engaging in bad faith by saying Iām turning your arguments into strawmans, when the first example you gave is just you not following the chain of responses. You said that I didnāt answer why the legitimacy of violence isnāt an arbitrary choice. Well, letās find out why:
Original topic: whether or not someone supporting their country is radical.
Your response: someone supporting their country means supporting the monopoly of violence and thatās radical
Me: monopoly of violence isnāt inherently radical as it exists to regulate force which prevents chaos
You: all types of violence is radical and adding the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is arbitrary
Me: the distinction is the point, and the difference between regulated and unregulated violence is the difference between chaos and stability
You: distinctions in general are arbitrary in nature
Me: the distinction is critical as not all violence is equal, regulated violence by a society helps establish order which prevents unnecessary violence while unregulated violence by individuals does the opposite
And that was the last direct reply. Notice how the my responses directly respond to your responses? Notice how the conversation got specific but didnāt go off topic? Notice how you never asked me why the legitimacy of violence is not an arbitrary choice nor was that ever brought up? That means I didnāt misinterpret what you said, therefore I didnāt strawman you. If you felt like you need to add clarification or nuance or ask that either of me then just do that, but donāt call my direct responses to your points as strawman arguments when theyāre not.
Second, Makhnovshchina was not truly anarchist. They had an actual government that was backed by a military. So they had a full monopolization of violence and everything. The Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine stayed as the de facto government for 5 years until the bolsheviks took over. Thatās the reason why they were more functional than their anarchist counterparts elsewhere, like in Spain for example.
Third, similar to the point I made earlier, the failures of anarchy are intertwined. Anarchy collapses on itself because it lacks the means to do what a functional government can, and that is to maintain order, organize the people to do large scale projects, and defend itself and itās people. Because of this, anarchy will always result in another, more centralized form of government from crushing it and taking its place. The only way anarchy can work in the real world is if everybody in the world magically agreed to leave the anarchists alone, if some major power decided to protect them for some reason, or if thereās extreme levels of chaos and dysfunction in a society. Since none of these options are realistic or sustainable, anarchy is simply not capable of being a viable alternative to a state. I donāt think thatās a contradictory position.
Thanks for the splitted answer, it is a very nice choice. So here we go on the meta-discussion, cuz i think we still have disagreements on the nature of what we both said.
A - The circular reasoning
We indeed agree on the fact that human history shows that states have won out over their alternatives during the last 5 000 years, approximatively.
You seem to pretend that i dismiss the causes of this. As i said two comments ago in the summary, i simply hold a different explanation : you think states dominate because theyāre efficcient for stability, i think states dominate because they prey on other forms of organization. If you really think i dismiss this, i just give another explanation.
I maintain the circular reasoning part : to sum up how you turned it in your last answer, you say 1) states are the norm because states are necessary, and 2) states are necessary because they have advantages. But why do they have advantages that the other forms of governement do not have ? Your proof before that was āthere is only states that succeed, the other forms disappearā. So you just add one step, but in the end itās the same thing : on one hand, you explain the dominance of state by their necessity, on the other you explain their necessity by their advantages, which are prooved by their dominance. Either i misunderstand some part of your position, either it is circular.
B - The pride & the pride of being part of something greater
I owe you an apology here, as my last comment taken as is was indeed focusing on pure pride. I should have added that not only did i claim only some people lack it and not humanity as a collective, but more than that, i did not talk about pure pride, but āpride of being part of something greaterā, which we both agree is less common than pride itself. I donāt know why i didnt, probably just skipped to another part. This makes my strawmaning complaint stronger though.
C - Practice and theory
I dont say that practice and theory are entirely separate categories. They are different level of debate though, and you cannot answer one with the other. You can support one with the other, but not answer one with the other. To explain better, in your example of anarchy being a failure, there should be an actual problem (misorganization, miscommunication, etc) that leads to anarchy failure, and this problem could be linked to theory. Exactly as you said in your islamists example, the actual problems of islamists systems can be linked to qoran theory.
Funnily enough, the point i criticize you for is exactly what you criticize islamists for : when you give an answer on the practical side, they jump to the theoric side, and vice-versa. Itās strange that you can see that for them, but not for you.
D - Strawmaning
There is a misunderstanding here. My accusation of strawmaning is on the pride part, not on the arbitrary distinction of how to classify violence.
E - On historical matters
Thanks for acknowledging the historical examples. We indeed have a very different definition of stability and order (especially on political unstability, and internal fighting), but itās not the only explanation to our difference of explanation here.
One of them is the way you attribute the causes of events. When you say āAnarchists were crushed by Francoās fascist troopsā, it seems that you take it as a proof that anarchy leads to unstability. But to my eyes, the people responsible for unstability here are the state troops. I guess the first one is true on a broader sense, and the second one on this specific situation.
Another one is on the knowledge we have of it : iām not sure what you mean by
A lot of people tried to enforce their own justice and take governance into their own hands and thousands of people died because of this.. If itās about war, yes, anarchist armies are as other armies, they cause a lot of useless death. If itās about something else, iād be glad to learn about it !Last one is a bit of nuance, especially on the Ukrainian part : there was indeed a system of governement backed by an active military, and this leads to a form of monopolization of violence. But i would not call it a full monopolization of violence, as the military government did not take every decision, and let the regional committees take a lot of decisions, and the local soviets organize freely. Also, all of those systems (both military and governement) were organized along anarchist principles : direct election of delegates, immediate recall, autodiscipline (this one specific to army). To be clear, what i challenge precisely is : the extent of centralization of power (it existed, but it was quite diminished compared to actual state), the extent of monopolization of violence (it existed, but as there were fewer decision to enforce, the monopolization was less important), the non-anarchist aspect of the movement (it is clearly an anarchist movement using partially non-anarchist methods (but not only non-anarchist methods)).
Lastly, and iām sorry to bring the language part again, but here youāre giving good examples that the examples i gave were far from perfect. But the point you made before was that
you never get stability or order at any point. I claim that you did, during a few months in the Commune, a few years in some regions of Spain, and by short intermittences during the Ukrainian revolution. Sure, itās not much. And the reason why itās such little is another topic we discussed. But not much is not the same as nothing. This is, i think, the main explanation of our disagreement here, beyond slight adjustments (causes, knowledge, nuances). In the end, we are saying the same thing : i say āthere is a little bit of stability and orderā, you say āthere is not much stability and orderā.