this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
1055 points (93.8% liked)
Political Memes
8806 readers
2651 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This view is flawed because it mislabels the state's 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 doesn’t 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 it's core is just a sense of pride, and that's 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 it's labeled as something else... 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 i've seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying "Violence is never a solution". 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, i'll add that organized violence can be undoubtedly far worse than disorganized one at times of war and massacre. Also, evolution from ~anarchy~disorder to "order" 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 "universal" 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, you'll find some people without any patriotism (way more than you think) and even without pride.
This is just a semantic deflection. You're appealing to a niche theoretical definition of anarchy while ignoring how the term functions in political discourse. The phrase “order over anarchy” 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 that’s an ideal, not a demonstrated reality. In practice, large scale societies without centralized authority have consistently struggled to maintain stability. So no, it’s not a mislabeling, it’s a recognition of the risks that come with power vacuums.
You’re collapsing moral judgment with structural analysis. Calling all violence “radical” might feel principled, but it flattens critical distinctions. The difference between a lynch mob and a court ordered arrest isn’t arbitrary, it’s the difference between chaos and legitimacy. The state’s monopoly on violence isn’t radical, it’s 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 weren’t peaceful utopias. Sedentarization brought war, but it also brought law, infrastructure, and medicine. Romanticizing statelessness doesn’t make it viable
You’re nitpicking language. “Universal” 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 it’s so politically potent. The fact that some people reject patriotism doesn’t disprove its cultural force, it proves that it’s significant enough to be worth rejecting. If you want to critique patriotism, start by acknowledging its emotional appeal, not pretending it’s some fringe anomaly.
I'm just refering to anarchy as it is defined in politics, not in common talk. Anarchy as disorder is not politics, it's 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 it's 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. It's like saying "X is not radical, because it's necessary for X".
I'm not as much denying the distinction as denying its actual positive impact. If you want another way to put it than "all violence is bad", see it this way : organized violence is easier to hold back but far worse when unleashed, disorganized is the opposite. I'm not denying their difference, i'm 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, it's to get the best of both. I don't like the "All we've known was bad one way or another so why bother making something better ?" argument.
Well mb, you were actually making a involuntary hyperbole. Just to be clear, "universal" is used to mean "literally all". You also used expressions "that everybody has" and "All people share" which makes me think that you are of bad faith here, and were clearly meaning to encapsulate everyone, but anyway, let's say that's not the case.
I then stand by my take : most anarchists i know do not feel patriotism, especially as in "pride to belong to a nation", and more generally as in "pride to belong to something greater". 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 that's 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 i'd 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 i'm not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after. I'd propose to stop there if we cannot bring anything useful other than "there are multiple opinions here".
So your argument here isn't about the actual application of anarchy, it's 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 that's quite meaningless since it doesn't reflect reality.
They're short lived because anarchy is flawed as an ideology and it always collapses in on itself. The world doesn't 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 they're derived from individuals. In a normal society, violence is monopolized, streamlined, and it's 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. That's an incredibly stupid idea that will result in a lot of unnecessary violence and dysfunction. You can't leave things like justice in the hands of individuals, it never works.
Yes, that's the point. It's not radical because it's 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 doesn't 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. There's a reason why through 10,000 years of human civilization, anarchy has never come out on top even once. Keep in mind, you're not arguing against tyranny here, you're 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 isn't a better solution. It's 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, it's 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, don't be pedantic and argue semantics. You knew exactly what I meant. My statement was painfully obvious, true, and straightforward. If you're actually willing to sit here and tell me that humans as a collective lack pride as an emotion, then you're just engaging in bad faith.
This is anecdotal though. Humans feel pride in being a part of a greater collective, we're tribal creatures. Just because you have a negative view of patriotism as a label, that doesn't mean that you don't feel this emotion under a different one.
Well, how would you define patriotism if not taking pride in your nation? You're right that patriotism is vague and hard to verify because it's an inherently subjective concept. The only thing that's 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 you're not up to replying to everything else, you can skip it all and just reply to this. I'll bold so you'll find it easier.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US government has collapsed in favor anarchy. In this scenario, you have the country in it's 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 "solidarity means"? 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? I'm not here to change your mind nor do I expect you to change mine. I'm 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.