this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
1057 points (93.7% liked)
Political Memes
8991 readers
2441 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
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.
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.
I'll first talk about these flaws, which i think can be summed up to one : you do not argue (at least not here). I think i'm right to say it's not an argument
because you use circular reasoning to say "There are only states, therefore they are necessary" and then "they are necessary, therefore there are only states". If you don't see the problem here, it will be hard to discuss, as it already has been.
you make an continuous use of the "general statement" argument that i talked about in my previous comment. You say something universal if taken as is, then claim it's hyperbole, and then say that examples i give are "anecdotal". 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). I'm 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 "Then why don't we see anarchists societies". When it's about examples of anarchist societies, its "They failed because anarchy is flawed as an ideology". 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 didn't push that "humanity as a collective lack pride as an emotion" (= 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 : it's 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 : "[anarchy] always collapses on itself" cannot be true at the same time than "The rest of the world is not going to coddle some anarchists ideologues" : either it collapses on itself, either it is some external intervention (spoiler alert : it was the second option).About your question, i'll answer it in a more general fashion than just about the US, because 1) i don't 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 it's 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 can't 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 ? It's 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 we're 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 people's 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 don't give food to the carpenter, they won't 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 don't 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, it's 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 "state of balance" 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 states' peoples). I don't 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, i'm 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 you're just an advocate for true direct democracy. I mean that's fine, but the point is that what you're advocating for isn't true anarchy. You're still in favor of a central authority, just one that's structured differently. Now direct democracy does have it's strengths and drawbacks, and we can discuss the merits of that later, but for now I want to focus on a particular concept, and that's the idea of entirely voluntary governance.
The idea of an entirely voluntary government sounds very appealing, however, I think it's one of those ideas that sounds better than it actually is. Let's 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 arbitrary... and if that's 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 don't 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 that's the case, and decision making can be outsourced for kids and the disabled, can consenting adults also outsource this power? Let's suppose people want to have a representative, is that allowed or is individual participation mandatory? If it's mandatory then who is enforcing this rule?
I hope you catch what I'm trying to demonstrate here. This is a concept that's vague, and its implementation is rather complicated.
Economics is definitely not your forte lol
You're trying to combine standard market capitalism with the Marixst resource distribution... 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 can't combine the two.
It seem your idea of economics is not based in reality. This isn't the 1500s, our modern economies aren't 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 can't get them trade them through bartering.
Also, you think things like administration, banks, and mines aren't necessary? Lmao, you can't be serious. I'll just say this, capitalism is a system that favors efficiency above all else for better or for worse, and it's 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 that's the reason why they exist.
Bring society to a point where everybody ideally agrees to prevent injustice? What does that even mean? The point you're talking about is an ideal, it's 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 wouldn't 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 society... but if that's the case then doesn't that defeat the whole point of the anarchy experiment?
Ah ha! Finally stumbled you good, didn't I? I think this is the core issue with anarchy and I think it's an inherently flawed ideology. Everything you said here relies on good faith whether it's governance, economics, law, justice, or self defense. However, we don't 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. We'll 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 they're 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.
It's 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 it's not direct democracy.
As far as i'm 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 don't 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). We'd 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, it's a long thing to do, not saying the opposite. But in the end, it's 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 don't need everyone to be nice, we need everyone to participate to groups where they feel confident, which i think you'll agree is a way more common trait than just good faith. There is of course still room for a lot of problems, but it's not based on good faith.
It's 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 won't have to face an arbitrary punishment, but a kind of repayment that they'll accept. You can't say that there won't be consequences, you can say though that there won't 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.Let me ask you a question, let's suppose you committed a crime and your community wants you to face consequences for it, but you disagree with their terms... do you just disassociate and go to another federation to escape the consequences? This sounds like a very flawed system.
Is this not highly exploitable? If a bunch of pedos create a federation where they promote the idea of kids consenting, could they just not draw kids to associate with them? That sounds like an easy way for kids to get groomed and abused. Giving kids the ability to consent sounds like deeply flawed idea unless you have some mechanism that resolves this issue.
There are 4 main points that I want to address:
Decentralized distribution - Capitalism and Marxism are not everything in economics, but the two ideas you drew upon are free markets and Marxist style resource redistribution, and these two contradict each other on a fundamental level. Decentralized distribution CAN work but not on a grand scale like a society. People can choose to pool their resources together, others can choose to donate some of their wealth to charity, however, to manage an entire economy in this way, you need to be able to control everything otherwise you're going to face a lot of dysfunction due to lack of participation. For example, let's suppose a bunch of farmers unite and refuse to partake in the redistribution efforts because selling their crops to the highest bidder is in their best interest. In your system, these people can voluntarily disassociate, but if that's the case then your system is left with a huge shortage of food unless you buy from them the way they want or you find some magical way to replace their farms. If the former is allowed, then why would anybody with any sort of wealth participate? The only people who would are the needy, and so you will always be operating in a deficit of resources. Compulsion via taxes or property seizure have to be necessary at some point to make this idea work properly.
Degrowth - That's going to be a very hard sell for most people. If you're critical of the infinite growth model we have under capitalism, that's perfectly fair. However, economic growth does correlate with higher standards of living. Things like cars, planes, and smartphones might not be necessary, but they are luxuries that we want to have because they make our lives easier. Washing machines, for example, aren't a necessity either, but nobody wants to spend all day washing clothes by hand anymore. Washing machines are one of the biggest reasons why the suffragette movements took off, it's because a lot of women had more free time to focus on other things, like their rights. The point is that technology enables progress, and technology is a byproduct of economic growth. Asking people to forgo modern conveniences to live under harsher economic conditions is a recipe for violent revolution.
Money and labor - Of course money and organization don't build things, that's just silly. They serve different roles in the economy than labor. Money is just a tool that helps facility trade so we don't have to barter like in the stone ages. There is this common misunderstanding in far left ideologies that labor is the source of ALL value in an economy and that money is inherently bad, but money is just a tool like no other and it has no morals or intentions. As for workers, they're just one component of the economy, an essential component, but component nonetheless. Things like capital, entrepreneurship, technology, consumption, government, trade, and markets are also essential parts to an economy. An economy can't run purely on the labor of workers. You need to have all these things for an economy to run. You need to at least have organization for better coordination, hierarchies for accountability, and specialization for expertise.
Work - In any economy, there are jobs that are necessary but not pleasant like garbage collectors, janitors, and sewer workers. In Fascist or Marxist societies, these jobs are filled by force. The government assigns people to work them whether they like or not. In capitalist societies, these jobs are filled with incentives like a handsome salary or good benefits package. In anarchist society, how would these jobs be filled? You're opposed to both compulsion and financial incentives like profit. Do you have another idea to get people to do these jobs? Because I can tell you nobody wants to voluntarily go into a sewer to clear blockages.
The reason why laws exist in the first place is because they set an objective standard for society. Sure, all laws are arbitrary in nature, however, they still provide a point of reference, and that's vital for both prosecution and self defense. You're right that every case is different, however, that's what courts are for. Courts exist to provide the nuanced judgement needed for each individual case. That being said, the courts still have to work within the confines of the law, otherwise judgement is left entirely to the personal whims of certain individuals. If there are no general laws, then there's no standard. If a criminal killed somebody but is friends with the people who are casting judgement on him, then there's nothing stopping them for ruling in his favor even if he objectively did something wrong since they get decide the standard on a whim.
I'm not gonna lie to you, that sounds like a really bad idea. Think about it from the point of view of the criminal. Let's say suppose some guy is a religious nut who beheaded a person for criticizing his religion. He's clearly guilty, and he has zero remorse for what he did. In your system of justice, this person has the choice to avoid consequences or stay in a prison unless he decides to be cooperative. Unless the criminal is brain dead, they'll always choose to say they'll be cooperative every time whether they mean it or not. Now let's suppose this criminal is now back out on the streets facing zero consequences, and he comes across the family members of the person he murdered. The family members try to hold him accountable by telling everybody he's a murderer, and this criminal gets annoyed and kills them as well. Again, no remorse. He's now back in prison facing the same choice of staying in prison or being cooperative... what's stopping the cycle from repeating again? Is there a 3 strikes and you're out rule? Do you just keep repeating the cycle in hopes this criminal will eventually change? Do individuals have to kill him or imprison him themselves to get justice and a peace of mind?
I'm having a really hard time understanding your logic. You want a system that's entirely based on voluntary decision making at every step... however, there's no mechanism to enforce laws or contracts AND you're also not operating under assumption that people are going to participate in good faith, that's just an inherently flawed system. Having participation to feel "confident" as the foundation of a society is completely ridiculous. Since you acknowledge that bad people exist and will exist in an anarchist society, then you must also understand that these people feeling confident is NOT a good thing. There's nothing worse than bad people feeling enabled to do whatever they want. Having federations of islamists or nazis or marxists or white supremacists running around doing whatever they feel like with no recourse, as there are no laws or a greater authority, is as dystopian as it gets. These are people who follow ideologies that fundamentally disagree, hate, and actively seek to undermine your system and the freedoms it enables. It's a prime example of the paradox of tolerance.
You seem to have a weird view of what is arbitrary and what is not. How can you possibly call laws arbitrary but the lack of them not? Similar to what I said in the justice paragraphs, calling laws as a concept arbitrary is undeniably true, however, they also exist to provide an objective standard. Their objectiveness, and thus their legitimacy, derive their establishment by the state, which is usually seen as the collective will of the people. This doesn't mean every is perfect, but the idea of laws providing a common standard removes arbitrary prosecution and punishment. Laws allow everybody in a society to understand what is deemed wrong, why it's considered wrong, and what the consequences for it are. Without laws, there is no standard. People can be persecuted for any time and for any reason, and they can be punished in any way. All these decisions fall to the whims of select individuals who have the ability to change the standards as feel like. How is that not arbitrary? If anything that's as arbitrary as it gets.
Not all states are equal, and it's wrong to assume states are a monolith. Norway and Afghanistan are both states, but they're clearly VERY different from each other. Norway is one of the safest, most peaceful, most prosperous, most free, and most educated societies in the history. Afghanistan is the opposite. There's clearly good models and bad models for states. Yes, there are broken, tyrannical, and violent states. I'm against those too. However, there are functional, free, and peaceful states. I'm in favor of those. Just because some states are bad that doesn't mean the entire concept of a state is as well. Your logic seems faulty to me, it's like saying because malpractice happens, we should get rid of medicine and rely on self healing.
Also in case, we're not on the same page. I think monopoly of violence is inevitable. I disagree with your notion that it's a choice. I think it's a apart of nature and humanity. Since it's a part of our reality regardless, the discussion should about how we can best control and regulate violence to minimize it's negative affects.
Thanks again for a fair reply, and specifically for the use of example which really helps to make it all easier. I think it's mostly misunderstandings that would make our final position be discordant, but respecting the possibility of each other.
This kinda regroups with the justice part i think. I'll answer to both below.
Effectively, kids manipulation would be quite a problem, as well as manipulation of people in general. On the other hand, abuses committed on kids that are aware of those abuses could and are being greatly reduced when we stop considering their parents/teacher should have a full mastery of their lives.
I think that, as in our current societies, the best tool would be to have multiple groups dedicated to kids protection, that could follow kids education and step in when they feel there is some risk or anything, triggerring mediation processes.
First, even if economics were not the reason, it is true that the disassociation of any important group can be a problem, and food is a good one. One solution would be to have groups dedicated to feed everyone, as we already have.
Second, i think there is a slight misunderstanding here on the economics part. I'm not sure if free market can apply to what i think of if private property is reduced or abolished. In most anarchist systems, accumulation of wealth is seen as something to avoid, and then either prices should be fixed based on labour costs ony, either money use should be reduced to luxury goods or stopped entirely, either some other organization i'm not aware of. In both those systems, people provide the result of their labour in a non-wealth accumulative way, and expect people to do so in return. In this system, quitting the federation to start accumulating wealth would mean losing access to a free or cheap providing of services, which would be quite counter-intuitive. That is, unless you have ways to build a new federation or system that can function on itself, and then either it is purely some will of people to turn to an autonomous separate system, and that's ok, either it preys on the needs and work of people unwilling to participate, and then you fall back to the fight against authoritarianism.
We agree that degrowth is not the most shared desire. We also agree that it would be a bad thing to impose it on people.
But again, i'll probably pass for a nitpicking bastard, but not exactly "nobody wants to spend all day washing clothes by hand". We can agree on "very few people wants to spend all day .." though, but for this very few, the system i'm talking about has a meaning. Another argument for degrowth is that it will be necessary in any way (the actual system relies heavily on fossil energies, the production of which should or has started to slowly decrease, so appart from a new tech / energy source, the economic system behind will probably decrease too). Degrowth advocates also advance that mass consumption and especially capitalism produces the needs with the products. For example, we don't really need individual cars, except if living far from your work is the norm, We don't really need complicated washing machines unless we have complicated clothes, etc.
So degrowth is effectively something that may stir people away from anarchism, and for understandable reasons. But on the other hand, it remains good for people who accept or advocate for it, and there are good arguments if you happen to have to convince people to accept it. I fully accept if you take it as an additional argument in disfavor of anarchism, as long as you accept that it's not a complete dead end.
Well, i think we slightly disagree on what makes economy. I'm not sure what the exact definition of economy should be, but from what i guess, i'd make two categories. Some elements are kinda included in the very concept of economy and are there no matter what, even if in a very poor shape (i'd say organization, coordination, specialization, consumption). In that sense, there is some economy for gatherer/hunter societies. The other group is only needed for a good/growing/modern economy : technology, government, markets, capital, etc. They may be essential parts of some economies, but not of every form of them. I'd clearly put the workers in the first category, that is necessary in all forms of economy.
Now, i may misunderstand what you call economy, and it may be more than just the organization of labour. Then, i'll think i should have argued that it is not necessary as is, and simple organization of labour could suffice. The ability to product as much as capitalist societies would probably not be reached, but then we would fall back to the degrowth point.
Same as for washing clothes by hand, i'd make a distinction between what people don't want to do, and what they don't accept to do. In anarchist societies, there may be multiple ways to fill in works that no one wants : volunteering is the most obvious one, and the one you seem to "attack" (you were not aggressive, i just don't have a better word). Other ones, that can either be implemented from the start or considered fallbacks in case no one volunteers, are a rotation system or a random selection system. Every person able to do tasks could then partake. Now, it may rise some problems (like what if people have phobias, or really don't want to do things), and as it usually is with anarchism, the answer lies in individual adjustments : either people could do another task in replacement, either they could skip the task entirely if people are okay with that, either they could be accompanied, either if they really are reward motivated, they could get a special treatment if people are okay with that, etc.
I'd also like to point out that, at least here in france (which i'd consider as capitalistic), people doing unwanted jobs are not rewarded with
incentives like a handsome salary or good benefits package. They're payed quite the same as most manual jobs, which is less than a lot of desk jobs. What drives them to do those jobs is the fear of not having a home or food.Answering to both your 1st and 4th paragraph on justice here, and the first part on direct democracy.
It seems at first a fine nuance to say that courts are there to
provide the nuanced judgement needed for each individual case, but i think it hides the fact that this necessarily happens (possibly in a bad way). Laws don't apply themselves, and there is always someone to apply them, be it a judge, a cop, a bureaucrat, a mob, etc., and who decide how to apply them, be it severely, with clemency, abusively, etc.Imo, laws are objectively providing an arbitrary reason for arbitrary decisions. It is indeed objective in the fact that it exists publicly, but the content of the law is decided arbitrarily (as in, by specific people and outside of context), and applying the law is making a personal, therefore arbitrary decision. Even if a machine were to apply it, the abrirary of people who created the law or built the machine would make the output arbitrary.
In the context i presented, no one is deciding the standard on a whim and pushing it onto others. There has to be an agreement between both parties, peoples who are mediating it, and optionally the communities it would apply to. If everyone is super friend with the murderer, there would not be a discussion in the first place. This is why i don't consider this to be arbitrary : it is not pushed by someone onto another, but is rather a decision made in agreement with everyone it will apply to. This is based on the idea that the closest thing we can get to objectivity is multiple subjectivities, so the only way to escape arbitrary is to 1) avoid making general rules and 2) not letting a subset of person decide, but letting them all decide.
One misunderstanding is that you assume that a cooperative criminal means a criminal that roams the street. This is not the case, they don't just decide what happens to them if they are cooperative. It is an agreement with people, and apart from brain dead people, we could assume that they would like the criminal to be watched, or to go to a deradicalization institution, or anything that would significantly drop the chances of recidivism.
Now, you could say that a talented criminal could fool everyone long enough so that they agree to end those decisions at some point, but then it could happen in most judiciary systems, not just anarchist ones.
I meant what i said about participation for people with bad "feelings/emotions" such as egoism or greed. It's okay to have someone that gets more than the other in a community as long as other people are okay with that. It's okay to have some meritocratic people who want to be rewarded based on their efforts inside a community. It just shouldn't be imposed on people who don't want it.
Now, for islamist/nazis/tankies, there is something quite different since they precisely want to impose it on people who reject it. Laws from a greater authority is not the only thing capable of stopping such groups from emerging. Education, discussion, negotiation and ultimately justice system that i described can be used as peaceful ways to prevent them. They're not flawless, as are state solution, and it can come to violence in the end. But it's also not pure tolerance and freedom of being a bad guy.
My point is not that every state is the same, we obviously agree on this. It is not either that the entire concept of a state is bad because some failed. It is that in wars, genocides, repression, states are actually not failing : it is a part of their arsenal to maintain what you'd call stability and what i'd call their continuity.
I feel like the comparison with malpractice is unfair, because in malpractice it's not the actual advantages of medicine that's used to harm more. i'd more happily go with the example of the environment : states are like oil, it has a great list of advantages for humanity, and also has major disadvantages. Now to say if we should stop using oil entirely or just stop using it badly is another debate, and it's okay to assume that wanting it to stop completely is dumb, but i feel like it's more of a honest take since diasdvantages of oil are built into it.
I kinda disagree. I'd agree if you had said that violence is inevitable, but imo monopoly of violence is not built into humans. I'd agree to say that it's built into our current societies, but as we humans, they change and evolve, so it's not necessarily built in future societies. I still consider advocacy for monopoly of violence as radical, but i also recognize that it's okay to be radical, and it's a choice you have strong arguments for. I also thank you for your fair comments, you really try to understand something you don't seem to know much, and that's something i highly appreciate.