A thought experiment. : anarchism

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Well in the best case the participants of the revolt already have a clear framework of actions for these kind of situations. So we would just follow those. Examples might be things like "never make deals with the state" or "prefer peaceful solutions" etc.

If not, this would be a really good point to start doing this as a community via meetings and discussions. And from the sounds of it, the opponent is willing to give us that time via a ceasefire etc.

Personally, looking at the stae of the world right now, I would think a ceasefire would be benificial to to our side because we could rally global solidarity and invite folks to live on our land and in this way raising our collective power.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Weird that yours is the only comment willing to take the deal, justifying it with the same point as I.

Obviously this would be something decided by a collective meeting. I like to imagine that this post is that.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 hours ago

Weird that yours is the only comment willing to take the deal,

Maybe I could have been more clear, but I would be willing to negotiate. Of course you dont take the first offer and especially not when other alternatives (limited or unlimited) ceasefires are possible. I think a state recognizing an insurgent force and also granting it land is something that shows how good the conditions for negotiations actually are. State usually do everything to not have to do that.

Obviously this would be something decided by a collective meeting.

For sure, I just wanted to point that out because not everyone reading this post will have that in the back of their head / have much experience with anarchist thinking and decisionmaking

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 13 hours ago

This questions seems semi related to the plot of the book A Country of Ghosts by Margaret Killjoy. I think the book an interesting interpretation of how anarchist communities would maybe act in the case of a war against a state.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 day ago

They will leave you with the primary city and enough surrounding land to feed everyone.

Now that is what those in the business of war scientifically refer to as "one obvious fucking trap."

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The offer like this should either have guaranties implied or is not worth considering. What would those be?

Also, by offering this, they already recognize you as sovereign; it's time to loudly make this public and get support from some other countries/rally more people for your cause!

Thus, I find this scenario either extremely unprobable, either the state is losing so badly you are about to win, or it's a clear trap.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

guarantees

How the fuck do you trust those?

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 3 points 16 hours ago

Exactly; they make an offer, they need to come up with something they honestly do not want to lose. I have no idea what they could reasonably offer in modern world. In older times people had firstborns and such, now everyone is just a cynical asshole who could sell their soul for 0.01% profit margin. But maybe they want the peace for real, and get creative... at least something to consider and give a laugh.

Remember: the peace is always made with an enemy.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok, let's expand upon this.

The fighting has been going on for a while now. thousands of people have been killed, every day new causalities are ticking up on both sides due to small raids, but there is no end in sight. Nighter side has enough resources to push forward but, if you decline the deal the people of the state will start considering you unreasonable, push up support for the war and allow for more extreme actions to be taken against you.

No one from the outside is coming to help and due to the fighting the people who support you cannot get to you. This is presented as your only way out, it's either this or fighting to the last man.

The deal would stop the hostilities between you and allow for others sympathetic to your cause to join. There might even be a chance to negotiate for more territory down the line.

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You've missed the most important part.

The deal claims to provide it, but what will stop the state from not doing their part? I wouldn't be fighting someone capable of honesty, no state has that luxury today. What kind of guaranties could they provide? They are clearly lying.

It's an offer trying to objectivize my anarchland. I'll objectivise them instead, with a counter-offer! For example, let free passage of sympathizers and give me your firstborn to foster and grow up as an anarch! Something silly, they'll reject it and lose initiative, at least some part of it. I'll win time and be unpredictable. They are bargaining, they must be almost done.

Without guaranties - no deal.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be fighting someone capable of honesty

What if the fighting started accidentality? What if the state that is actually a pretty decent liberal democracy where there is a large amount of political freedom. Would you still be part of the revolt? and would you take the deal if, at least for the time being, the current government is sympathetic to your cause?

As for guarantees, what could they offer that would be enough? Lets say the deal gives you the city and surrounding area, opens up trade between you, and allows for free movement of people. There would be a guarded border on the state side but no troops or cops would be allowed inside. Or maybe a DMZ?

Also fooling them with a silly counter-offer is a really good idea, but a part of me thinks that it's kinda cruel to ridicule their genuine offer.

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 2 points 15 hours ago

As I said, I don't see myself fighting against Finland. I can always reason with decent liberal democracy and probably even convert them. Finland is effectively anarchic state - socialist, but you can trade all you want if you want; regulations are minimal and made by actual people, taxes are high (brutally progressive) but you know they are used for the community.

As you can see from modern conflicts, DMZ and stuff matter shit if your opponent is deragned maniac like Putin or Tump, and any ceasefire would be just them regrouping for final attack. They matter little if your opponents are "regular leaders" under pressure of international relations. Border rules are enforced at please of each side, and you'll need to force your opponent.

They'll need guaranties as well by the way. They sure are proposing something in their offer - if you are overgrown revolt, most of your forces might be guerilla (technically all they are non-coms and criminals by international law until you are recognized as a state). Removing your troops from buffer zone pretty much banning entry altogether or it means nothing. If you are not allowed to control execution of treaty, the buffer zone will be militarizred in 20 minutes.

And this Finland reference shows one more thing - the only guaranties in modern world, apart from nukes, are international alliances. You could be winning, but as long as the rule of triangle is in force globally, things can change, and without an alliance (real one, where you interdepend) you'll be crushed soon. So - just look at the map and see - make your state useful for someone you are not fighting against, produce something everyone needs, and be located where force needs to be projected - and you'll be reasonably safe. Do less - and you'll be eternal proxy war playground. Do nothing - and you will not be.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Thry can't be trusted. No deal

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think they can be trusted to act in their best self-interest and this deal is that.

It allows them to:

Stop the trickle of casualties.
Gain back most of the lost territory.
Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)
Win public support.
Have a sink for the more radical people in the populous. (Wanna live in anarchy? Go over there!)

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)

Wrong. The logistics is on the side of the capitalists - they will absolutely be able to take your city at a later date. If logistics is on your side it means you are winning the war, and have no reason to accept such a silly deal.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Why would they care about casualties?
Yeah but they want all of it, and will not be satisfied.
Yeah. Of course they would. Theyre authoritarians.
Would it? Do they care
They don't want that, though. They want to punish, make examples, and have slaves.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I imagine the state as more a liberal representative democracy. Some place that has freedom of speech and relatively fair elections. The kind of country that actually needs public support to enact their rule. Not an authoritarian hell-scape, I wouldn't trust any deal they make anyway.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I (barely) remember the 90s, when most people would say i lived in one of those. Nah, still dont trust it as far as i can throw it.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)

I would not take any risk

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I expanded on the scenario in the other comment in this thread. But what If you wouldn’t have a choice? If it's between fighting to the last person or taking the deal?

I would rather compromise and trust that the spirit that started this is strong enough to withstand any future attacks. With this time you have the opportunity to build up your defences, reach out to the people in the state and build networks that will keep you safe in case they attack again.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

With this time you have the opportunity to build up your defences, reach out to the people in the state and build networks that will keep you safe in case they attack again.

You can't. You have allowed them to isolate you in what is essentially a reservation - a bantustan. You ensured your inevitable collapse when you took that deal.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So you would rather keep fighting a hopeless war? Slowly losing people until they break through your lines? Alienating those in the state by allowing the state to paint you as warmongers? Instead of accepting a refuge and using what you have to keep fighting?

And is being a reservation really a problem? Why must it lead to collapse? You can start leeching all of the radicals from the state. Slowly building up a collective industry, maybe have some of those collectives/syndicates operate inside the state. If they pay tax why should the state mind.

I think there could exist potential in a dual-system. Obviously I don't like it, and would fight against it, but if it could be a path forward to practically achieve our goals should we not at least try to examine it?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

So you would rather keep fighting a hopeless war?

The fact that they are attempting to negotiate is proof that there's nothing "hopeless" about it.

Alienating those in the state by allowing the state to paint you as warmongers?

You mean that thng they are already spending untold amounts of treasure doing?

Instead of accepting a refuge and using what you have to keep fighting?

No enemy will ever provide you with "refuge." You pose an existential threat to their precious status quo - they have no intention of peacefully co-existing with you. They want to destroy you utterly and this (supposed) "offer" is designed to put them into a position from which they can eventually do exactly that.

And is being a reservation really a problem?

Why don't you ask all the colonised people of the world that?

You can start leeching all of the radicals from the state.

Are you typing this from within Rojava? Or Chiappas?

Now that is what I would describe as "hopeless."

Political tourism is not going to compensate for you giving up the fight when you had the capitalists on the ropes.

Look, I understand what it is what you are trying to get at... complete victory is an impossibility, even if this hypothetical scenario results in a Dien Bien Phu-style defeat for the capitalists.

But if you're going to negotiate, you're going to have to be in a position to get something more than simply being isolated into a nice, compact target that they can destroy at their leisure once they have recovered from the shock (which they will, because logistical capacity is on their side - not yours).

It's like ole' Sun Tzu says... don't waste your energy trying to figure out what the enemy's intentions are - concentrate on understanding what it is that they are truly capable of and base your strategy on that instead. That is how you avoid traps like the one you have hypothesised here.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I find it interesting that with just the description of "A state" you have immediately imagined a worst possible enemy for yourself.

they have no intention of peacefully co-existing with you. They want to destroy you utterly

Against a state like that I'm inclined to agree with you. If they truly have no intention of coexisting then obviously the deal would be a trap. However I would immediately ask how, in such hostile environment, did you manage to get a revolt started in the first place. My original scenario imagined a lot more liberal state that would not have enough power to stop the movement before it grew to open revolt, however with the monster you've imagined I don't think it's possible.

You pose an existential threat to their precious status quo

Do we? Is every person in the world capable of being an anarchist? What would you do with the people who don't want to be? To say we pose an existential threat to states is to say that no person would voluntarily choose to live in the state if they have the option. I don't know if that's the case but I do think that states think that some people will always be loyal to them.

Why don't you ask all the colonised people of the world that?

There is a crucial difference here they owned the land before. Our revolt is carving it out. Obviously being forced to a reservation by a colonial power is wrong. But I don't see this like that. It's closer to a revolt down-sizing in order to maintain cohesion.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Against a state like that I’m inclined to agree with you.

They all are like that. There are no exceptions. I truly hope that the pretentious fakery of these (so-called) "liberal democracies" has not lulled you into seeing these entities as something which they are definitely not - place the ruling elites of the most "liberal" state in jeapordy, and it won't take long for them to reveal what they truly are and always have been.

If they truly have no intention of coexisting then obviously the deal would be a trap.

They don't. Let's give one of these "liberal democracies" the benefit of the doubt (rather unrealistic of us, so only for the sake of the argument) Let's say you're dealing with a regime that has a Bernie Sanders at it's head - they offer the deal in good faith, you take it. In four year's time, you are now dealing with a regime headed by a Ronald Reagen - voted in literally because of the "weakness" of the Bernie regime when it comes to dealing with the threat posed by these "anarchist terrorists" - and now suddenly you have well-funded armies of right-wing paramilitaries perpetrating genocide on your enclave while property developers are lining up to sell it's land to the highest bidder. And that's just the start.

Have you never wondered why liberalism is so much more effective at maintaining imperialism than fascism is? That's why - the fascist is our weakest enemy.

Is every person in the world capable of being an anarchist?

That doesn't matter - an anarchist society (or something close enough) doesn't require anarchists. It only requires a society that has normalised said society being run from the bottom up - whether the people in such a society call themselves "anarchists" or not is irrelevant.

There is a crucial difference here they owned the land before.

That, too, is immaterial because the capitalist status quo will see and treat your revolt no differently. If they can isolate you, they can destroy you. If they can dictate what you can do economically, they can destroy you. If they can control you industrially, they can destroy you. If they can hamper you socially and politically, they can destroy you.

I truly wish anarchists would read about warfare with the same enthusiasm they read political theory - for an anarchist, it comes with the territory... figuratively as well as literally.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 hours ago

voted in literally because of the "weakness"

For that to happen there needs to either be majority in the state that think that way or a powerful enough propaganda machine to sway the general public. Not all states have that. If you are dealing with a country that has a well-educated population tactics like that simply won't work. This also outlines why it's vital for every anarchist movement to involve themselves with the general population as much as possible. So large portions of the population will think "oh those are the people that organise that game-night/open kitchen/workshop thing". At this point it becomes a lot more difficult to paint them as violent terrorists because people know them and have had direct interactions with them. It also becomes a lot more difficult to walk back your deal without spreading discontent.

that has normalised said society being run from the bottom up

Everyone in that society is by my definition anarchist. When you give up your dependency on authority you become an anarchist. I'm not using the term as they would I am using it as I would. So to specify: Do you think that every single person would be willing to give up their dependence to authority? Because if they won't they will form a state, when they do you need to coexist with that state.

That, too, is immaterial because the capitalist status quo will see and treat your revolt no differently. If they can isolate you, they can destroy you.

Reason I brought that up was to explain why I'm ok with political reservations and not native ones.
In this scenario you already are isolated. If the city they are giving you is no different from the land you already occupy and is just smaller then you aren't giving away any advantage. If there is some advantage in the area (Sea access, Narrow passing) I would try and argue that they give that instead.

[–] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Sovereign states can die

Anarchism