You know, I’ve been political, and political about the fringes, for a very long time. I remember arguing with anarchists in high school. Ah, nostalgia! And for years and years I argued with anarchists, and I was always frustrated that they seemed to have the core of something good, but kept asserting the strangest things in support of it.
You know what helped me legitimately understand their views?
“Libertarian socialism” is, historically, a synonym for “anarchism”.
Replace that mentally every time you see “anarchism”, and “state” with “authoritarians” whenever anarchists speak, and the whole thing makes much more sense.
I’ve spent literal dozens of hours of my life over the years arguing with anarchists over the singular issue of “How is a state defined”, and got nowhere. I still think they’re wrong, but I accept that most aren’t going to change their views on how to define a state from an internet quarrel.
But if you get around to the fact that, to the eyes of people like us, what they’re advocating for is a much more democratic, much less hierarchical state, which is what their policy proposals for their theoretical community amount to, it shakes out to a much more sustainable model. When I’m sitting here defining state as “Decision-making bodies’ monopoly on communal coercion” and they’re sitting there defining it as “Unjustified hierarchy”, their argument of “Get rid of the state” is going to sound insane to my ears, but ‘translated’, so to speak, is less objectionable.
Now, one of the core issues that I still have is that I’m uncertain about the long-term viability of highly-mobile military conflict with a powerful organized state, but that has much more to do with questions of scale and OODA loops than an inability to effectively respond to violence conceptually. As far as internal stability or fending off groups of similar size (or even somewhat larger size, considering that modern warfare in particular privileges the defender), I think the historical performance of libertarian socialist militias shows that it’s far from an insurmountable task.
Thank you for this. I think it is a good way of explaining it all. Anarchists tend to have very specific definitions for things (whether they are academically accurate or not certainly varies, we sometimes like to change the definitions of things lol) that tend not to be understood by everyone else. Issue is we don’t really have better ways of explaining things. Cause I do feel defining being anti-state as simply being anti-authoritarian does lose some of the nuance, but when people either don’t agree with or don’t understand our definition of a state that nuance was lost to begin with anyways.
Since coming over to the fediverse I have always considered you to be an honorary anarchist. Its rare to see non-anarchists defending and supporting anarchists lol
Thank you for this. I think it is a good way of explaining it all. Anarchists tend to have very specific definitions for things (whether they are academically accurate or not certainly varies, we sometimes like to change the definitions of things lol) that tend not to be understood by everyone else. Issue is we don’t really have better ways of explaining things. Cause I do feel defining being anti-state as simply being anti-authoritarian does lose some of the nuance, but when people either don’t agree with or don’t understand our definition of a state that nuance was lost to begin with anyways.
Of course - it’s really just a starting point for people who can’t wrap their heads around it. I was in that position myself for years.
More realistically, and with more nuance, I would regard anarchists as generally being opposed to rigid and enduring institutions. For people like me who still believe in a traditional state, those institutions - even with all their potential for corruption, abuse, and hierarchy - are valuable stores of institutional and tribal knowledge which would be lost with a majority-ad hoc system of government reliant on direct democracy.
Not only that, but what anarchists would probably regard as my inner authoritarian coming out, people do sometimes need to be told what to do. Anarchism, in my view, scales until the unified group is no longer capable of exercising overwhelming authority (and I apologize for the term) over the un-unified. Cities and even regions can be integrated into an anarchist framework, but I’m of the opinion that it begins to fall apart beyond that, as people of different communities struggle to equate each other as exactly as important as themselves/their neighbors. The NIMBY problem on a large scale.
While I find the State useful in more situations than just this, it’s here where I find the traditional State truly necessary in cracking the whip on enforcement of regionally unpopular initiatives. People who find agreement on abstract principles can still become very ‘loose’ with those principles when it comes to being applied to them. I’m unconvinced that anarchist federative models have the same capacity to enforce static decision-making like that without coming to resemble a traditional state in basic form and function in the long-term.
That being said, I’d also be happy to be proven wrong - even if the theoretical display doesn’t impress me enough to prefer it over a traditional state, I’m happy to see other forms of power structure (that aren’t inherently ultra-shitty) remind the traditional state it’s not the only game in town.
Since coming over to the fediverse I have always considered you to be an honorary anarchist. Its rare to see non-anarchists defending and supporting anarchists lol
I consider that high praise! 🙏
While I definitely do have disagreements with even the basic end-goal of anarchists, I generally regard anarchism as both possible and desirable compared to present capitalist society; and that the anarchist undertaking of creating parallel systems of low-hierarchy power structures outside of the state to be both moral and necessary for a just, non-anarchist society. In my thinking, all power is based on implicit negotiation; having alternatives to state institutions for community services (including charity, regulation, security, etc) strengthens the negotiating position of the people relative to the state, which is almost always good.
We may disagree on whether to take Ol’ Yeller behind the shed and put the State down for good, but there’s a lot of room for cooperation leading up to that ‘end-decision’ - starting with restraining the ill-trained dog so he can’t savage anyone he damn well pleases.
Hey! Those are excellent ways of describing it. I kind of neglected the fact that it’s democratic in the extreme. Everything is voted on.
And yes, the concept of a State is non-existent.
Ukraine has had a long history of it for example. It never quite died either. And even plays a role in today’s conflict against Russian invasion.
Right at the start of the 2022 offensive, everyone east of Kiev was making improvised weapons, barricades etc, because they knew Russia would roll over them before the Ukrainian Military had moved enough personnel to evacuate.
They didn’t do it because it was their job, they didn’t do it for a sense of Ukrainian pride. They did it because it was their home.
You know, I’ve been political, and political about the fringes, for a very long time. I remember arguing with anarchists in high school. Ah, nostalgia! And for years and years I argued with anarchists, and I was always frustrated that they seemed to have the core of something good, but kept asserting the strangest things in support of it.
You know what helped me legitimately understand their views?
“Libertarian socialism” is, historically, a synonym for “anarchism”.
Replace that mentally every time you see “anarchism”, and “state” with “authoritarians” whenever anarchists speak, and the whole thing makes much more sense.
I’ve spent literal dozens of hours of my life over the years arguing with anarchists over the singular issue of “How is a state defined”, and got nowhere. I still think they’re wrong, but I accept that most aren’t going to change their views on how to define a state from an internet quarrel.
But if you get around to the fact that, to the eyes of people like us, what they’re advocating for is a much more democratic, much less hierarchical state, which is what their policy proposals for their theoretical community amount to, it shakes out to a much more sustainable model. When I’m sitting here defining state as “Decision-making bodies’ monopoly on communal coercion” and they’re sitting there defining it as “Unjustified hierarchy”, their argument of “Get rid of the state” is going to sound insane to my ears, but ‘translated’, so to speak, is less objectionable.
Now, one of the core issues that I still have is that I’m uncertain about the long-term viability of highly-mobile military conflict with a powerful organized state, but that has much more to do with questions of scale and OODA loops than an inability to effectively respond to violence conceptually. As far as internal stability or fending off groups of similar size (or even somewhat larger size, considering that modern warfare in particular privileges the defender), I think the historical performance of libertarian socialist militias shows that it’s far from an insurmountable task.
Thank you for this. I think it is a good way of explaining it all. Anarchists tend to have very specific definitions for things (whether they are academically accurate or not certainly varies, we sometimes like to change the definitions of things lol) that tend not to be understood by everyone else. Issue is we don’t really have better ways of explaining things. Cause I do feel defining being anti-state as simply being anti-authoritarian does lose some of the nuance, but when people either don’t agree with or don’t understand our definition of a state that nuance was lost to begin with anyways.
Since coming over to the fediverse I have always considered you to be an honorary anarchist. Its rare to see non-anarchists defending and supporting anarchists lol
Of course - it’s really just a starting point for people who can’t wrap their heads around it. I was in that position myself for years.
More realistically, and with more nuance, I would regard anarchists as generally being opposed to rigid and enduring institutions. For people like me who still believe in a traditional state, those institutions - even with all their potential for corruption, abuse, and hierarchy - are valuable stores of institutional and tribal knowledge which would be lost with a majority-ad hoc system of government reliant on direct democracy.
Not only that, but what anarchists would probably regard as my inner authoritarian coming out, people do sometimes need to be told what to do. Anarchism, in my view, scales until the unified group is no longer capable of exercising overwhelming authority (and I apologize for the term) over the un-unified. Cities and even regions can be integrated into an anarchist framework, but I’m of the opinion that it begins to fall apart beyond that, as people of different communities struggle to equate each other as exactly as important as themselves/their neighbors. The NIMBY problem on a large scale.
While I find the State useful in more situations than just this, it’s here where I find the traditional State truly necessary in cracking the whip on enforcement of regionally unpopular initiatives. People who find agreement on abstract principles can still become very ‘loose’ with those principles when it comes to being applied to them. I’m unconvinced that anarchist federative models have the same capacity to enforce static decision-making like that without coming to resemble a traditional state in basic form and function in the long-term.
That being said, I’d also be happy to be proven wrong - even if the theoretical display doesn’t impress me enough to prefer it over a traditional state, I’m happy to see other forms of power structure (that aren’t inherently ultra-shitty) remind the traditional state it’s not the only game in town.
I consider that high praise! 🙏
While I definitely do have disagreements with even the basic end-goal of anarchists, I generally regard anarchism as both possible and desirable compared to present capitalist society; and that the anarchist undertaking of creating parallel systems of low-hierarchy power structures outside of the state to be both moral and necessary for a just, non-anarchist society. In my thinking, all power is based on implicit negotiation; having alternatives to state institutions for community services (including charity, regulation, security, etc) strengthens the negotiating position of the people relative to the state, which is almost always good.
We may disagree on whether to take Ol’ Yeller behind the shed and put the State down for good, but there’s a lot of room for cooperation leading up to that ‘end-decision’ - starting with restraining the ill-trained dog so he can’t savage anyone he damn well pleases.
Hey! Those are excellent ways of describing it. I kind of neglected the fact that it’s democratic in the extreme. Everything is voted on.
And yes, the concept of a State is non-existent.
Ukraine has had a long history of it for example. It never quite died either. And even plays a role in today’s conflict against Russian invasion.
Right at the start of the 2022 offensive, everyone east of Kiev was making improvised weapons, barricades etc, because they knew Russia would roll over them before the Ukrainian Military had moved enough personnel to evacuate.
They didn’t do it because it was their job, they didn’t do it for a sense of Ukrainian pride. They did it because it was their home.