Anarchism

[Zottistan]

It doesn't matter how content the people are with it. Most people, after all, are content with the modern state. A hierarchy is a hierarchy whether it's accepted or not.


It doesn't matter whether they're standing on equal footing with other members of the commune or not, if they have a monopoly on violence (i.e., they are the only group legitimately allowed to use physical force on others, and are the most effective at using physical force), they are, by definition, a state.


I don't see how that changes the fact that it's a monopoly on violence, since a monopoly on violence can be held by bodies as well as individuals. It doesn't matter whether or not they're on equal footing, they have a monopoly on violence if they are the only group a) legally permitted and b) most physically able to use violence on people. Their social standing makes no difference.

Or, members could just accept a level of hierarchy in the military organization. A military organization doesn't equal a state, that's for sure.

It doesn't matter if they accept it or not, as I've said, several times...

A successful military organization is a state, or a part of a state.

If every individual can hold a monopoly on violence, than by your definition, everyone's a state. Which is cool, but a very absurd definition.

If every individual in a group has shared control over a body with a monopoly on violence, the group as a whole is a state, yes. That's pretty much what a modern democracy is, after all...

It's the widely accepted anarchist definition, according to Max Weber.

Come on, you think that these group of people that's specialized in defense and security is the only people who are allowed to pick up a gun and maintain security? Of course not.

If they're not the only people allowed to use violence, what's stopping raiders and state-like entities from forming?

Like I said, in such a society, everyone has the same duty and right to contribute in the defense and security of the community. It's not a monopoly if everyone could and able to commit such activity

It's a monopoly held by the community... All you're doing is shifting the monopoly to a larger group of people, or to the group making the laws/rules. Democratic policing is still policing, and a police force in any form can't function without a monopoly on legitimate violence. It doesn't matter if everybody in the community contributes, in the least.

EDIT: In fact most monopolies on violence in the modern world are held by communities and not small groups. They are largely consensual, or striking a balance between consensual and coercive, which is why I don't see the appeal of the anarchy-esque states that most anarchists support, but they are, nonetheless, monopolies on violence. The monopoly can be held by a body and not individuals, that's what you don't seem to be understanding.

[Zottistan]

Yes you said it would be voted upon, but how would you enforce the vote without coercion?

Self-conscience and individual responsibility.

Do you seriously think that people really need to be coerced in order to act upon an agreement? Especially if they have contributed a say in it? People are not that lazy or hard-headed you know.

The fact that people have rebelled against democratic decisions before shows that coercion will be necessary.

Many people are absolutely that hard-headed.

[Genivaria]

Yes you said it would be voted upon, but how would you enforce the vote without coercion?

Self-conscience and individual responsibility.

Do you seriously think that people really need to be coerced in order to act upon an agreement? Especially if they have contributed a say in it? People are not that lazy or hard-headed you know.

So everyone has to agree with the decision is what you're saying.
If they didn't agree with the decision then yes they might dissent, which happens all the time.

[Genivaria]

Self-conscience and individual responsibility.

Do you seriously think that people really need to be coerced in order to act upon an agreement? Especially if they have contributed a say in it? People are not that lazy or hard-headed you know.

So everyone has to agree with the decision is what you're saying.
If they didn't agree with the decision then yes they might dissent, which happens all the time.

And to add on to that, one of the biggest examples of people dissenting from the vote led to a fucking CIVIL WAR in my country.
So yes people will dissent if they disagree.

[Liberaxia]

So everyone has to agree with the decision is what you're saying.
If they didn't agree with the decision then yes they might dissent, which happens all the time.

And to add on to that, one of the biggest examples of people dissenting from the vote led to a fucking CIVIL WAR in my country.
So yes people will dissent if they disagree.

Which country do you live in?

[Genivaria]

And to add on to that, one of the biggest examples of people dissenting from the vote led to a fucking CIVIL WAR in my country.
So yes people will dissent if they disagree.

Which country do you live in?

The US.

[Sociobiology]

You do know that these 'stateless' society existed in an era where there were no advanced medical treatments, lack of ethical code in warfare, primitive method on warfare, and etc. Right? If an anarchist society did emerge from this era and beyond, it will inherit all those achievements that the modern society has, thereby preventing such high casualty.

I'll be surprised though if those figures came from anarchist communes in the Spanish Civil War, or the Free Territory of Ukraine, which is not the case here.

And the fact that all of the stateless societies before he Neolithic Revolution existed for SOOOOOOO mcuh longer of a time, more combat happened. If the statist eras were given the same amount of time, they could easily kill many more.

again NOT a cumulative sum. they are RATES. Or do you not know what the word percentage means.

[Sociobiology]

several dozen

(Image)

http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence
note this includes the most violent state in known history.
do you have a source for your claim?

You do know that these 'stateless' society existed in an era where there were no advanced medical treatments, lack of ethical code in warfare, primitive method on warfare, and etc. Right? If an anarchist society did emerge from this era and beyond, it will inherit all those achievements that the modern society has, thereby preventing such high casualty.

they also existed in a time without trained soldiers, firearms, or bombs, whats your point?

and while they might inherit those achievements without large populations they will not be able to maintain them.

Oh and two 2/3 of the stateless societies listed are modern ones

I'll be surprised though if those figures came from anarchist communes in the Spanish Civil War, or the Free Territory of Ukraine, which is not the case here.

maybe because both were states or collections of states, but sure find numbers for both of them and compare it.

[Sociobiology]

even then that risk is rather minor compared to the massive benefit education produces.

However, if a person is filled with half-valid knowledge, what good would that make to this person?

Better than a person filled with no valid knowledge.

The risk might be, as you say, relatively low but the potential outcome could be catastrophic for that person's world view.

as opposed to no education which is just catastrophic in general.

That is why I insist so much on a proper, objective and impartial education.

I would too if I thought it could be achieved. All we can do is encourage it.

my biggest concern with anarchists is every now and then I hear one claim the risk of government manipulation makes education to risky.
At which point I desperate wish for a way to let the person experience their life if they had not enjoyed the benefit of an education or an educated society.

One does not appreciate what is offered to him/her unless the time he/she comes to need it.

even then they don't because they don't realize what the alternative was. Which is why teaching people to think about contingency is important.

[Sociobiology]

So every decision has to be unanimous? That's a horrible system.

Not really, the commune could previously agree on how a decision could be taken with significant votes. Be it 2/3 of the votes, 4/5, 50% + 1, or unanimous, up to their taste.

so how is that different than a state?

[Liberaxia]

Not really, the commune could previously agree on how a decision could be taken with significant votes. Be it 2/3 of the votes, 4/5, 50% + 1, or unanimous, up to their taste.

so how is that different than a state?

It's not. It's really not. Most, if not all, anarchist philosophies are government in disguise.

[Sociobiology]

Ha ha, in only 2 days? The process, if it does happen, will surely take a ... somewhat longer time.

But, yeah, with all due respect to anarchists everywhere in this world, I believe that anarchism is untenable, unfeasible. People will come to realize that they have a desire for the presence of law and order in their lives, so that everything will not eventually fall into chaos and confusion. Those things, law and order, come with the establishment of a state and a government to govern the people. They need something to keep control and prevent things from going crazy.

If anarchism is unattainable then how has it happened before? Pressing questions here….

well if you define anarchy as a society without coercion and forced behavior modification, it hasn't.

[Sociobiology]

And the fact that all of the stateless societies before he Neolithic Revolution existed for SOOOOOOO mcuh longer of a time, more combat happened. If the statist eras were given the same amount of time, they could easily kill many more.

Again, the chart is in deaths per one hundred thousand. If the wars of the 20th century were as violent as pre-state warfare, then two billion people instead of one hundred million would be dead. Monopolistic power centers reduce violence.

at least SOMEBODY read it.

[Alaizia]

Ha ha, in only 2 days? The process, if it does happen, will surely take a ... somewhat longer time.

But, yeah, with all due respect to anarchists everywhere in this world, I believe that anarchism is untenable, unfeasible. People will come to realize that they have a desire for the presence of law and order in their lives, so that everything will not eventually fall into chaos and confusion. Those things, law and order, come with the establishment of a state and a government to govern the people.

We don't advocate for the lack of law and order, just the lack of a state.

There is no law and order without a proper state. There is only the law of the strongest.

[Sociobiology]

We don't advocate for the lack of law and order, just the lack of a state.

There is no law and order without a proper state. There is only the law of the strongest.

well there is, as long as you keep your society very small (~<300 people)

[Liberaxia]

Both anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism have government. The former is democratic while the latter is kritarchic. Both would be faced with disputes and both would be legislating.

[Norstal]

In your talk about an elected chain of command. That's a hierarchy, no? Or is there some different understanding of the word?


They would exist to put down state-like entities rising in the communes, thus they would have to have a monopoly on violence. The police can't police if the gangs are more powerful.

Shifting authority to the communes as a whole doesn't make the monopoly go away, it just divides it out among more people. There'd have to be some central elected body, too, deciding which militias are legitimate defense tools and which represent rising states (the whole reason this mechanism exists in the first instance). So there'd have to be some group, elected or not, with a monopoly on violence. Otherwise the communes would descend into tribal war.

Well yeah, chain of command could be described as a hierarchy, and it could be kept as long as the members are content with it.

Why do you think there has to be monopoly on violence? A group of people who specialized in defense and security and still standing on an equal footing with the other members of the commune could still get the job done. Here in Indonesia, we have these thing called Sistem Keamanan Lingkungan, or Community Security Board in English. Basically, it's a group of people in the community tasked with security maintenance. And although they received training and counseling (yeah you guessed it, from the state), they are pretty independent in how they work. Each community may have different shift patterns and methods on how to maintain their community's security. What's more, these guys are not legal protection units, they're just like the average community member with the same duty and rights regarding security. And they don't conduct 'monopoly on violence' like you said, since they are on equal footing with the other community members. Seeing that the crime rates here are lower than many other 3rd world countries (and even some in the 1st world), such system might actually work in an anarchist community.

That is until a Chinese Indonesian comes to live with them. Then it's rapey pillage murder time.

Please, don't bullshit your way out of this. Crime rates are low because they're not reported. I've lived there and if this is an example of anarchy that you can come up with, then I hope that it will never come to fruition because of how xenophobic and racist a society like this can be.

[Norstal]

Day 1 of Anarchy: You are all murdered by the former governments and soldiers
Day 2 of Anarchy: Democracy is reinstated

Except the Korean Anarchists, Spanish Syndicalists and the Free Territory of Ukraine, which each lasted a few years.

You have NO understanding of ANY anarchist principles, and believe we all advocate for Mad Max to become reality. Ignorance may be blissful to you, but stop spraying it on everyone else.

I like how anarchists keeps bringing up short lived societies as an example that their ideas will last forever. Like, really. Forget about the Roman Empire, the Japanese Empire, or the United States. No, we wanna live in the niche Free Territory of Ukraine, where the constant threat of being invaded by Russians is always high.

[Alaizia]

There is no law and order without a proper state. There is only the law of the strongest.

well there is, as long as you keep your society very small (~<300 people)

I doubt that. Besides, are we talking about a country or a small tribe?

[Tropicaniama]

I like how anarchists keeps bringing up short lived societies as an example that their ideas will last forever. Like, really. Forget about the Roman Empire, the Japanese Empire, or the United States. No, we wanna live in the niche Free Territory of Ukraine, where the constant threat of being invaded by Russians is always high.

Wow this guy is so clue less really do you know how bad life is for the less fortunate in each and every of the empires you named you say ''ho I wanna live in a great empire to be safe'' forgating that all those empire fell in blood, chaos, nucleard bombs, or planes hiting towers

[Ice Cold Pepsi]

A stupid ideology that I would love to see eradicated from Earth.

[Kuzestan]

It doesn't matter if they accept it or not, as I've said, several times...

A successful military organization is a state, or a part of a state.

It's not a state. The monopoly on violence is still on the hands of the state/community, they're just the enforcers.
Cars have engine, but we can't call the engine as a car, even though it's a part of the car.

If every individual in a group has shared control over a body with a monopoly on violence, the group as a whole is a state, yes. That's pretty much what a modern democracy is, after all...

It's the widely accepted anarchist definition, according to Max Weber.

Well yes, since the community enforced monopoly on violence as a whole, you may call them a 'state'. But, it doesn't negate the whole point of anarchism, which is a society without governing bodies. In an anarchist society, nobody governs no one.

If they're not the only people allowed to use violence, what's stopping raiders and state-like entities from forming?

The community as a whole of course. Like I said before, every members of the community has the same duty and rights to contribute to the defense of the community, whether they have the skill or not.

It's a monopoly held by the community... All you're doing is shifting the monopoly to a larger group of people, or to the group making the laws/rules. Democratic policing is still policing, and a police force in any form can't function without a monopoly on legitimate violence. It doesn't matter if everybody in the community contributes, in the least.

Yes, the whole community monopolizes on violence. The security organizations on such a society act based upon the laws agreed by the whole member of the community. But still, it's pretty much a society without any governing institutions.

EDIT: In fact most monopolies on violence in the modern world are held by communities and not small groups. They are largely consensual, or striking a balance between consensual and coercive, which is why I don't see the appeal of the anarchy-esque states that most anarchists support, but they are, nonetheless, monopolies on violence. The monopoly can be held by a body and not individuals, that's what you don't seem to be understanding.

I do get your point.

[Kuzestan]

So everyone has to agree with the decision is what you're saying.
If they didn't agree with the decision then yes they might dissent, which happens all the time.

And to add on to that, one of the biggest examples of people dissenting from the vote led to a fucking CIVIL WAR in my country.
So yes people will dissent if they disagree.

They dissent because they feel that their interest are being trumped over by the larger group's interest. That is a problem within a representative democracy, not every interest is being represented by the people in the government.

But in an anarchist society, which will have a smaller number of community members, sense of solidarity, brotherhood, etc. will be stronger. If there's dissent, there's only a small chance it would turn out to be a bloody civil war.

[Kuzestan]

they also existed in a time without trained soldiers, firearms, or bombs, whats your point?

Although we have advanced weaponries, we also have the advantages of advanced medical treatments, ethical codes in warfare, and so on. I think that reduces unnecessary casualties in war.

and while they might inherit those achievements without large populations they will not be able to maintain them.

Why not? Sure they can if they can manage to find the people specialized in those achievements.

Oh and two 2/3 of the stateless societies listed are modern ones

without the modern ways and lifestyle of today's society of course.

[Kuzestan]

That is until a Chinese Indonesian comes to live with them. Then it's rapey pillage murder time.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm talking about the concept of such security system. Which is appliable in an anarchist society.
Exclusive problems won't always appear in all sorts of scenarios

Please, don't bullshit your way out of this. Crime rates are low because they're not reported. I've lived there and if this is an example of anarchy that you can come up with, then I hope that it will never come to fruition because of how xenophobic and racist a society like this can be.

Well, guess what? any society can be racist and xenophobic, be it statist or anarchist. It's not a problem exclusive to the latter.