What do you think of Communism

[Kubra]

The question really becomes whether or not a monopoly of force is synonymous with a state, I think - if a body of anarchists is using its local monopoly of force to repel state intrusions into the spaces they control, is that synonymous with being a state? Where is the line between state and non-state uses of force?

The answer is yes. If it's a monopoly on force, it's a state.

as I've said elsewhere: anarchism predates the weberian shorthand here. It defines state differently, and is not substantially affected by someone declaring a state something else.
Actually, you know what, why *is* a state a "monopoly on force"?

[Umeria]

The answer is yes. If it's a monopoly on force, it's a state.

as I've said elsewhere: anarchism predates the weberian shorthand here. It defines state differently, and is not substantially affected by someone declaring a state something else.

Well at least that makes it internally consistent I guess. Still don't see why a different definition of "state" means that we should view anarchism as anything other than a different form of government.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

This is a typical liberal conception: turning everyone into a cop or a judge. This presupposes a definite order where someone decides what actions one should and should not take, and thus it presupposes law and coercion.

In an anarchist system, justice would be more social. You yourself probably have some sense of how justice is managed among friends, without the need to revert to law. That principle can be extended throughout society, as long as no-one has power over one another.

I don't manage justice among my friends. If one of them commits a crime then the regular justice system gets involved.

But you do. Not for crimes (although I guarentee you would have your own reaction to a crime among friends) but for things that are taboo. Or do you think there are no bad things you can do outside of crime?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

as I've said elsewhere: anarchism predates the weberian shorthand here. It defines state differently, and is not substantially affected by someone declaring a state something else.

Well at least that makes it internally consistent I guess. Still don't see why a different definition of "state" means that we should view anarchism as anything other than a different form of government.

At this point you are purposefully trying to misunderstand the concept.

[Umeria]

I don't manage justice among my friends. If one of them commits a crime then the regular justice system gets involved.

But you do. Not for crimes (although I guarentee you would have your own reaction to a crime among friends) but for things that are taboo. Or do you think there are no bad things you can do outside of crime?

I wouldn't say any justice is managed in those instances either, but that doesn't matter. A system that relies on the law for any serious issues can't be extended to also cover those issues.

Well at least that makes it internally consistent I guess. Still don't see why a different definition of "state" means that we should view anarchism as anything other than a different form of government.

At this point you are purposefully trying to misunderstand the concept.

Mmm no, disagreeing with you is not the same thing as misunderstanding.

[Soldierlandia]

I don’t want to share my stuff








Does that mean i share my socks?
My FLESH?

[Kubra]

as I've said elsewhere: anarchism predates the weberian shorthand here. It defines state differently, and is not substantially affected by someone declaring a state something else.

Well at least that makes it internally consistent I guess. Still don't see why a different definition of "state" means that we should view anarchism as anything other than a different form of government.

You can, it's just kind of pointless.

[Nilokeras]

So this is just a generic point about governments requiring popular approval to function?

'Popular approval' is not required for a state to function. That is what the anti-baker law was for, after all - to compel bakers to do something they didn't want to do. What source legitimacy flows from and how it modulates peoples' interactions with the state is an important part of statist theory, and not something anarchist societies have to deal with for obvious reasons.

If I ask you "are anarchists incapable of misdeeds" and you say "surely anarchist justice systems could handle their misdeeds", it seems reasonable to conclude that you believe people in anarchist societies will sometimes commit misdeeds.

What is your position, if not that? I'd hate to make you defend something you don't even believe.

Very broadly, crime and criminality are functions of our socialization and material conditions. What we define as crime, how we decide to act towards one another and how we respond to breaches in the social fabric ('crime') are a function of how we organize our society, both in terms of our culture and the material conditions that society exists in.

The question I kept asking was 'in a society where there is no property, where people can access whatever resources they want at any time, and where people buy into that system of social organization, why would the bakers suddenly decide to become tyrants'? This is purposefully flipping the standard questioning for anarchists around on its head, where statists ask 'how would you stop the bakers from committing crime?' because its a useful illustration of how deeply our society draws from 'human nature' and inherent potential for 'criminality' in even conceiving anything as foreign as an anarchist society.

It helps us understand what is necessary for that utopia to exist.

So how does defining an anarchist society a 'state' help us do that?

[Hrofguard]

A wonderland on paper, a failed Experiment in real life. As Simple as I can put it

[Soldierlandia]

A wonderland on paper, a failed Experiment in real life. As Simple as I can put it

Yeah i agree with that \

[Umeria]

So this is just a generic point about governments requiring popular approval to function?

'Popular approval' is not required for a state to function. That is what the anti-baker law was for, after all - to compel bakers to do something they didn't want to do. What source legitimacy flows from and how it modulates peoples' interactions with the state is an important part of statist theory, and not something anarchist societies have to deal with for obvious reasons.

You're confusing popular approval with unanimous obedience.

If I ask you "are anarchists incapable of misdeeds" and you say "surely anarchist justice systems could handle their misdeeds", it seems reasonable to conclude that you believe people in anarchist societies will sometimes commit misdeeds.

What is your position, if not that? I'd hate to make you defend something you don't even believe.

Very broadly, crime and criminality are functions of our socialization and material conditions. What we define as crime, how we decide to act towards one another and how we respond to breaches in the social fabric ('crime') are a function of how we organize our society, both in terms of our culture and the material conditions that society exists in.

The question I kept asking was 'in a society where there is no property, where people can access whatever resources they want at any time, and where people buy into that system of social organization, why would the bakers suddenly decide to become tyrants'? This is purposefully flipping the standard questioning for anarchists around on its head, where statists ask 'how would you stop the bakers from committing crime?' because its a useful illustration of how deeply our society draws from 'human nature' and inherent potential for 'criminality' in even conceiving anything as foreign as an anarchist society.

Thanks for clarifying. My answer to your question is that some people commit crimes without a social or material incentive. So even if we have perfect socialization, material fulfillment, buy-in, etc. you still need some form of law enforcement because (and I don't think it's a human nature fallacy or whatever to say this) humans are not 100% rational creatures.

Now if I'm reading you correctly, you do think that people only ever do things when they have an incentive to. If that's the case then we'll have to just agree to disagree here.

It helps us understand what is necessary for that utopia to exist.

So how does defining an anarchist society a 'state' help us do that?

Not the whole society, just the apparatus it's using to protect itself against any internal or external issues that arise.

[Nilokeras]

You're confusing popular approval with unanimous obedience.

I'm not. 'Popular approval' is one ideological mechanism by which states derive legitimacy. It's not the only one. The end result is the same - acquiescence to state compulsion.

Thanks for clarifying. My answer to your question is that some people commit crimes without a social or material incentive. So even if we have perfect socialization, material fulfillment, buy-in, etc. you still need some form of law enforcement because (and I don't think it's a human nature fallacy or whatever to say this) humans are not 100% rational creatures.

Now if I'm reading you correctly, you do think that people only ever do things when they have an incentive to. If that's the case then we'll have to just agree to disagree here.

I'm saying people always have reasons for doing what they do. Those reasons may or may not be rational, but they are always constructed within the framework of acculturated human mind. Assigning criminality to the 'irrational' part of human behaviour is just another synonym for 'human nature'. It's a convenient bin that you can sweep all the distasteful behaviour in our own society into, dust your hands off and proclaim 'well all this stuff is just part of the human condition, nothing we can do about it'.

Not the whole society, just the apparatus it's using to protect itself against any internal or external issues that arise.

So how is the committee that runs maintenance and training on the anarchist aircraft carrier a 'state'?

[Umeria]

Thanks for clarifying. My answer to your question is that some people commit crimes without a social or material incentive. So even if we have perfect socialization, material fulfillment, buy-in, etc. you still need some form of law enforcement because (and I don't think it's a human nature fallacy or whatever to say this) humans are not 100% rational creatures.

Now if I'm reading you correctly, you do think that people only ever do things when they have an incentive to. If that's the case then we'll have to just agree to disagree here.

I'm saying people always have reasons for doing what they do. Those reasons may or may not be rational, but they are always constructed within the framework of acculturated human mind. Assigning criminality to the 'irrational' part of human behaviour is just another synonym for 'human nature'. It's a convenient bin that you can sweep all the distasteful behaviour in our own society into, dust your hands off and proclaim 'well all this stuff is just part of the human condition, nothing we can do about it'.

I didn't say there's nothing we can do about it. I said we can't get rid of 100% of it. Do you agree?

Not the whole society, just the apparatus it's using to protect itself against any internal or external issues that arise.

So how is the committee that runs maintenance and training on the anarchist aircraft carrier a 'state'?

It's a monopoly on force. This isn't going to go anywhere, we have different definitions of the word and its usefulness to describe society.

[Nilokeras]

I didn't say there's nothing we can do about it. I said we can't get rid of 100% of it. Do you agree?

How am I supposed to agree we can’t get rid of something you can’t even define?

It's a monopoly on force. This isn't going to go anywhere, we have different definitions of the word and its usefulness to describe society.

Yeah and I’m asking you to explain that definition. That you can’t seem to do that without a tautology and getting frustrated doesn’t bode well.

[Umeria]

I didn't say there's nothing we can do about it. I said we can't get rid of 100% of it. Do you agree?

How am I supposed to agree we can’t get rid of something you can’t even define?

Do we need a formal definition of criminal acts? I think we can take the "we know it when we see it" approach here.

It's a monopoly on force. This isn't going to go anywhere, we have different definitions of the word and its usefulness to describe society.

Yeah and I’m asking you to explain that definition. That you can’t seem to do that without a tautology and getting frustrated doesn’t bode well.

You did not ask me to explain the definition, you asked me why I considered it useful, and apparently didn't like my answer. Not much I can do about that.

[Hispida]

my point wasn't that anarchism uses violence. my point was that anarchism has, historically, resulted in the anarchist government using, or creating, its monopoly on force to maintain and support its interests: i.e. creating a state.

your quote from malatesta basically describes exactly why a post-revolutionary state is necessary. seems awfully anti-anarchist to me...

The question really becomes whether or not a monopoly of force is synonymous with a state, I think - if a body of anarchists is using its local monopoly of force to repel state intrusions into the spaces they control, is that synonymous with being a state? Where is the line between state and non-state uses of force?

i'd say so, yes.

a state is more than just a monopoly on force. a state is a monopoly on force used to protect the interests of the ruling class. in any revolutionary government, one class overthrows another: be it feudal lords overtaking patrician nobles, bourgeois republicans overthrowing feudal monarchies, the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie, and so on. there's no reason to assume an anarchist revolution would be any different. once one class overthrows another, the overthrown class is going to attempt to overthrow their overthrowers: the reaction to the french revolution, the reaction to the russian revolution, and so on. a revolutionary government has to use its monopoly on force to protect itself, ergo protecting their class dictatorship, ergo protecting their class with their monopoly on force, ergo utilizing a state.

[Kubra]

The question really becomes whether or not a monopoly of force is synonymous with a state, I think - if a body of anarchists is using its local monopoly of force to repel state intrusions into the spaces they control, is that synonymous with being a state? Where is the line between state and non-state uses of force?

i'd say so, yes.

a state is more than just a monopoly on force. a state is a monopoly on force used to protect the interests of the ruling class. in any revolutionary government, one class overthrows another: be it feudal lords overtaking patrician nobles, bourgeois republicans overthrowing feudal monarchies, the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie, and so on. there's no reason to assume an anarchist revolution would be any different. once one class overthrows another, the overthrown class is going to attempt to overthrow their overthrowers: the reaction to the french revolution, the reaction to the russian revolution, and so on. a revolutionary government has to use its monopoly on force to protect itself, ergo protecting their class dictatorship, ergo protecting their class with their monopoly on force, ergo utilizing a state.

Which is, of course, not the weberian shorthand in use here.
In any case, this is more or less wordplay. Nothing substantial can be garnered here.

[Nilokeras]

Do we need a formal definition of criminal acts? I think we can take the "we know it when we see it" approach here.

'Criminality' is easy to define, because it's simply acting in contradiction to the law. The rub you're going to run into by synonymizing 'criminality' with that wellspring of human evil evidently buried in the pit of our souls, of course, is that it makes smoking weed, Ted Bundy murdering women and Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat all emanations of that human capacity for evil.

You did not ask me to explain the definition, you asked me why I considered it useful, and apparently didn't like my answer. Not much I can do about that.

Your answer didn't make any sense, which is why I probed it. So far we're at 'a state is any organ that holds the monopoly of force', whether that be the US government or the guy with the biggest stick in the Paleolithic neighbourhood. Which is not particularly useful or convincing.

[Nilokeras]

The question really becomes whether or not a monopoly of force is synonymous with a state, I think - if a body of anarchists is using its local monopoly of force to repel state intrusions into the spaces they control, is that synonymous with being a state? Where is the line between state and non-state uses of force?

i'd say so, yes.

a state is more than just a monopoly on force. a state is a monopoly on force used to protect the interests of the ruling class. in any revolutionary government, one class overthrows another: be it feudal lords overtaking patrician nobles, bourgeois republicans overthrowing feudal monarchies, the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie, and so on. there's no reason to assume an anarchist revolution would be any different. once one class overthrows another, the overthrown class is going to attempt to overthrow their overthrowers: the reaction to the french revolution, the reaction to the russian revolution, and so on. a revolutionary government has to use its monopoly on force to protect itself, ergo protecting their class dictatorship, ergo protecting their class with their monopoly on force, ergo utilizing a state.

So what class was, say, the Makhnovists seizing power on behalf of?

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Communism is the devil of political ideologies. It has killed more than fascism, created mass murdering empires that oppressed millions, etc.
Say what you will about the evils of the West, I don’t see America building a wall to keep our people in. I see us building a wall to keep people out.

[Umeria]

Do we need a formal definition of criminal acts? I think we can take the "we know it when we see it" approach here.

'Criminality' is easy to define, because it's simply acting in contradiction to the law. The rub you're going to run into by synonymizing 'criminality' with that wellspring of human evil evidently buried in the pit of our souls, of course, is that it makes smoking weed, Ted Bundy murdering women and Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat all emanations of that human capacity for evil.

Not trying to do that obviously

You did not ask me to explain the definition, you asked me why I considered it useful, and apparently didn't like my answer. Not much I can do about that.

Your answer didn't make any sense, which is why I probed it. So far we're at 'a state is any organ that holds the monopoly of force', whether that be the US government or the guy with the biggest stick in the Paleolithic neighbourhood. Which is not particularly useful or convincing.

Yeah like I said we disagree on the usefulness, not sure what more you want here.

[Pangurstan]

In what ways does an anarchist justice system differ from a regular one.

Usually they're conceived of as being diffuse and having no particular devoted organs of justice, ie police, judges, etc because those are hierarchical instruments - the administration of justice is everyone's concern so things like community tribunals where disputes, misdeeds etc are brought forward and solved as a community.

Anarcho-feudalism in action

Seems like trying to abide by this moral stance is much less effective than just having laws. Which again questions why it needs to be prioritized over the supposed goal of keeping everyone fed and housed and stuff.

A society where everyone is an anarchist is equally 'effective'. You may disagree with how realistic that is, of course, as I would about the strange conception of bakers as being inherently evil. 'Effectiveness' is not a particularly good metric to measure thought experiments by.

It is if you advocate for establishing those thought experiments as societies

[Kubra]

Do we need a formal definition of criminal acts? I think we can take the "we know it when we see it" approach here.

'Criminality' is easy to define, because it's simply acting in contradiction to the law. The rub you're going to run into by synonymizing 'criminality' with that wellspring of human evil evidently buried in the pit of our souls, of course, is that it makes smoking weed, Ted Bundy murdering women and Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat all emanations of that human capacity for evil.

You did not ask me to explain the definition, you asked me why I considered it useful, and apparently didn't like my answer. Not much I can do about that.

Your answer didn't make any sense, which is why I probed it. So far we're at 'a state is any organ that holds the monopoly of force', whether that be the US government or the guy with the biggest stick in the Paleolithic neighbourhood. Which is not particularly useful or convincing.

Better to use the longer form, monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. That is to say: it's what in a given bit of land is allowed to beat, imprison, and kill, or of course authorise others to do such.

[Pangurstan]

The answer is yes. If it's a monopoly on force, it's a state.

as I've said elsewhere: anarchism predates the weberian shorthand here. It defines state differently, and is not substantially affected by someone declaring a state something else.
Actually, you know what, why *is* a state a "monopoly on force"?

Good point. A state is when you have a written constitution. Anarchists (the british empire) used to control a quarter of the world, so therefore anarchism will work.

[Kubra]

as I've said elsewhere: anarchism predates the weberian shorthand here. It defines state differently, and is not substantially affected by someone declaring a state something else.
Actually, you know what, why *is* a state a "monopoly on force"?

Good point. A state is when you have a written constitution. Anarchists (the british empire) used to control a quarter of the world, so therefore anarchism will work.

If that's your perspective then it is what it is, but it would be quite odd to an anarchist.