What do you think of Communism

[Ineptolia]

Um

[Portzania]

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.

Anarchism is when you imperialize. The more imperial you get, the more anarchical your society gets.

[Barunga]

Not really a fan failed as well

[El Lazaro]

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.

No, a state is when you have UN recognition. Most anarchist societies perished in 1945, but Somaliland and Taiwan are excellent examples of the UN not working anarchist societies in the present day.

[Kubra]

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.

No, a state is when you have UN recognition. Most anarchist societies perished in 1945, but Somaliland and Taiwan are excellent examples of the UN not working anarchist societies in the present day.

And yet, the fellas who subscribe to a thing called "anarchism" are entirely unaffected: the form of society they want remains what they want.
If I say I'm in favour of a flat 5% tax on all nerf gun purchases, 5% is 5% whether or not I call it a tax on assault weapons or a tax on buying toy guns instead of getting yourself a real one.

[Autarkheia]

ML = bad
other kinds = okay

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

'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.



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.

Is a definition that contaims 'legitimate' really a workable definition? Especially when dealing with anarchism.

This definition would mean only cops are the state, which is too narrow. Then again, if you extend it to 'authorised to order others to do so' then you include landlords, perhaps makimg it too broad.

[Elwher]

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.

No, a state is when you have UN recognition. Most anarchist societies perished in 1945, but Somaliland and Taiwan are excellent examples of the UN not working anarchist societies in the present day.

So, there were no states before 1945? Good to know.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Hispida's point was not that anarchism is wrong for using violence. Hispida's point was that so-called "anarchists", which have the most basic ideological principle of "not having a state" in practice just continue the state in order to enforce the illusion of a lack of a state. In other words; anarchism fucking contradicts itself... which is what you expect from an ideology who has no actual theory outside of "DESTROY AUTHORITY!".

Anarchism induces its own downfall by making it impossible to implement without the usage of authority and force.

There is absolutely a great deal of anarchist theory about the usage of force and even compulsion in the service of anarchist aims. I just quoted some of it. That you don't care enough to engage with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I don't know what you think you're gaining by tilting at this windmill of imagined anarchism like a Leninist Ben Shapiro.

Which is directly contradictory to the goals of an anarchist society. Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together... but at the same time, they are all for using force and compulsion and authority to PROTECT the idea of a stateless society. Sure, maybe it's imagined- maybe I don't know enough about anarchism... or perhaps it's just that anarchism is incredibly easy to understand because it's so basic.

Again, anarchism contradicts itself. It always has.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

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.

No, a state is when you have UN recognition. Most anarchist societies perished in 1945, but Somaliland and Taiwan are excellent examples of the UN not working anarchist societies in the present day.

False. A state is when you have a NationStates nation. If somebody out there decided it would be worth their time to create an entire nation dedicated to your country, you are a state.

[Qashlik]

I mean, we get cool memes

[Kubra]

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.

Is a definition that contaims 'legitimate' really a workable definition? Especially when dealing with anarchism.

This definition would mean only cops are the state, which is too narrow. Then again, if you extend it to 'authorised to order others to do so' then you include landlords, perhaps makimg it too broad.

"Legitimate" in the sense that when it's able to perform violence or authorise violence that most within a given political community, or most of those who actually matter, can believe to be so.
The simple answer is that Weber was not terribly concerned with whether or not the anarchist vision of society was a state or not. For one thing, anarchism was not an object of as serious study for him, since there were other political phenomenon and movements that were far more interesting to him. For another he had plenty of other reasons to hate anarchists (and indeed he hated a few), and these were generally of far greater substance than what we're going at here.

There is absolutely a great deal of anarchist theory about the usage of force and even compulsion in the service of anarchist aims. I just quoted some of it. That you don't care enough to engage with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I don't know what you think you're gaining by tilting at this windmill of imagined anarchism like a Leninist Ben Shapiro.

Which is directly contradictory to the goals of an anarchist society. Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together... but at the same time, they are all for using force and compulsion and authority to PROTECT the idea of a stateless society. Sure, maybe it's imagined- maybe I don't know enough about anarchism... or perhaps it's just that anarchism is incredibly easy to understand because it's so basic.

Again, anarchism contradicts itself. It always has.

What, you don't? And here I thought we were all marxists.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Is a definition that contaims 'legitimate' really a workable definition? Especially when dealing with anarchism.

This definition would mean only cops are the state, which is too narrow. Then again, if you extend it to 'authorised to order others to do so' then you include landlords, perhaps makimg it too broad.

"Legitimate" in the sense that when it's able to perform violence or authorise violence that most within a given political community, or most of those who actually matter, can believe to be so.
The simple answer is that Weber was not terribly concerned with whether or not the anarchist vision of society was a state or not. For one thing, anarchism was not an object of as serious study for him, since there were other political phenomenon and movements that were far more interesting to him. For another he had plenty of other reasons to hate anarchists (and indeed he hated a few), and these were generally of far greater substance than what we're going at here.

Which is directly contradictory to the goals of an anarchist society. Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together... but at the same time, they are all for using force and compulsion and authority to PROTECT the idea of a stateless society. Sure, maybe it's imagined- maybe I don't know enough about anarchism... or perhaps it's just that anarchism is incredibly easy to understand because it's so basic.

Again, anarchism contradicts itself. It always has.

What, you don't? And here I thought we were all marxists.

Need to be specific about that. Are you talking about "I don't contradict myself"? Are you saying "I don't want a stateless society"? Gotta be specific.

[Kubra]

"Legitimate" in the sense that when it's able to perform violence or authorise violence that most within a given political community, or most of those who actually matter, can believe to be so.
The simple answer is that Weber was not terribly concerned with whether or not the anarchist vision of society was a state or not. For one thing, anarchism was not an object of as serious study for him, since there were other political phenomenon and movements that were far more interesting to him. For another he had plenty of other reasons to hate anarchists (and indeed he hated a few), and these were generally of far greater substance than what we're going at here.
What, you don't? And here I thought we were all marxists.

Need to be specific about that. Are you talking about "I don't contradict myself"? Are you saying "I don't want a stateless society"? Gotta be specific.

The eventual statelessness is kind of on the masthead, man.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

There is absolutely a great deal of anarchist theory about the usage of force and even compulsion in the service of anarchist aims. I just quoted some of it. That you don't care enough to engage with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I don't know what you think you're gaining by tilting at this windmill of imagined anarchism like a Leninist Ben Shapiro.

Which is directly contradictory to the goals of an anarchist society. Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together... but at the same time, they are all for using force and compulsion and authority to PROTECT the idea of a stateless society. Sure, maybe it's imagined- maybe I don't know enough about anarchism... or perhaps it's just that anarchism is incredibly easy to understand because it's so basic.

Again, anarchism contradicts itself. It always has.

This is not a contradiction. You are free to use force to degend your freedom but not to limit the freedom of others.

Anarchism is a simple concept but for people born and raised under capitalism it is almost impossoble to grasp.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Need to be specific about that. Are you talking about "I don't contradict myself"? Are you saying "I don't want a stateless society"? Gotta be specific.

The eventual statelessness is kind of on the masthead, man.

I don't oppose statelessness. What I oppose is the Anarchist concept of the abolishment of the state, which is an unrealistic goal without the necessary societal conditions. One cannot immediately transition from capitalism to socialism, yes? The same is with immediately not having a state.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Which is directly contradictory to the goals of an anarchist society. Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together... but at the same time, they are all for using force and compulsion and authority to PROTECT the idea of a stateless society. Sure, maybe it's imagined- maybe I don't know enough about anarchism... or perhaps it's just that anarchism is incredibly easy to understand because it's so basic.

Again, anarchism contradicts itself. It always has.

This is not a contradiction. You are free to use force to degend your freedom but not to limit the freedom of others.

Anarchism is a simple concept but for people born and raised under capitalism it is almost impossoble to grasp.

I agree. Anarchism is a simple concept. It also still contradicts itself.
Furthermore, what is defined here as "freedom"? If one wishes to use their freedom to establish their own group or nation (or a state in the process), can you justify using force against them on the guise that they are encroaching on your freedom? No. At the same time, you jeapordize the existence of your anarchist society by allowing people to secede and form state societies. If you go to put them down, you are enforcing your authority and limiting the freedom of others... which is called a "state".

[Kubra]

The eventual statelessness is kind of on the masthead, man.

I don't oppose statelessness. What I oppose is the Anarchist concept of the abolishment of the state, which is an unrealistic goal without the necessary societal conditions. One cannot immediately transition from capitalism to socialism, yes? The same is with immediately not having a state.

Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together...

Which is, you know, exactly what we want, innit?

but at the same time, they are all for using force and compulsion and authority to PROTECT the idea of a stateless society.

Which is exactly what we we're about, innit?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

This is not a contradiction. You are free to use force to degend your freedom but not to limit the freedom of others.

Anarchism is a simple concept but for people born and raised under capitalism it is almost impossoble to grasp.

I agree. Anarchism is a simple concept. It also still contradicts itself.
Furthermore, what is defined here as "freedom"? If one wishes to use their freedom to establish their own group or nation (or a state in the process), can you justify using force against them on the guise that they are encroaching on your freedom? No. At the same time, you jeapordize the existence of your anarchist society by allowing people to secede and form state societies. If you go to put them down, you are enforcing your authority and limiting the freedom of others... which is called a "state".

I don't agree with that 'no'. You can stop them, because limiting the freedom of others is not freedom, it is power. And limiting the power of others without replacing it is not itself in violation of anarchist principles.

It is no bigger contradiction than the contradiction of liberty in liberalism or class freedom in Leninism.

[Nilokeras]

Which is directly contradictory to the goals of an anarchist society. Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together... but at the same time, they are all for using force and compulsion and authority to PROTECT the idea of a stateless society. Sure, maybe it's imagined- maybe I don't know enough about anarchism... or perhaps it's just that anarchism is incredibly easy to understand because it's so basic.

Again, anarchism contradicts itself. It always has.

Anarchism is not synonymous with pacifism, again. Anarchists are not against the use of force towards the enemies of the anarchist project. They wouldn't have been hucking dynamite into the Tsar's carriage if they had qualms about that. Anarchists and communists want the same thing as an end goal - a stateless society. Where they differ is their position on whether or not establishing or taking over a capital-s State is required to get there. States, after all, are not synonymous with the usage of force.

[Hispida]

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?

the petty bourgeois and peasantry, primarily.

[Nilokeras]

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

the petty bourgeois and peasantry, primarily.

The Makhnovists directly incorporated the urban proletariat into the Free Territory when cities were captured, and expropriated the lands and property of business owners. They ran into issues of course in trying to set up an economy because the peasantry were largely content with internal bartering while the urban population needed to buy food, but that’s something the Soviets struggled with too.

Which is really the difficulty if we’re trying to characterize the Makhnovist platform - it looks very much like the Bolsheviks’ stated platform. ‘All power to the Soviets’ and whatnot, but actually followed through on.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

I don't oppose statelessness. What I oppose is the Anarchist concept of the abolishment of the state, which is an unrealistic goal without the necessary societal conditions. One cannot immediately transition from capitalism to socialism, yes? The same is with immediately not having a state.

Anarchism wants a stateless society without authority... where people voluntarily work together...

Which is, you know, exactly what we want, innit?

Yes, you're correct. But the difference lies with how anarchism treats the state and how to eliminate it.
Anarchism states that the state and its institutions can be abolished instantaneously. At the same time though, implying that an invisible force and of one of such complexity can be just "disappeared" is willful ignorance.

Anarchism requires force to maintain itself- that's simply an inevitability, since all societies require force to maintain themselves. The problem with anarchism lies with what a "state" is even supposed to be, because as mentioned previously it is a complex force with numerous definitions, none of which can really "fit" statehood.
On the one end, one can argue that anarchism abolishes the state if the state is a "compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory"- as defined by Weber. At the same time though, the definition of "a political unit with sovereignty over a given territory" gives far more ambiguity to whether or not anarchism has actually abolished the state. Is a decentralized commune- just as an example- that still holds supreme power over the population not a state? Even if the commune is collectively ruled, it's unrealistic to assume that the entire commune will take part in the day-to-day running of the commune. Hence it's far more likely that a politically conscious elite will hold power and hence exert power (sovereignty) over the people.
Again, the definition of a "state" is complex and varies wildly between authors, but it seems to me that anarchism doesn't abolish the state but simply weakens it and states that it has.

Real "statelessness" is not only the lack of a state but the lack of a need to enforce the lack of a state. If one needs to enforce the idea that there is no state, then is it really any different from actually having one?

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

I agree. Anarchism is a simple concept. It also still contradicts itself.
Furthermore, what is defined here as "freedom"? If one wishes to use their freedom to establish their own group or nation (or a state in the process), can you justify using force against them on the guise that they are encroaching on your freedom? No. At the same time, you jeapordize the existence of your anarchist society by allowing people to secede and form state societies. If you go to put them down, you are enforcing your authority and limiting the freedom of others... which is called a "state".

I don't agree with that 'no'. You can stop them, because limiting the freedom of others is not freedom, it is power. And limiting the power of others without replacing it is not itself in violation of anarchist principles.

It is no bigger contradiction than the contradiction of liberty in liberalism or class freedom in Leninism.

So you can use your freedom to limit my freedom under the prospect of me exercising my freedom in a way you do not like. Gotcha.

[Apatosaurus]

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.

No, a state is when you have UN recognition. Most anarchist societies perished in 1945, but Somaliland and Taiwan are excellent examples of the UN not working anarchist societies in the present day.

This is not what the word "state" means. That an influential body does not believe an entity to be a state does not mean that it is not, in fact, a state.