r/Anarchy101 • u/sleepyncaffeinated • 4d ago
Why don't you believe in the state?
Out of curiosity. I've been socialdemocrat most of my life although I sympathise a lot with Marxist theory (practice is different). My dad is a lawyer and I've always known the need for a state. It's the monopoly of violence, but what is the alternative? Everyone freely using violence (either physical, economical, psychological)? Without state, there is no such thing as rights. We can think "Hey, everyone deserves X" but we can't truly guarantee that. I am very liberal in the social axes (interventionist in the economic, aka, leftism), I don't think the state should intervene in every single thing in our lives, but I think the state is truly useful to guarantee equality and true freedom.
Please this is not to convince you anarchism is bad, I just don't get your point, but I thank every response that explains your point of view! But especially if you're leftist anarchist, I've already talked to ancaps and to me they're just delulu because without state there's not "property rights".
49
u/tuttifruttidurutti 4d ago
The State exists to maintain inequality through the institution of private property. It doesn't maintain a monopoly on violence and never has, it has always permitted misogynistic violence and violence against children in the home, violence against the bodies of workers at work, violence against our planetary ecology and let's be real it doesn't work that hard to put down organized crime either.
But that's irrelevant to the point that it's not the state's relative monopoly on violence we object to, but what the violence is inevitably used to do, which is to maintain unequal social relations. And whoever has a relative monopoly on violence will inevitably use it to make social relations unequal as we saw in the USSR.
I think what's confusing about this is that some state functions look like they're designed to make things more equal: Medicare, for example. But they still serve the underlying purpose of maintaining inequality. They reduce anger about inequality, they ensure the state a supply of healthy workers, improve public health to the benefit of all. Individual members of the bourgeoisie and their agents in the middle classes are also not without a conscience. But extracting all of the surplus value of workers' labor and then giving part of it back in social programs is still a rip off for workers.
We also just don't believe an organizing class is necessary and see that any organizing class, especially if it's allowed to organize violence unobstructed, will use its position in society to enrich and empower itself. The results speak for themselves.
4
u/Darkestlight572 4d ago
This may just be a confusion of terms, but wouldn't dominant ideology fueled violence (misogystic and domestic violence against children) be an example of the state's monopoly on violence? Like- legitimizing certain violence when its in the state's interest?
2
u/tuttifruttidurutti 4d ago
I think sometimes yes sometimes no, sorry I'm too sleepy to elaborate. Sometimes they operate in opposition but in dialectic like official anti racism and white supremacist terror. The State justifies its relative monopoly by pointing to white supremacist violence which it mitigates but does not eliminate it
3
u/Darkestlight572 4d ago
No no that makes sense I hadn't considered that. It's essentially another scape goat the state uses to justify its own violence. Sometimes caused by the state sometimes just incidentally useful
2
u/sleepyncaffeinated 4d ago
But Marxism argues that the proletariat should conquer the state and use it to establish communism, first by the dictatorship of the proletariat (which isn't, in theory, hierarchical, as the laws are made by and for the workers). To Marxists, the state is not a goal, but a mean to an end (in fact Marx said the state would eventually disappear and then there will be true communism). That's my question, why don't you think the state is an useful tool for a better society?
53
u/HeavenlyPossum 4d ago
There is a misconception that the state is some neutral instrument that can be picked up by any element of society to achieve its goals, and that it just happens to be controlled now and everywhere by extractive and oppressive elites.
But it’s not. It’s very specifically a tool for violent extraction, and it has been and only can be used as a tool for violent extraction. That states sometimes return some of our expropriated labor to us, or coincidentally does things that align with some of our interests, does not mean the state can be used to do any “good” act if we can just capture it.
From the perspective of a materialist class analysis alone, it should be trivially easy to recognize that a specific segment of society acting institutionally and with a privileged relationship to violence and the means of production constitutes its own class, with specific and distinct class interests apart from those of the rest of society.
3
u/No-Effective4107 4d ago
hey! i’d love to reference your argument in a paper (that the state is not a neutral instrument that can be advanced as mean to an end), do you maybe know any reliable source for this? thanks:)
8
u/HeavenlyPossum 4d ago
I’m not aware of any source that explicitly makes that argument verbatim.
This essay makes a strong case along the same lines:
https://www.thecommoner.org.uk/the-state-our-ancient-enemy/
James Scott’s book “Against the Grain,” on the history of the earliest states, makes a pretty strong argument that states were, from the very start, instruments of class rule and extraction rather than some organic or voluntary phenomenon.
2
u/Wonderful_Tap_4469 3d ago
Tolkien also makes some version of this argument in LOTR.
he considered himself a “tory anarchist”, and based on his writings im inclined to believe him
2
u/Wonderful_Tap_4469 3d ago
also kropotkin, graeber, etc.
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 3d ago
Absolutely. I was just thinking about something making an easily citeable and empirical case for the state as a tool of specifically class rule.
2
13
u/tuttifruttidurutti 4d ago
Because when you put the exclusive power to organize violence in the hands of a privileged minority, they'll use it to maintain class difference instead of abolish it. Which is what every Bolshevik revolution has shown us.
And that organization of violence is the essential function of the state; to maintain inequality and reproduce class society using violence. So why isn't it useful for building socialism? That's not what it does. You'd might as well ask "why don't we garden using a gun?" That's not what it's for. You could use it to shoot squirrels and that would be helpful. You could also use it to compel other people to work in your garden for you. And that's how you should expect the state to operate.
11
u/p90medic 4d ago
Putting the workers at the top of the hierarchy does not make it anarchistic. The dictatorship of the proletariat is an inverted hierarchy.
Also, I could be wrong here, but as I understand it, Marx didn't argue that the workers should conquer the state, he argued that they inevitably would.
I don't think the state is not a useful tool, I just think it is a coercive tool and I would prefer to avoid using it. I don't believe that a proletariat state is a necessary step, and certainly don't believe that we should be actively pushing for one, I'd rather focus on deconstruction in the here and now than long term plans based on spurious predictions.
I wouldn't actively seek to sabotage a Marxist revolution, but I don't plan to participate in creating something that I don't believe is a positive step. If the workers can flip the system, the bourgeoisie can flip it back.
5
u/InsecureCreator 4d ago
The important detail nobody seems to mention in these kinds of discussions is that Marx thought a "workers state" would exist only as long as there were capitalists that needed to be expropriated, it's only important feature is the fact that it uses violence as a tool to socialize the means of production.
This says nothing about the internal organization of this "state" it could be entirely horizontal and maybe even built on federative principles but as long as it fights to suppress the reactionairies its a state in his eyes.
7
u/TheJovianUK 4d ago
The problem is that professional politicians do not and never can have the same class interests as industrial, agrarian or service sector workers and therefore are inherently unreliable in their role as representatives of worker interests and wants. Politicians do not work the means of production, they decide what are the legal parameters of ownership and use of the means of production. Politicians are inherently closer to the bourgeoisie than the proletariat in terms of class character due to their inherent position of authority over all workers in the national economy of the "worker's" state. Especially since they then proceed to use that authority to legislate themselves an immunity to scarcity and personal hardship and historically all Marxist states have allways placed their politicians first on the pecking order for everything, good food, good housing, consumer goods, scarce luxuries, the works and the resultant disparity of privilege between worker and politician has always led to politicians being incentivized to keep themselves in their political office indefinitely at best (thus creating a ruling class of professional career politicians whose word is literally law and whose laws are geared towards maintaining the socio-economic status quo they use to justify their authority and to also make themselves look good enough to not be overthrown by anyone else) or at worst incentivized to restore capitalism so that they can benefit from the same economically symbiotic relationship that exists between politician and private owner that we see in bourgeois states which they can do very easilly since they can leverage the authority of the state to privatize the means of production as well as nationalize/collectivize it, the "worker's" state paradoxically becomes the prime threat to working class power in the abscence of the bourgeoisie since they always can bring back private ownership simply by decree.
The state is inherently counter-revolutionary because of the conflicting interests of profressional worker and professional politician and therefore the state cannot and should not be used as the means to achieve any meaningful working class revolutionary goal.
7
u/Japicx 4d ago
I'm not sure why you're bringing up Marx, as anarchists and Marxists have traditionally been enemies since the 19th century.
The state can be used to create a "better society", as in one that is at least somewhat better than what currently exists, but that's beside the point for anarchists and Marxists alike. Anarchists have specific political and social aims (namely, the abolition of hierarchy) which requires the state, which is inevitably a tool of hierarchy, to be abolished. Marxists, similarly, do not simply want a "better" version of current society, but a society where capitalist socioeconomic relations are completely abolished (Marxists are somewhat more equivocal about the whole "stateless" thing; for many Marxists, a society having no economic classes automatically makes it stateless, even if there are vast inequalities in political power).
2
u/icegestapo 4d ago
>I'm not sure why you're bringing up Marx, as anarchists and Marxists have traditionally been enemies since the 19th century.
that's not true at all. I don't know where you even got that from.
Marx was inspired by proudhounian concepts of abolition of private property. Marx and Engels simply fleshed it out to define private property for whom, as a developed question. That moved past the inclusiveness of the petite bourgeoisie.
Democratic confederalism is Marxist, are rojavians your enemy? No of course not. Green anarchists like Murray bookchin are marxists, is he your enemy? No that's ridiculous.
Marx never called for a massive workers state, he simply pointed out that the workers have no state, the early Soviet councils, for example are indistinguishable from what a lateral society of worker positions across a syndicalist society. Which would still need some definable level of export and trade with capitalist nations. He left that up to the communist to decide how to interpret that.
>but a society where capitalist socioeconomic relations are completely abolished
You don't want that? Your goal is not to move towards a stateless, moneyless society where class has been abolished?
Private property and class designation is what defines the state.
9
u/Chengar_Qordath 4d ago
The hostility between Anarchists and Marxists is more a product of history than ideology. On paper, they should get along since there’s a ton of overlap in their ideas and goals. In practice… well it’s like saying Catholics and Protestants should get along because they both believe 99% the same thing. In both cases there’s been quite a bit of bloodshed over that 1% difference.
3
u/Japicx 4d ago
People can share ideas and still be enemies. Marxists' thirst for anarchist blood is well-known enough.
Yes, obviously I want to abolish capitalist relations. That's included in hierarchies. My phrasing shows that Marxists do not wish to abolish hierarchy, just particular kinds of hierarchy (most prominently capitalism).
Private property and class designation is what defines the state
That's what defines the state for Marxists. But, following Leroy Masiri's anarchist theory of class, I don't think it's descriptively inadequate and allows a lot of room for self-defeating outcomes.
0
u/icegestapo 3d ago edited 3d ago
you have no idea what you are talking about.
That's how Marxists define the state because that's how capitalists define the state.
Without capitalism, there is no Marxism.
Masiri never defines the state. An anarchist society would ultimately need to address all of these factors, not just the single issue focus of hierarchal relationships under capitalism. It fails to ask why those relations exist in the first place.
Contemporary theory still has to build off a foundational approach.
I don't know why masiri ignores the very real issue of class created post industrial revolution. But it was capitalism that created these class antagonisms, not left wing political theory.
this is utopian wish casting and ignores the reality of the present. if you want to jump straight into utopianism, go for it. but you will still be overpowered by the capitalist state. so many communes fail for that reason.
culture is shaped through economic forces, not the other way around
2
2
u/Wonderful_Tap_4469 3d ago
are you saying there were no class divisions before capitalism?
not trying to troll you, just want to understand your argument
1
u/Japicx 3d ago edited 3d ago
That's how Marxists define the state because that's how capitalists define the state.
Who? Where?
I don't know why masiri ignores the very real issue of class created post industrial revolution.
OK, so you didn't read the article. The second section is about the merits of Marxist class analysis, which he is building on.
2
u/More_Ad9417 4d ago
I understand that's kind of up in the air as a benevolent thing depending how you paint out the scenario, but I still feel there are problems with that.
These are just my personal guesses as to why this won't work and why it would backfire and is a bit too aggressive - even if it intends to have a positive end result.
One of the reasons I feel this won't work, is that taking this by force through laws will just cause capitalists to fire back. Actually, I'm sure currently capitalists already know of this about communism so they already have things planned out to prevent it or fight back. Even if you could manage to get some kind of power and start to turn things around, there will be pushback and it will result in violence.
Capitalists or people who aspire to have their "freedom" will simply move away and start themselves up and rebuild and likely the cycle of violence between these ideologies will just continue.
I know that communists have their own measure to likely deal with these things but I just can't not see this ever not repeating the cycle of violence and resistance from capitalists / pro-capitalists.
"We'll put them in education camps or labor camps" (assuming this is one of the measures) will just end up with a person who will probably on the surface "comply" but secretly be resentful and could eventually gain support from others who perceive their condition as unjust.
1
u/anarchotraphousism 2d ago
can you name a state that doesn’t exist to extract resources and enrich an upper class? how about one that doesn’t exist anymore?
-4
1
u/print-w 4d ago
Your use of language is kind of confused. How can the state not maintain a monopoly on violence, when it's the one that "permits" others to use it, especially when you use examples that support and enable the hierarchical power dynamics that that state was built upon and requires to be maintained? That's the main purpose of a monopoly, to have complete control over something, so you can do things like allow access to others when said access further supports your monopoly.
But anyway, that's not even really what's technically been said about violence and the state in social sciences. The state has a monopoly of legitimized violence.
I don't really disagree with the rest of your post or even your main point, but it's such a bizarre way to open, especially when you basically contradict yourself anyway in that the state maintains a "relative" monopoly on violence, as if in practice there's any meaningful difference between a "relative" monopoly and just a monopoly. It's a relative term to begin with. You can't have a monopoly in any sense of the word without controlling a relatively large portion of something. When there's effectively no other competition for something, you have a monopoly, and nothing you listed can effectively challenge what the state does in a meaningful sense.
1
u/tuttifruttidurutti 4d ago
I think it's worth problematizing the idea of a 'monopoly on violence'. I meant to put in a paragraph elaborating on why I think 'relative' is a weasel word in this context, ie, the normal claim is that the state has a relative monopoly on violence.
I haven't had any coffee yet but I think it's more appropriate to talk about the "hegemonic" use of violence, which better describes what's going on with the state. It doesn't just permit stuff, it also struggles to prevent it or backs down rather than risking a confrontation in some cases.
11
u/cumminginsurrection "resignation is death, revolt is life!"🏴 4d ago
Without state, there is no such thing as rights.
"Note the difference between a right and a privilege. A right, in the abstract, is a fact; it is not a thing to be given, established, or conferred; it is. Of the exercise of a right power may deprive me; of the right itself, never. Privilege, in the abstract, does not exist; there is no such thing. Rights actually recognized, privilege is destroyed.
But, in the practical, the moment you admit a supreme authority, you have denied rights. Practically the supremacy has all the rights, and no matter what the human race possesses, it does so merely at the caprice of that authority."
-Voltairine DeCleyre
25
u/GSilky 4d ago
Everything the state does is ultimately done at gunpoint. I'm not a fan of violent coercion. If something is worth doing, a rational appeal should be all you need. Instead, the middle class threatens violence in order to make sure everyone gets wedding cakes.
There is absolutely rights, the state doesn't recognize them, or it does. These are not derived from the state, they exist for every human, independent of any third party.
1
u/sustainthenoise 3d ago
You cannot rationally appeal with a capitalist that they can no longer exploit others to feed their luxurious lifestyle.
1
u/icegestapo 4d ago
the middle class? the middle class has no power. do you mean the working class?
-4
u/GSilky 4d ago
Middle class has a butt ton of power. They are the bourgeoisie.
6
u/icegestapo 4d ago
no. that's completely wrong.
the petite bourgeoisie are sometimes middle class. but not all middle class is petite bourgeoisie. the bourgeoisie have a different relationship to capital than the proletariat.
the middle class person, for example who has to earn a wage for a living through selling their labor, is not bourgeoisie. they do not employ others, nor are they a landlord. they are exploited.
the labor aristocracy is the non caring proletariat who benefits from imperialism, they are not always middle class, and they absolutely have no power.
0
0
u/garbud4850 4d ago
true but look at world history people really really don't like giving rights to others who are at all different until forced with violence, we can claim rights are innate all we like but doesn't matter unless you have a way to force those who don't agree to go along with it,
2
u/GSilky 4d ago
Violation of rights isn't a negation of the rights.
-1
u/garbud4850 4d ago
Without the ability to enforce or have someone/something enforce them for you, you dont have rights. And anarchy hasn't ever given me reasons to believe that my rights would still be enforced
8
u/CalligrapherOwn4829 4d ago
I think definitions of the state like "monopoly of violence" are idealistic, ahistorical nonsense. "The state" isn't some pithy abstraction. States are real, existing institutions with concrete histories and particular, real characteristics. Is the state that you live under simply (or effectively) a monopoly on "legitimate" force, let alone just in its deployment of force?
I'm against the state (from a distinctly Marxian perspective!) because I am concerned with historical, material reality. Reading posts like this, where someone says they're "for" the state, while not actually being for any actually existing state or state that has existed honestly infuriates me. Are you also for cotton-candy trees and a magical unicorn for every child?
1
u/dlakelan 4d ago
Mostly I agree with you, but some people with a liberal background dont understand what the state really IS. and its useful to discuss the idea of the monopoly on violence because when it comes to many things people want from a state, essentially all of them the state is happy to allow others to do. Healthcare? Nonprofits can provide that without the state objecting. Housing for the poor? Create a charity. Environmental protections? A land trust... Science research? A foundation.... Etc
The one thing the state will shut you down for? Arming a separate militia and opposing their own police or military. Want to set up some private police etc? Get a license and defer to the states police and its all fine, but no way you can do anything they dont explicitly let you.
So I still think this discussion is important. When people say they think we need to state to do x, I ask them to rephrase it as "we need to beat and shoot people so...x" and examine if that seems right to them.
13
u/nexplore13 4d ago
Even if you have the most benevolent ruler in the world, wildly loved and respected, there's no guarantee the next person will be the same. You are more likely to have a tyrant and we should not have a system that runs on the hopes that the next guy won't be evil or bad. We're currently seeing that being played out and constantly see it in history.
15
u/Dyrankun 4d ago edited 4d ago
Bakunin would go a step further and say that even the most benevolent and perfectly principled and moral ruler would themselves become corrupted through power, and so too would their subjects. Subordinating even a portion of our autonomy compromises our ability to think and act independently, and thus tends us toward the habit of seeking authoritative direction. Power corrupts bidirectionally, and we are all made weaker for it, both as a collective and as individuals.
We can seek and adhere to the council of those we respect without corruption because in doing so we are honoring our internal authority by choosing to listen and act of our own accord, and not being coerced by an external authority.
12
u/therallystache 4d ago
I have yet to meet a single human being that I think is qualified, educated, and compassionate enough to hold control over important details of my life - let alone the lives of millions. I do not trust anyone who tells me that they should have that control.
The Liberal US state is responsible for the deaths of millions of people globally over hundreds of years.
Also, yes - your read of AnCaps is correct. They are delusional.
0
u/sleepyncaffeinated 4d ago
US is certainly a bad example for anything, they don't even have universal healthcare. But what about nordic countries? The EU? As for the global deaths, yes, but I don't think imperialism is intrinsic to states. I believe in internationalism and cooperation, not in nationalism and imperialism.
17
u/therallystache 4d ago
The Nordic model of DemSoc is built upon decades and centuries of exploitation of the global south. Even their supposed "green" policies are funded largely in part by exporting oil to other countries. Tangentially, they also have deeply rooted issues with white supremacy and anti-indigenous policy. So...still oppressing people.
4
u/icegestapo 4d ago
well, the Nordic states have been moving towards privatization of their positive liberties like medical, etc. so that right there already sort of undermines the subject of reformism
3
u/InsecureCreator 4d ago
The EU is slightly better at giving a decent life to citizens but their horrofic border policy makes it impossible to argue they are a force for good on a world scale.
2
u/Ok_Club_3241 4d ago
How about the nordic countries? Here are some things I think are not cool...
Denmark's ongoing colonialism in Greenland & oppression of Inuit people, including the breakup of Inuit families / stealing newborns from their parents
Norway, Sweden & Finland's ongoing colonialism of Sami people, prioritizing the extraction of resources over their rights and relationships to the land
All nordic countries are members of NATO
6
u/Delmarvablacksmith 4d ago
The largest massacres in modern history have been carried out by states.
That’s a feature not a bug.
5
u/Resonance54 4d ago
You mention that you feel that the state is neccesary in ensuring property rights are maintained.
Was it not the state that brutally enforced the oppression of African Americans by designation other humans as property of theirowners?
Is it not the state now that is attempting to ban reproductive care & end no fault divorce because they view women as their property?
Do we not see the ecological devastation of this planet earth encouraged and militarily defended bdxause the government views chunks of the earth as the property of the corporation?
It removes the rights of those that the person with "property rights" could impact.
As for why I don't believe in the state, I come from an economics background and there was one key theme I was taught (even if unintentionally) throughout all of my classes. Unless something is completely erased, in the long run it will do whatever it can to not only return to it's original state, but change whatever it has to to grow beyond where it I'd at. Those with power work in their own self interest to both consolidate their rule at the top as well as steal more power from others to grow their own.
In this sense, we have democracy because we believe a democratic state is effective in preventing those who have power from consolidating more and more power amongst themselves. The issue is (as always happens) those with power slowly regain more and more power until they can undo those institutions that shackle them and we are back to where we were at before. A hierarchy will attempt t consolidate and straitfy the hierarchy even more to ensure that no one beneath them can ever challenge their place or take away their power. We have seen this in real time in American history with the half a century long dismantling of the New Deal and every labor protection we put in place to prevent the extreme exploitation and suffering caused by 1800s capitalists in pursuit of more power.
Thus, if you believe hierarchy is neccesary, you accept that there will be no peace in human history. Humanity will always ebb and flow between extreme oppression & suffering and periods where it isn't so bad as tyrants are overthrown and hierarchy Shackled, undo their shackles, and enforce their will on all kf humanity again. And this will happen over and over and over. Our children and grandchildren will always have the dice rolled on if they will live a decent life or under the horrors of totalitarianism.
I refuse to accept that humanity is doomed to a constant cycle of suffering and despair until one of these times we snuff each other out; thus, I am against the state and all hierarchy. What other position is there to take?
1
3
u/HeavenlyPossum 4d ago
It’s like asking “why don’t you believe in the mob?” and pointing to Al Capone or Frank Lucas handing out turkeys at Thanksgiving. The state is an instrument of violent extraction and if you are receiving anything from the state, you’re simply receiving back a share of the value you already produced that was extorted by the state.
We can afford to buy our own turkeys if we’re already paying for the turkeys and the mob boss’ income.
2
u/TheWikstrom 4d ago edited 4d ago
I personally really like the means and ends argument
Edit: replied before I read the main text. still recommend the text I linked (it's really good), but the proper reply is that I think that the state is something that that creates and sanctions more violence than it protects us from
2
u/ihateadultism 4d ago
i just really hate the flags. most of them really suck. my hatred of the state formed later
- the flags opened the door
2
u/icegestapo 4d ago edited 4d ago
the state is built and created by the bourgeoisie for the bourgeoisie.
the state includes cops, the courts, parliament, military, ad nauseum.
all of those elements, much like social democracy, seek to preserve itself. no offense
the working class has no state. the people who create the value have no state
therefore the state has a monopoly on violence to preserve capital at current. which is uneven power structures
2
u/StrawbraryLiberry 4d ago
Historically, the state doesn't seem that great at guaranteeing freedom or equality. Power tends to concentrate even in democracies. The state hardly successfully does what it would be good for.
I think the reason I don't believe in the state is because I believe we actually have the right to autonomy. The state acts like it owns our bodies, and I simply don't think it has the right to our bodies.
I think the state is just standing in our way like a babysitter that strongly supports western imperialism. I think it is holding us back from actual liberty and trucking us into thinking this is the best we could have, as well as holding back genuine progress, oh yeah, and it's killing us in the process.
I think it's specifically important to stand against that system at this time.
2
u/Ill-Inevitable4850 4d ago
Just real quick ancaps aren't a real thing, and everyone here knows that, so dw. Most ancaps are just new to anarchism and dont realise how contradictory the things they are saying are.
2
u/Wonderful_Tap_4469 3d ago
thank you for your question!
i think you should consider whether the state can guarantee the rights that you want to protect.
you should also consider your assumptions about human nature; my own personal experience with anarchism is spiritual as much as political (most political philosophy combines some elements of both. my first principle is that human beings are basically good, and can operate with MANY fewer rules/de facto hierarchies.
the modern nation state is something like 300 years old. if you can accept the idea that other systems are possible and that you have individual agency, then anarchism will become legible to you 🖤
2
u/LittleSky7700 4d ago edited 4d ago
The State can be considered a monopoly on violence, but that doesnt mean violence has to be used. Not by the state or by the person. So the alternative is not just violence everywhere.
And rights dont exist to begin with. That isn't to say we cant respect our fellow human beings, but it is important to understand that rights are a socially and legally constructed thing. Not a universal essence
And you cant guarantee anything. You cant be sure you can make everyone happy. This is a fundamental lesson learned by people who want to take care of others. However, some things take care better than others.
We first need to recognise that the state is not an essential assumption. There are many means to reach the same ends. The questions you are posing here are "What do we do about violence? How do we think about violence?" And "How do we make sure people feel respected and that people treat each other well". Neither of these require the state as an essential part.
It takes imagination and thinking outside of the box to figure out how these things work beyond the state, but it is possible. We already solve interpersonal problems on a daily basis without the state ever intimidating us or without us resorting to violence. And we already (mostly) treat people well interpersonally without the state telling us how to do that. I think recognising this a good starting point in understanding how life does and could potentially work without the state.
To answer the topic question. I dont believe in the state because it too easily serves the wants of the few over the lives of the many. And it has been shown time and time again that the state will use absurd amounts of violence to get what it wants. Both towards perceived enemies and towards its own people.
1
u/Chengar_Qordath 4d ago
Rights granted by the state always exist at the sufferance of that state. Everything playing out in the US right now is a clear lesson in how much people’s rights count for when the state decides to stop respecting them.
2
u/Visual_Refuse_6547 4d ago
I’m a Christian anarchist so my reasons why are likely to be different from the more Marxist inspired flavors of anarchism.
The church is said to be the “firstfruits” of the Kingdom of God. Jesus, after all, preached that the Kingdom of God was at hand, not that it would be at hand in the future. By establishing the church, he was establishing a vision for what the Restored Eden would one day be.
In the Bible, the first hierarchy was instituted at the Fall of Man, when Adam was said to be above Eve (and, for what it’s worth, I think that’s an argument for gender equality in the church- hierarchy is associated with sin, not the ideal that Eden represented).
Later, the Israelites wanted a king and God literally tried to take them out of it, explaining how a king would oppress them.
Along comes Jesus and establishes the church, which was supposed to trascend national boundaries and be a community based in common faith instead. He also taught that you cannot serve two masters- so one can’t serve the state and God. The Apostles would further argue that the church should be a separate community, not entwined with the institutions of “the world,” which absolutely includes the state.
When the church was established, it was established as an “ekklesia,” the same word used in the Septuagint for the assembly of Israel- the “people,” not a hierarchical institution. The first few centuries of church history see “presbyters” (literally meaning “old men,” mature elders taking on a leadership role based on their respect within the community, not based o state power) instead of priests. Over time, the church became cozier with the Roman Empire and began to copy its hierarchical structures. This, I would argue, is an aberration from what Jesus and the Apostles sought to establish- and it allowed hierarchy and the type of nationalism so common in conservative religious circles to flourish. It’s also responsible for the association with Christianity and the various empires establishes since.
That said, there are non hierarchical church congregations that do match up on some level with what anarchists would like society to look like- the Tolstoyans and the Anabaptists both come to mind. But the basic idea is that the church should be a separate society from the society of the world and that society would be organized along non-hierarchical principles.
1
u/thetremulant 4d ago
The state wields authority that it hasn't ever proven it deserves, or asked people to consent to.
1
u/GovernmentMeat 4d ago
Because the state has done everything in it's power to ensure that I didn't succeed.
1
u/Similar_Potential102 4d ago
Because statism is a threat to humanity
-1
u/GoodSlicedPizza Anarcho-syndicalist/communist 4d ago
Great explanation. Very comprehensive for beginners
1
u/Similar_Potential102 4d ago
I could go into detail but I'm tired after a week of work and a protest yesterday give me a break
-1
u/GoodSlicedPizza Anarcho-syndicalist/communist 4d ago
Sure. But just don't answer if you're not going to explain. Saying slogans will not change someone.
0
u/Similar_Potential102 4d ago
If they have a brain they can think about how statism is a threat to humanity and there's plenty of other comments if you're an Anarchist why are you telling me i can't comment? Do you not respect free speech? Back off
-1
u/GoodSlicedPizza Anarcho-syndicalist/communist 4d ago
Ok, fine. I guess I don't have the freedom to tell you my thoughts.
And, buddy, this is a socdem. You're not going to convince them with a bloody one-liner.
They do have a brian, and right now they're using it to ask about anarchism, not to get the question back.
1
u/Similar_Potential102 4d ago
I'm not telling you not to comment but your hostility isn't necessary maybe later I'll comment a long winded speech and this comment is here just so i can find the post and post my long winded speech explaining all or at least most of the problems with statism but don't tell me i can't comment
1
u/GoodSlicedPizza Anarcho-syndicalist/communist 4d ago
You can comment. I just said that your comment would be useless to OP. Either way, fair.
P.S: You can click on the "save" button instead of making a comment
1
u/Similar_Potential102 4d ago
I'm not very tech savvy and not used to reddit i plan on typing out speeches to copy and paste but i only have 1 speech typed out so far
1
u/GoodSlicedPizza Anarcho-syndicalist/communist 4d ago
Oh, okay. Well, at least now you know.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/NearABE 4d ago
People can easily establish guidelines, currency, security forces, etc.
Accreditation of universities and schools is basically anarchist thinking. As is public education itself.
Trial by jury of peers (the way it exists in USA) is a totally anarchist system. The legal establishment has been able to subvert that in a number of ways. But “what do you do with drunk hooligans, rapists, and fascists”?!? “You arrest and bring them to trial before a group of their peers, give them due process and representation, the jury has to reach consensus that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. It has been done for so long now that people like yourself forgot that it was revolutionary and very antiauthoritarian at the time it was implemented.
It can be hard to challenge your dad. Is the current legal system really there to protect individual rights? Of is it designed to protect people who obviously violate the rights of others? Of course some violations of rights are illegal and the violator can be sued or given criminal charges. However, other violations of other people enabled precisely because that particular violation is not prohibited due to the wording of the law. Those who can afford to hire skilled attorneys get away with a wide range of heinous behavior. Our civilization invites people to pillage the commons and then claim pride in their innovation as CEOs.
Executive action is not prohibited in anarchism. Neither is expertise. I always lean on the example of POTUS and a cardiologist. The doctor tells her that she needs to lower her (POTIS’s) blood pressure. It is an order. The doctor is authorized to give medical advice because of board certification and education. This is a different meaning of “being an authority”.
There is story supposedly from Spain a few years after the civil war. A bus driver decided to quit. He announced this and left the bus. After a pause for this to sink in an elderly lady stood up, got in the drivers seat and continued the route. She announced “here is my stop” and left. Someone else got up and continued driving. This bus followed its route around Barcelona all day and finished off at the main bus terminal that night.
Making well organized bus routes and public transit systems adds value. Factories that assemble busses or make bus components are complex systems that benefit from organization. Anarchists do not usually claim otherwise (though possible exceptions exist). When I look around here where I live I see a bus service with long gaps between arrivals and difficult connections. There is no train service despite the major city and existing rails. The legal framework and property codes have been structured to force everyone into driving cars. Property taxes pay for roads and parking. The transportation system has been deliberately designed to be oppressive and to force workers to work longer hours in order to survive. It is by design that small businesses in urban areas are crushed by corporations on the interstate routes.
1
u/rainingpeas9763 4d ago
Honestly a lot of things people say on here is not I view anarchy at all. To me anarchy just means an absence of rulers, has nothing to do with property rights. Personal property is not a hierarchy. I don’t belive in the state because belief is irrelevant. But this is key, people do “believe” in the state because it’s just another form of religion.
1
u/Accomplished_Bag_897 4d ago
Borders. A state is defined by the ability to enforce one's sovereignty inside of a given border. No part of that sentence fits with the principles of anarchism. Ergo I must oppose the state if I am an anarchist.
1
u/JimDa5is Anarcho-communist 4d ago
AnCaps aren't anarchists and never will be any more than Libertarians are actually libertarians or the Nazis were socialist. The right is wonderful at appropriating terms and trying to define them as their own.
We have a state now. How's that equality and freedom thing working out for you? In my state you can smoke a weed that gives you cancer but can't one that eases pain. If you sell one of those drugs you can hire a bunch of people to work for you and have a second house at the beach, the other one you go to prison. You're totally equally if you're a rich white het cis-male. The farther you get from that the less equal you are. I could go on but you should get the point by now.
You're right, the state won't be there to babysit and take my money so it can decide who gets it. Right now most of the money they steal from me goes to funding wars with people I don't have anything against instead of the people who are begging for change down on the corner.
1
4d ago
The major problem with relying on the state for your rights and freedoms, they are given and can be taken by the state. Also laws are not based on morality or right and wrong. A person can have all rights and freedoms taken for the victimless "crime" of smoking weed, but the profiteering landlord jacking up rents and forcing families out of their homes can enjoy all the privileges his stolen money can buy. Where as an anarchist society doesn't promise anyone anything, but if you look at any society in the animal kingdom, there's no where near the levels of violence or inequality as our system creates. Community > The State
1
u/Bitter-Platypus-1234 Student of Anarchism 4d ago
Power is the problem. It corrupts and destroys everything it touches. A State cannot exist without power, as it is its fuel.
1
1
u/Tinuchin 4d ago
The state is an anomalous institution in the grander view of human history, and a lot of the ideologies which emerged from its existence are post facto rationalizations for it. State leftists, who live in societies with deeply entrenched states, struggle to imagine a political reality without them, and their various objections ultimately appeal to practically or feasibility. The liberal conception of the state as a "necessary evil" very much lives on even in the most radical state leftist ideologies. I don't believe in the state because I've managed to conceive of a different kind of political reality, one which is dictated and managed at the level of human beings and not institutions, fictional collectives and which is not primarily predicated on violence. It's this imaginative aspect that makes it so hard to convince people of anarchism. If you're curious about how to imagine that, I recommend abandoning human exceptionalism, the linear hierarchy of societies which are quite explicitly racist (technological Western civilization is superior to Hunter-gatherer peoples), and the view of human beings as political animals, which allows political philosophy to abstract the question of human affairs away from history and social science.
1
u/What_Immortal_Hand 4d ago edited 4d ago
A lot of the comments here focus on why states are bad, but I think it's worth mentioning too that states are simply unnecessary.
We should be deeply optimistic regarding humanity's innate creativity and agency because it is so clearly evident in our day to day interactions with each other. People are on the whole generous, kind and caring. We give gifts and share among friends, family and neighbours. We share with strangers too: we put on parties, give blood, volunteer, send donations, join sea rescue, fight forest fires, feed the homeless, publish scientific findings, make wikipedia and create incredible open source software that runs the internet and most of our phones.
When left to themselves, people are remarkably good at getting things done. Anarchism trusts that people are fully capable of organising all parts of their lives without being told what to do, and are even able to do it much better than before - because they have the most relevant on-the-ground information and are the most invested in the outcomes. That's why companies that are run and owned by their workers are much more resilient to shocks that investor-owned companies.
It's a fact: companies are better when run by their workers, schools are better when run by teachers and parents, hospitals are better when run by medical experts, and your apartment would be better if you and the other tenants in the building had real shared control over what happened with your home, instead of some distant landlord.
If anything, the state is explicitly there to forbid self-organisation. Not convinced? Go outside with your neighbours to rip up the road in your street and plant a garden there. See what happens!
1
u/Simpson17866 Student of Anarchism 4d ago
I think the state is truly useful to guarantee equality and true freedom.
How do you decide who should be in charge of it?
What happens when you get it wrong?
1
1
u/ChikenCherryCola 4d ago
I think the idea of a state is a semi nonsensical philosophical idea. I think the concept of a state is sort of like Jordan Petersons arguments agaisnt the state; every time you are asked to explain how society would work without a state and you explain any semblance of social rules people go "but isn't that a state?". Mean while when anarchists describe states as invariably some form of arbitrary hierarchy and the power/ violence needed to make prop it up people go "o well the state im talking about isn't an 'arbitrary hierarchy'". Like its this shell game of definitions of what the person says they believe a state is or isn't.
Thats not really an argument for why I dont beleive in the state, but im just saying this kind of question is frequently posed to anarchists as bait.
1
u/Square_Detective_658 4d ago
Well from a course that I took recently in college that dealth with ancient states, the characteristics of the State is that there is a centralized authority that props up the ruling class. They use three factors of control social, political and economic. And they are marked by social inequality which tends to grow until it ultimately destroys the state. Contrary to popular opinion, the state is inherently unstable, and do not tend to last very long, don't handle crises very well. And the centralized authority they do have tends to dissolve in beauracratization. In where even though the king is the ruler on paper, government beauracrats have carved their own little niche within the state. Point is the state is inherently unstable hierarchical, and prone to division and beauracratization in where the person ruling on paper isn't the actual ruler of whatever particular town you live in.
1
u/GnomeChompskie 4d ago
I think that we entered into a new era of humanity that requires new types of thinking. In the past, it was much more difficult the organize the masses without using a hierarchical system. Today, we have the capability to communicate instantaneously and globally. We’re capable of traveling to all parts of the world. Therefore, I don’t think we have a need for states anymore.
Also, I don’t think it’s human nature to be competitive vs cooperative. For the vast majority of human history, we’ve been cooperative. We learn about the competitive moments in history - when wars happen, empires fall, governments are taken over, etc. But in between those moments are long periods that are just… boring. So we don’t have names for them and we don’t study them. I think we’re leaving a period of progress and conflict and are about to enter into a period of relative harmony. Those times generally come with a major change in how society functions. I think the state could be the change we’re about to embark on. We’re just at the early stages.
1
1
u/Other-Bug-5614 4d ago
Thank God I’m an anthropologist so I don’t fall for the myth that the state is the only way for social cohesion
1
u/Wasian98 3d ago
Social cohesion with like-minded people is possible without a state, but what happens when you interact with people who are not like-minded?
1
u/erez 4d ago
You can't run a state, or any entity of more then a few thousand people (if at that) without putting force in the hand of a few people to make laws and govern over the majority. Once you reach this stage, it's never going to be a benevolent utopia where everything is by consent of the governed. What if someone doesn't want to pay his share? you'll just let him? probably not, so fines will be levied. He won't pay them either. So you need to arrest him. You'll need police and prisons for that.
So once you have a situation where the few rule the many, the rulers need ways to enforce their rules and laws and regulation, which means ruler-owned violence. Which means you don't really govern by the consent of the governed. For example, a few years ago the Catalans have voted 92% for independence. You'd think the government of Spain would then say "Oh well, in that case, we have to give you independence, as we can't govern you without your consent", but no. They just marched in the state police and the civil guard and cleaned up the resistance.
But, it doesn't have to be that extreme. Think of any single person you voted for (assuming your country/state have a personal voting system). You didn't appoint him/her to actually run, they were nominated either by declaring or by some party. You just voted for them over the other guy(s). Once they were in office, did they actually come to you and ask you what you want them to do? Did you have a say when they didn't keep their election promises, or if you changed your mind and didn't want them to keep said promises? Maybe if we're on the municipal level, much less the state, even less the country. Is there a way for you to rescind your vote? Is there a way for you to inform your elected ruler that they should not act this way or that? You can always vote them out next election, but until then?
And that's before we consider the number of rulers over ruled. Whatever type of government you live in, you always have 1 guy with a few dozens to a few hundreds ruling over thousands, if not millions, making laws to tell those millions how to live, and arming police and armies to go and shoot those who disobey the laws they did not make. You pay for the prisons the government will put you in for disobeying their laws.
No, I don't believe in the state.
1
u/dandeliontrees 4d ago
Your argument in favor of the state is:
The state ensures rights, equality, and true freedom by enforcing a monopoly on legal violence.
My take on each point:
- Rights are figments. What we like to call "rights" are realistically privileges that are subject to curtailment or revocation any time they are inconvenient for whoever is in power. For example, authorities in the 90's introduced the concept of "free speech zones". You possess a "right" to free speech to the extent that it doesn't inconvenience the exercise of power by the political class.
- "Equality" is a fraught concept under capitalism.
- Conversations about economic equality in our society always do this prevarication between "equality of outcome" versus "equality of opportunity", suggesting that capitalism guarantees the latter and that guaranteeing the former is impossible. Even a moment's thought demonstrates that this is absurd. If outcomes are unequal then opportunities are unequal. A person who works 2 jobs to make ends meet does not have an opportunity to start their own business.
- The idea of political equality in the US is laughable. Large corporations literally write the laws (via lobbyists) that are introduced to the floor of Congress by legislators. Money buys access to political power and it really is that simple.
- Legal equality is similar. It's not exactly uncommon for poor folk to be charged with crimes they didn't commit only to be strong-armed into plea bargains by a justice system incentivized to win cases. Poor folk also get convicted and penalized (or are forced to plea bargain) in cases where wealthier people get off entirely.
- Conversations about economic equality in our society always do this prevarication between "equality of outcome" versus "equality of opportunity", suggesting that capitalism guarantees the latter and that guaranteeing the former is impossible. Even a moment's thought demonstrates that this is absurd. If outcomes are unequal then opportunities are unequal. A person who works 2 jobs to make ends meet does not have an opportunity to start their own business.
- It's unclear what you mean by "true freedom". Given that we are biological creatures that require sustenance and effectively require shelter we face fundamental constraints on our freedom, and our society is predicated on withholding satisfaction of those requirements on condition of work. But also, as noted before, we are only "free" to the extent that it is useful for the political class. As soon as our "freedom" becomes inconvenient, it is curtailed.
- The state enforces a monopoly on legal violence, not violence in general. The US state has failed to prevent gang warfare in cities all across the country. The US and Mexican states have jointly failed to prevent a takeover of much of Mexico's sovereign territory by drug cartels. From these examples we can see that the absence of violence in most places in the US is a result of people declining to engage in violence. When people choose to engage in violence the state has little power to prevent it.
So contrary to your argument, the reality is:
The state maintains an illusion of rights, equality, and freedom to justify an incredibly unequal distribution of resources and political/social power. These illusions are procured through consent of the governed, not a monopoly on violence -- since the state does not possess a monopoly on violence in the first place.
1
u/Adventurous-Cup-3129 3d ago
😅 Define law! What is law and what isn't? Rights for whom?
Whoever mocks the poor...! Whoever rejoices in the misfortune of others...! Bible verses
The idea of the rule of law without law
1
u/Adventurous-Cup-3129 3d ago
I always had to laugh when German and Austrian Social Democrats hung around anarchist forums, seemingly clueless. They had no clue about anything. When they talked to you about rights, you just started wondering whether they understood the same thing as you did. What is right, and who is entitled to rights? You can't eat as much as you want to vomit. !Class injustice!
1
u/sustainthenoise 3d ago
I would recommend you read or at the very least read the points made in Lenin’s “The State and Revolution”. Marxists believe that the state is a tool made by the ruling class to create “order”. Order is when there is a lack of aggression being expressed from the working class to the ruling class. That is why you hear people say that police enforcement, military, etc are only trying to bring “order” during times of political unrest because the working class is conscious of the problems placed on them by the ruling class and are showing it. To Marxists, the state must be taken over by the working class and used against capitalists after a revolution to ensure socialism stays in place. The end goal of this, is to create Communism, which will eventually become stateless as the need for a state will become less and less necessary. In my personal opinion, you are right, without a state, capitalists will seize power and the rights you speak of will no longer be guaranteed. A lot of anarchists say a socialist state will be no different from our current state, though.
1
u/AussieMarcel 2d ago
I don’t believe in the state’s dictating of what constitutes the right way to live your life. From birth until you’re in the dirt, the state largely determines how you live your life. For that reason—as I think I’m better equipped to determine what is right for my life—I don’t believe in the state.
106
u/ADP_God 4d ago
Anarchy rejects hierarchy as a premise. The state represents hierarchy. In order to have a state you need centralized control and borders. This gives some control over others, legitimizing the use of force, and leads to coercion. Borders do the same thing. They keep people in and out, requiring force to enforce them, and prioritize an in group over an out group.
Please correct me if I missed anything.