What Constitutes Anarchism?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

From a left-wing perspective, anarchism is a communist philosophy.
Anarchism opposes a state.

What is "the state" that anarchism opposes? If everyone directly voted to make wearing seat belts mandatory and have this enforced by law, does this constitute a state?

There are libertarians who consider themselves anarchists. The value that links them with the left, as I can see it, is an opposition to the state. Libertarian Robert Nozrick considers minarchism as inevitable, but what constitutes minarchism, for Nozrick, I wouldn't necessarily consider a state. To me, a state is hierarchical and implies inequality amongst decision makers.

Some anarchists suggest people will voluntarily cooperate because it is in their interests, but I am skeptical of this as a universal rule. Is a democratic enforcement of rules necessarily contrary to anarchist thinking?

I became a social democrat, democratic socialist, communist, and, finally, an anarchist. That was about three years ago. Political apathy and political uncertain kept me away from politics for awhile. Coming back to the ideals I once held, I find myself lacking clear knowledge and justification for some views.

With respect to anarchism, is "stateless," in the sense of a state of nature, really desirable? Shouldn't the opposition to "the state" exist as an opposition to the state existing as an entity. Society should simply be the rule of the people and the state should not be considered an entity outside of the people. If we wished to conceptualize anarchism as having a state, we would mean state = rule of the people.

Don't obsess over dictionary meanings of anarchism being in opposition to the state. I'm suggesting anarchism simply redefines the state to mean "rule of the people" rather than eliminating many of the functions it performs. Am I mistaken on this? If not, how does anarchism resolves disputes outside of barbarism?

[Invincible Summer]

From a left-wing perspective, anarchism is a communist philosophy.
Anarchism opposes a state.

What is "the state" that anarchism opposes? If everyone directly voted to make wearing seat belts mandatory and have this enforced by law, does this constitute a state?

The "state" which anarchists oppose is a centrally organized, hierarchical body which has an monopoly on power and use of force.

So after the revolution, anarchist communities would not be a "state" along these terms, as it would not be hierarchical and power is not monopolized.

However, it would, by Marxist terms, be a "worker's state." This is confusing, I know.


There are libertarians who consider themselves anarchists. The value that links them with the left, as I can see it, is an opposition to the state. Libertarian Robert Nozrick considers minarchism as inevitable, but what constitutes minarchism, for Nozrick, I wouldn't necessarily consider a state. To me, a state is hierarchical and implies inequality amongst decision makers.Most "libertarians" that consider themselves "anarchists" are 'anarcho-capitalists" who basically want little to no government and for the free market to reign free. These people are not anarchists.


Some anarchists suggest people will voluntarily cooperate because it is in their interests, but I am skeptical of this as a universal rule. Is a democratic enforcement of rules necessarily contrary to anarchist thinking?Well, if in an anarchist community, the means of production is collectivized and mutual aid is practiced, then for an individual to not cooperate it would just make life more difficult for them. Therefore, it'd be in their best interest to take part/include themselves in the worker's community and economy.

Enforcement of rules isn't contrary to anarchist thought if they have been agreed to through a vote. Anarchists are against hierarchy and illegitimate authority, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be any rules.


I became a social democrat, democratic socialist, communist, and, finally, an anarchist. That was about three years ago. Political apathy and political uncertain kept me away from politics for awhile. Coming back to the ideals I once held, I find myself lacking clear knowledge and justification for some views.Don't worry - we all feel that way now and then.


With respect to anarchism, is "stateless," in the sense of a state of nature, really desirable? Shouldn't the opposition to "the state" exist as an opposition to the state existing as an entity. Society should simply be the rule of the people and the state should not be considered an entity outside of the people. If we wished to conceptualize anarchism as having a state, we would mean state = rule of the people.

Don't obsess over dictionary meanings of anarchism being in opposition to the state. I'm suggesting anarchism simply redefines the state to mean "rule of the people" rather than eliminating many of the functions it performs. Am I mistaken on this? If not, how does anarchism resolves disputes outside of barbarism?I suppose you're correct in that anarchism simply redefines the state - that's a good way of reconciling the Marxist definition w/ the Anarchist one.


Also, good to see someone from the rainy city

[ZeroNowhere]

However, it would, by Marxist terms, be a "worker's state." This is confusing, I know.
Not quite. The Marxist 'state' lasts only as long as the 'expropriation of the expropriators'. You're confusing the period of revolutionary overthrow with the first stage of communism.

[Invincible Summer]

Not quite. The Marxist 'state' lasts only as long as the 'expropriation of the expropriators'. You're confusing the period of revolutionary overthrow with the first stage of communism.


See? It is confusing! :lol:

[StalinFanboy]

The state that Anarchists oppose is that which is centrally organized and uses domination and coercion to keep power. It doesn't matter who is in power.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The state that Anarchists oppose is that which is centrally organized and uses domination and coercion to keep power. It doesn't matter who is in power.

Exactly. We oppose governemnt as it is a hierarchial and centralised form of organisation. We want horizontal and absolutely decentralised organisations.

[#FF0000]

What is "the state" that anarchism opposes? If everyone directly voted to make wearing seat belts mandatory and have this enforced by law, does this constitute a state?

Pretty much, yes, since enforcement by law implies that there will be punishment. Also, to enforce a law, you need a body with the power to do so, which automatically creates a state.


Some anarchists suggest people will voluntarily cooperate because it is in their interests, but I am skeptical of this as a universal rule. Is a democratic enforcement of rules necessarily contrary to anarchist thinking?

Yes, democratic enforcement is contrary to anarchist thinking. We just don't recognize the right of the majority to impose its will upon the minority. Instead, we favor consensus. Now, does that mean decision making will be easy? Well, maybe not always, but it's certainly manageable, and society won't grind to a halt because of disagreements.

I think we all agree that workers (those without power) share common interests which are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie (those with power). Well, if you eliminate class and state, you're left with the people, who might have separate interests as individuals, but still have their shared interests. So it wouldn't be impossible to run things based on consensus and compromise.

I'll get to the rest of the questions later. Class time now~

[Tjis]

Enforcement of rules isn't contrary to anarchist thought if they have been agreed to through a vote. Anarchists are against hierarchy and illegitimate authority, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be any rules.
This isn't entirely true. Anarchism doesn't mean the rule of a majority over a minority. While voting is a way to resolve conflict, it only works if everyone participating agrees that they'll accept the outcome.

Here is an example of when voting would make sense.
Say there's a piece of land that for some weird reason can only grow either carrots or melons. Two groups wish to cultivate it. The first group says "We want melons! Melons are juicy and awesome!". The second group however says "Screw melons! Melons are a bourgeois decadence! We want carrots!". After some arguing they decide to call for a vote, because they can't reach any kind of agreement. Both parties agree that they'll agree with whatever the outcome of the vote will be. Then the community votes on the matter and the situation is resolved. (Obviously melons would win).

Another example are recallable delegates. Up front the delegate agreed with the others that they would be recallable in case of a majority vote against them. Then when they screw up they can be recalled because of this agreement.

However. In many cases voting can be very oppressive. For example, what if the majority says that there should be compulsory education for everyone between 5 and 18 (This example actually came up recently in another topic)? What if the majority says that alcohol should be prohibited? Unlike the previous examples, there aren't two groups here who agree on voting and going with whatever the outcome is. There's just one group, which happens to be the majority, which forces its will on a minority. There is nothing anarchist about that.

[Invincible Summer]

This isn't entirely true. Anarchism doesn't mean the rule of a majority over a minority. While voting is a way to resolve conflict, it only works if everyone participating agrees that they'll accept the outcome.

Here is an example of when voting would make sense.
Say there's a piece of land that for some weird reason can only grow either carrots or melons. Two groups wish to cultivate it. The first group says "We want melons! Melons are juicy and awesome!". The second group however says "Screw melons! Melons are a bourgeois decadence! We want carrots!". After some arguing they decide to call for a vote, because they can't reach any kind of agreement. Both parties agree that they'll agree with whatever the outcome of the vote will be. Then the community votes on the matter and the situation is resolved. (Obviously melons would win).

Another example are recallable delegates. Up front the delegate agreed with the others that they would be recallable in case of a majority vote against them. Then when they screw up they can be recalled because of this agreement.

However. In many cases voting can be very oppressive. For example, what if the majority says that there should be compulsory education for everyone between 5 and 18 (This example actually came up recently in another topic)? What if the majority says that alcohol should be prohibited? Unlike the previous examples, there aren't two groups here who agree on voting and going with whatever the outcome is. There's just one group, which happens to be the majority, which forces its will on a minority. There is nothing anarchist about that.

Yes I see what you mean. I suppose what I meant (although unfortunately excluded out of a slip of the mind) by "agreed through a vote" was that there would be a discussion and a compromise would be made that would satisfy both groups.
"Vote" was really the wrong word.

[autotrophic]

I would pretty much agree with everything in the OP, but I would like to add this:

Anarchists go further than opposing the state, they oppose any form of authority/hierarchy/oppression (which are all the same thing, really). We are also necessarily anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-statist, anti-private property etc. because all these things are forms of authority. But I think you were equating the state with authority in the OP, so I think thats what you meant.