Anarchists support government

[ContrarianLemming]

This is something - and I'm an anarchist - I've usually held, that we anarchists do completely support the practice of governance.
Because I distinguish between the government and the state, the state is the tool of class power, if theres no class power then there are no states, necesarrily.
Government is simply the political body used to exercise power, be it the parliment or the cofederation of national labour.

Do you agree that this is improper use of the term "government" (as being the same as the state) ?

Do you feel anarchists more certainly support government (despite what a lot of them might say)?

CL

[fa2991]

I, for one, agree.

[AK]

Exactly. Government and state are not the same thing.

[∞]

But governments are solely responsible for the state. They aren't two separate entities.
There is some opportunity to use the government to destroy the state, by increasing democracy and the public sector. But Anarchist do not support government as part of their ideology nor does is have coherence with Anarchism.

[Magón]

If it's self governance, which all Anarchists uphold, and support, then the word government I have no problem with. The way Government is used today though, I do have a problem with, as Governments nowadays are too interconnected with the State.

[∞]

If it's self governance, which all Anarchists uphold, and support, then the word government I have no problem with. The way Government is used today though, I do have a problem with, as Governments nowadays are too interconnected with the State.

Okay, so you are pointing out the linguistic issue?

[Magón]

Okay, so you are pointing out the linguistic issue?

Yeah, kinda. :lol: I mean, there are lots of words in todays political vocabulary that mean different things for different sides and groups. Government nowadays to me, is what the majority see as being heavily interconnected with the State. As you put it yourself, the two aren't separate entities. I'm sure no matter who you ask in the US, or the EU, you'll get the same answer as you said.

But if we're talking self governance, I support the term government all the way! :thumbup1:

[Weezer]

But governments are solely responsible for the state. They aren't two separate entities.
There is some opportunity to use the government to destroy the state, by increasing democracy and the public sector. But Anarchist do not support government as part of their ideology nor does is have coherence with Anarchism.

They are separate entities.

States are bourgeois tools. Governments are simply organs which society is organized.

A worldwide system of anarchist communes would still be government, not states.

[Tomhet]

They are separate entities.

States are bourgeois tools. Governments are simply organs which society is organized.

A worldwide system of anarchist communes would still be government, not states.
Absolutely! I think it's also important amongst Anarchists to differentiate between authoritarianism vs totalitarianism..

[∞]

They are separate entities.

States are bourgeois tools. Governments are simply organs which society is organized.

A worldwide system of anarchist communes would still be government, not states.

I was speaking of government as I know it, the government I live in...

EDIT:
A government is the organization, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects

according to meh dictionary.

[Magón]

They are separate entities.

States are bourgeois tools. Governments are simply organs which society is organized.

A worldwide system of anarchist communes would still be government, not states.

Like I was trying to point out, Government means both. In todays world, a Capitalist/Imperialist World, the term Government means both are together and can't be broken up separately. (In todays world, as we know it.)

In a Anarchist, Communist, etc. world, Government and State are separate, and State is no longer in the equation like Government is; which is now self governance. :thumbup1:

[fa2991]

according to meh dictionary.

And according meh dictionary, communism is


a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. So all anarcho-commies must want totalitarian one party states! That's a contradiction!

Oh, wait, I forgot. Dictionaries are full of shit.

[ContrarianLemming]

on politics dictionaries are fulll O bags a shit.

[fa2991]

on politics dictionaries are fulll O bags a shit.

And encyclopedias are like garbage bags of rancid shit.

[∞]

And according meh dictionary, communism is

So all anarcho-commies must want totalitarian one party states! That's a contradiction!

Oh, wait, I forgot. Dictionaries are full of shit.

Thats one fucked up dictionary.

Mine says
A stateless, classless society where all means of production are produced for the common good.

[AK]

Thats one fucked up dictionary.

Mine says
Can I have your dictionary? :crying:

[fa2991]

Out of curiosity, how do you guys define "the state"? I've been rethinking my definition, since my previous definition of "violence used to propagate ideas or systems" is grossly inadequate for obvious reasons. It's just tricky because I'm a comparatively authoritarian anarchist. :lol:

[fa2991]

A stateless, classless society where all means of production are produced for the common good.

Did you just make that up? I don't think a real dictionary would make a typo like saying the MOP are produced for the common good instead of saying the MOP produced things for the common good.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Exactly. Government and state are not the same thing.

It would be more accurate to say that governance and the state are not the same thing, since anarchists propose systems of governance without a state.

[GreenCommunism]

i have a question, how does the government enforce his decision? doesn't it require a state?

[Jayshin_JTTH]

'The State', or 'Government', is three things: The army, the bureaucracy, and the police.

I don't see how ANY modern society could function without these three. A socialist state would need an army to defend it's borders, and also against a possible counter-revolution. Police are needed because of crime. And the modern economy, which it's complicated division of labor into various industries, would also require a bureaucracy, a public service, whatever you want to call it. That means ministers who have responsibility over one area of society, and employees under them.

That's how any government implements policy.

[AK]

'The State', or 'Government', is three things: The army, the bureaucracy, and the police.

I don't see how ANY modern society could function without these three. A socialist state would need an army to defend it's borders, and also against a possible counter-revolution. Police are needed because of crime. And the modern economy, which it's complicated division of labor into various industries, would also require a bureaucracy, a public service, whatever you want to call it. That means ministers who have responsibility over one area of society, and employees under them.

That's how any government implements policy.
Bureaucracy is completely unnecessary. Local workers' councils or communes could organise public services and utilities. One criticism I have of bureaucracy is that, although some may consider it to be efficient (bullshit, really), it just creates more social inequality due to the lack of even distribution of social power (in terms of governance and management of the economy). No good anarchist denies the need for police (see my post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1859168&postcount=13) in a thread entitled "Should there be police and jails under anarchy?) and an army (or any sort of organised fighting/defence force) is only necessary up until the international bourgeoisie have been overthrown.

The term "state" has a specific definition - it is not just a collective name for military and law enforcement. To an anarchist, the state is an entity of centralised political power (?) - but one cannot deny its relationship to the maintenance of minority class rule (such as the rule of the feudal aristocracy, or the capitalist bourgeoisie).

We anarchists do not oppose government, we oppose government that is not under the direct control of the masses. We support self-management and self-government through direct democracy.

[∞]

Did you just make that up? I don't think a real dictionary would make a typo like saying the MOP are produced for the common good instead of saying the MOP produced things for the common good.

no, its an Oxford dictionary thats what it says...

EDIT: 2nd definition
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

My other dictionary


— n
1. advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community
2. any social, economic, or political movement or doctrine aimed at achieving such a society
3. ( usually capital ) Marxism Marxism-Leninism See also socialism a political movement based upon the writings of Marx that considers history in terms of class conflict and revolutionary struggle, resulting eventually in the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist order based on public ownership of the means of production
4. ( usually capital ) a social order or system of government established by a ruling Communist Party, esp in the former Soviet Union
5. chiefly ( US ) ( often capital ) any leftist political activity or thought, esp when considered to be subversive
6. communal living; communalism

[AK]

i have a question, how does the government enforce his decision? doesn't it require a state?
No, state has a specific meaning to us. It requires community action and of course, police. I have detailed this in my above post.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Bureaucracy is completely unnecessary. Local workers' councils or communes could organise public services and utilities. One criticism I have of bureaucracy is that, although some may consider it to be efficient (bullshit, really), it just creates more social inequality due to the lack of even distribution of social power (in terms of governance and management of the economy).I think this is rather semantic, I wouldn't deny the 'evils of bureaucracy', but what you propose, workers' councils or whatnot, is basically just bureaucracy with different terminology. Maybe the problem is the word 'bureaucracy' then, which definitely does have a negative connotation in modern society, as I said, you can say public or civil servant if you really like, it's still basically the same thing though.

I can agree with what you say, but for example what's your position on a planned economy? Given that the modern capitalist economy (and thus any socialist economy that would inherit it) is a complex interdependent branches of industry, would it not make logical sense to have a national economic plan, whereby all branches of industry would be required to produce what the government says.

To give an example, if the country decided it wanted to produce a car for every citizen (I support universal public transport, but it's an example), and the workers' of the factory that produced one part of the motor said they didn't want to produce that any more, then no one in the country could get the car.

For example, do you support a central state which drafts a national plan, for the entire economy of the country over a set time, with proper cost accounting down to the last cent of money spent?

Surely you couldn't just have workers' in different branches of industry doing whatever they want, right?

Also, by 'workers' councils', are you referring to local government (as opposed to national government) that would exist under socialism? I would think they would be separate from the economy.


No good anarchist denies the need for police (see in a thread entitled "Should there be police and jails under anarchy?) and an army (or any sort of organised fighting/defence force) is only necessary up until the international bourgeoisie have been overthrown.Well, agreed there then. But what's your stance on conscription?


The term "state" has a specific definition - it is not just a collective name for military and law enforcement. To an anarchist, the state is an entity of centralised political power (?) - but one cannot deny its relationship to the maintenance of minority class rule (such as the rule of the feudal aristocracy, or the capitalist bourgeoisie).Sure, I can't deny that. But the modern state being an instrument of class rule doesn't mean it's a uniquely bourgeois thing, and it would be unhelpful to think of 'the state' as something 'evil'. It came about because of the complexities of the division of labor in bourgeois society, and the nature of modern nation-states.

It doesn't stop, for example, the proletariat simply smashing the bourgeois state and replacing it with their own.


We anarchists do not oppose government, we oppose government that is not under the direct control of the masses. We support self-management and self-government through direct democracy.I support democracy too, but how feasible is direct democracy? What do you mean by it exactly? The direct democracy for example in Ancient Athens for example only existed because the only people allowed to participate were male, freeborn citizens who were wealthy and didn't have to work much, so they could spend a lot of time with politics.

Surely though, in modern societies, in socialist one's, we still have to work to provide the social product which makes the country function.

That being said, I support shorter working hours and every effort to enable the ordinary worker to be able to be more politically active. But what is wrong with representative democracy?

[Magón]

For example, do you support a central state which drafts a national plan, for the entire economy of the country over a set time, with proper cost accounting down to the last cent of money spent?

No, there is no central state, with a national plan in Anarchism, only small autonomous communes working together when needed to better everyone.


Surely you couldn't just have workers' in different branches of industry doing whatever they want, right?

What they'd be doing is doing what they did before, in a lot more equal and balanced work place, without this corporate ladder shit. All those factory workers who help process wheat and flower, etc. will all continue doing what they did before the revolution. Nothing would change except the ability for workers to be equal with one another. Everyone would have an understanding, that their hard work actually means something to the process of bettering theirs, and all the other Communes.


Also, by 'workers' councils', are you referring to local government (as opposed to national government) that would exist under socialism? I would think they would be separate from the economy.

Worker Councils in Anarchy, usually refer to Local "Government", yes. In each Commune, you'd have a Worker Council that would act as part of the economy, just as the workers of that Commune would.


Well, agreed there then. But what's your stance on conscription?

Most, if not all Anarchists, will tell you that having an armed populous will replace a need for any sort of hierarchal military regime. (Such as countries have now.)

[AK]

I think this is rather semantic, I wouldn't deny the 'evils of bureaucracy', but what you propose, workers' councils or whatnot, is basically just bureaucracy with different terminology. Maybe the problem is the word 'bureaucracy' then, which definitely does have a negative connotation in modern society, as I said, you can say public or civil servant if you really like, it's still basically the same thing though.
Autonomous communes are not arranged in hierarchical fashion. It's not bureaucracy. It is simply co-operation.


I can agree with what you say, but for example what's your position on a planned economy? Given that the modern capitalist economy (and thus any socialist economy that would inherit it) is a complex interdependent branches of industry, would it not make logical sense to have a national economic plan, whereby all branches of industry would be required to produce what the government says.
I support an economy democratically planned by the workers.


To give an example, if the country decided it wanted to produce a car for every citizen (I support universal public transport, but it's an example), and the workers' of the factory that produced one part of the motor said they didn't want to produce that any more, then no one in the country could get the car.
I very much doubt such a situation would happen. In a democratically planned economy, workers build things for the common good. Otherwise, there must have been some serious economic factors that would have caused the factory workers to refuse to work.

I have a better example:
The motor factory workers get tired of being pushed around by the state bureaucrats and they decide to strike. Soon, workers from surrounding factories and from other economic sectors join in and cripple the economy. No car gets built then, either.


For example, do you support a central state which drafts a national plan, for the entire economy of the country over a set time,
I support an economy democratically planned by the workers.


with proper cost accounting down to the last cent of money spent?
All communists wish to abolish the monetary system. We will use labour vouchers to repay workers the value of their labour (in hours) in times of scarcity (or if a specific resource is scarce) until post-scarcity communism (a gift economy, essentially. There is no need for meticulous planning when we reach this stage because resources are abundant enough to be freely used for whatever).


Surely you couldn't just have workers' in different branches of industry doing whatever they want, right?
I support voluntary labour and mutual aid. Besides, workers know that to run an economy, separate sectors must co-operate to produce even the most basic of goods. See this extract from The Conquest of Bread, by Kropotkin:

The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages....

What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ....

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.

For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour--which is true--the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.


Also, by 'workers' councils', are you referring to local government (as opposed to national government) that would exist under socialism? I would think they would be separate from the economy.
Yes, numerous local autonomous governments operating through a system of direct democracy.


Well, agreed there then. But what's your stance on conscription?
Fuck conscription.


Sure, I can't deny that. But the modern state being an instrument of class rule doesn't mean it's a uniquely bourgeois thing, and it would be unhelpful to think of 'the state' as something 'evil'. It came about because of the complexities of the division of labor in bourgeois society, and the nature of modern nation-states.

It doesn't stop, for example, the proletariat simply smashing the bourgeois state and replacing it with their own.
I'm not denying that the state is uniquely bourgeois. Nor am I claiming that the state is "evil". Such emotive crap has no place in any analysis of capitalism.


I support democracy too, but how feasible is direct democracy?
Very. It is the only kid.


What do you mean by it exactly?
Everyone has one vote. The most popular choice is acted upon.


The direct democracy for example in Ancient Athens for example only existed because the only people allowed to participate were male, freeborn citizens who were wealthy and didn't have to work much, so they could spend a lot of time with politics.
...and we will have a direct democracy where the workers have control of their own lives and the entire economy.


Surely though, in modern societies, in socialist one's, we still have to work to provide the social product which makes the country function.
Yes... and?


That being said, I support shorter working hours and every effort to enable the ordinary worker to be able to be more politically active. But what is wrong with representative democracy?
"Representative" democracy is a complete negation of democracy. Democracy means that everyone has the same social power and is entitled to a single vote. Everyone is equal in terms of social and economic (in the case of democracy in the workplace) power. Think about it; if you have someone making your decisions for you, nearly always conflicting with your own views and not taking into account your needs, how can it be considered democratic? Because you put them in power? I don't think so.

Secondly, political power always comes coupled with economic power - and socialism entails complete workers' democratic control of the economy.

[bcbm]

god damn when did anarchists become such weiners

[AK]

god damn when did anarchists become such weiners
Who are you talking to, eh?

[ContrarianLemming]

Why are we discussing how direct democracy is unfeasable? How could that possibly be a topic, we know it works, we really do know, it's been seen a bunch of times, countless times, and logistical problems were the least of there worries - Romans were worse.

but as usual, the criticisms here are almost entirely (if not entirely) not applicable to anarchism at all and only demonstrate lack of understanding in the specific area.

I'm going to pull a statistic out of my ass and say over 90% of criticisms against a stateless society don't actually apply, ergo: who will stop crime! WHO WILL RUN THE RAILWAYS WITHOUT AUTHORITY!

[bcbm]

Who are you talking to, eh?

"anarchists are for government, just against the state!"

:bored:

[ContrarianLemming]

"anarchists are for government, just against the state!"

:bored:

It's a pretty important distinction considering almost no one knows it.

[Delenda Carthago]

There is no goverment like no goverment...

[bcbm]

It's a pretty important distinction considering almost no one knows it.

almost no one knows it because its nonsense.

[tracher999]

fuck governments i hate that fuckers:mad:

[ContrarianLemming]

almost no one knows it because its nonsense.

I've defined government, it's clearly inline with anarchism, and I defined state, it wasn't. how about you try counter that instead of saying it's nonsense.

[revolution inaction]

I've defined government, it's clearly inline with anarchism, and I defined state, it wasn't. how about you try counter that instead of saying it's nonsense.

there no need to call what you are calling government, government, you could just say organisation instead.
the normal use of government is to refer to a part of the state (not the state as a whole) so your insisting that anarchists support government just causes confusion.

[nuisance]

I've defined government, it's clearly inline with anarchism, and I defined state, it wasn't. how about you try counter that instead of saying it's nonsense.
Read some fucking anarchist theory.



Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies, strictly speaking, "without government": the state of a people without any constituted authority.....

Before proceeding further, it will be well to explain this last word (the "State") which, in our opinion, is the real cause of much misunderstanding. Anarchists generally make use if the word "State" to mean all the collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, etc., by means of which management of their own affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective force of the community to this end.

In this case the word "State" means "government," or, if you like, it is the abstract expression of which government is the personification. Then such expressions as "Abolition of the State," or "Society without the State," agree perfectly with the conception which anarchists wish to express of the destruction of every political institution based on authority, and of the constitution of a free and equal society, based upon harmony of interests, and the voluntary contribution of all to the satisfaction of social needs.

However, the word "State" has many other meanings, and among these some that lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly when used among men whose sad social position has not afforded them leisure to become accustomed to the subtle distinction of scientific language, or, still worse, when adopted treacherously by adversaries, who are interested in confounding the sense, or do not wish to comprehend it. Thus the word "State" is often used to indicate any given society, or collection of human beings, united on a given territory and constituting what is called a "social unit," independently of the way in which the members of the said body are grouped, or of the relations existing between them. "State" is used also simply as a synonym for "society." Owning to these meanings of the word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe, that anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all collective work, and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that is, to a state worse than savagery.

By "State" again is meant only the supreme administration of a country, the central power, as distinct from provincial or communal power, and therefore others think that anarchists wish merely for a territorial decentralization, leaving the principle of government intact, and thus confounding anarchy with cantonical or communal government.
Finally, "State" signifies "condition, mode of living, the order of social life," etc., and therefore we say, for example, that it is necessary to change the economic state of the working classes, or that the anarchical State is the only State founded on the principles of solidarity, and other similar phrases. So that if we say also in another sense that we wish to abolish the State, we may at once appear absurd or contradictory.

For these reasons, we believe that it would be better to use the expression "abolition of the State" as little as possible, and to substitute for it another, clearer, and more concrete --"abolition of government."
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/malatesta/anarchy.html

[Magón]

there no need to call what you are calling government, government, you could just say organisation instead.
the normal use of government is to refer to a part of the state (not the state as a whole) so your insisting that anarchists support government just causes confusion.

Anarchists still say Government, when we say that we'll Self-Govern ourselves. As for the whole of everything, it's just called a Workers Council, rather Government.

[nuisance]

This thread is an embarassment.

[∞]

Finally the boys came to my aid :thumbup1:

Kudos for all of whom agree with me

[anticap]

Government implies that individual or group X is governing (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=govern) someone or something.

For people to govern things would be OK from an anarchist perspective; for people to govern other people would not.

I think the word anarchists want is "administer (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=administer)."

[AK]

"anarchists are for government, just against the state!"

:bored:
Well they are. Workers' self-government. We are for the act of governing, but we don't need an entity separated from the direct control of the masses to do it. We want workers to organise themselves, through governance.

[bcbm]

Well they are. Workers' self-government. We are for the act of governing, but we don't need an entity separated from the direct control of the masses to do it. We want workers to organise themselves, through governance.

no, i'm afraid not.

[Palingenisis]

Well they are. Workers' self-government. We are for the act of governing, but we don't need an entity separated from the direct control of the masses to do it. We want workers to organise themselves, through governance.

Your anarchist dream sounds SO boring...Group vote on whether to clean the drains...Group vote on who cleans the drains...Group vote on this....Group vote on that...

[AK]

no, i'm afraid not.
So do you want there to be no governance at all? Keep in mind that government does not mean some entity separate from the people.

[AK]

Your anarchist dream sounds SO boring...Group vote on whether to clean the drains...Group vote on who cleans the drains...Group vote on this....Group vote on that...
...and your Stalinist dream is so much better?

[nuisance]

Your anarchist dream sounds SO boring...Group vote on whether to clean the drains...Group vote on who cleans the drains...Group vote on this....Group vote on that...
Na, the idea is that voluntary associations will arise to perform these functions.

[∞]

Whats the point of using the term? To confuse people?

[ContrarianLemming]

Your anarchist dream sounds SO boring...Group vote on whether to clean the drains...Group vote on who cleans the drains...Group vote on this....Group vote on that...

wrong, delegates do that

1000 posts and you give a criticism which should be have melted away after 10 posts, this is basic stuff ppl and you're a "senior" revolutionary?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Na, the idea is that voluntary associations will arise to perform these functions.

Just because it is ad hoc does not mean it isn't some kind of governance.

[meow]

i want no state. no government. no governance. no of the bullshit.

i want no one who has any sort of authority to order me to do something. governance and government imply that someone somewhere has the power to force with the threat of violence for non compliance someone else to do something. fuck that shit.

i want anarchy. where things get done because people voluntaryily do them. because people spontainiously form organizations to get things done. it isnt governance. there is no one telling people what to do. there is no foreman who has the power to fire slackers.

fuck all that shit!

anarchy baby! without any sort of the bullshit! we want a fucking utopia ok? aim for the fucking stars! dont just stay "oh we need someone to tell us what to do because blah blah bla". fuck that! aim for hte best of all possible worlds!

we are already dismissed by "centerists" for being unrealistic. lets embrace that label!

[Amphictyonis]

A state is used by a minority to coerce a majority- governance is used by the majority to facilitate the necessary functions of society via true democracy. Marx should've spent more time honestly critiquing the nature of the state but I think Bakunin may have soured those grapes for him.

[MarxSchmarx]

I can't believe, with the possible exception of that way too long Malatesta quote, the question of territory has not come up.

If we assume that "a government" as distinct from a state has the supreme authority we give it, there has to be some territorial range over which that government serves as the primary authority. Otherwise you have the government of, say, Chicago telling the government of Chennai what to do. Or the government of London telling the government of Lagos ... oh wait.

Anyway, once you have that in place, meow makes a valid point, albeit not how I'd choose to make it. I don't see how you differentiate it from the modern state, at least as it conceives itself and is believed to be by many, many people. Saying that by "state what (you) really mean is an oppressive entity of class rule, blah blah blah" and therefore you oppose the state is just convoluted. It reads infinitely more like an obfuscation than simply saying you want a state without classes and without oppression.

The only serious alternative I've seen for a territory-less government are for example, some extreme version of the Ottoman arrangement, where say the Imam had supreme authority over the Muslims, the Church had supreme authority over the Christians, the rabbi over the Jews, etc... Even these still entail some supreme authority over the individual, however, and it's far from clear to me that they are inherently any less oppressive and immune from class conflict as the traditional "state = government + terrritory".

Historically, the only durable examples I can think of that provides some guidance to how dispute resolution between these competing supreme authorities can work is something akin to an idealized version of Somali xeer, but for reasons I suspect have more to do with ignorance and contempt for all things tainted and idolized by the anarcho-capitalists, these are largely ignored.

Instead, most libertarian leftists would rather spill more ink trying to have their cake and eat it too by denouncing the state and insisting how their idiosyncratic definition of the state is different from their purported alternative ("government") which when you add in the non-minor detail of territory, for 99.99% of the population is synonymous with a less oppressive, more democratic state.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i want no state. no government. no governance. no of the bullshit.

i want no one who has any sort of authority to order me to do something. governance and government imply that someone somewhere has the power to force with the threat of violence for non compliance someone else to do something. fuck that shit.

How does government imply that?


i want anarchy. where things get done because people voluntaryily do them. because people spontainiously form organizations to get things done. it isnt governance. there is no one telling people what to do. there is no foreman who has the power to fire slackers.

fuck all that shit!

Idealist nonsense. People, even in a classless stateless society, do things for all sorts of reasons. The naive fetishisation of spontaneity ignores that simple fact. Even if a hypothetical society organises on a universally democratic basis as and when needed, that's still a form of government.

The only kinds of "society" that lack any kind of government are those where all its members know each other personally to some degree, IE those smaller than roughly 150 people. Beyond that, it becomes impossible for a society's constituent members to relate to each other on the personal level required.


anarchy baby! without any sort of the bullshit! we want a fucking utopia ok? aim for the fucking stars! dont just stay "oh we need someone to tell us what to do because blah blah bla". fuck that! aim for hte best of all possible worlds!

Nothing about governance itself necessarily says that there has to be "someone tell[ing] us what to do" (IE, a monopoly of force), and the executive power of a government can reside anywhere from a single person (as in an absolute dictatorship) to the entire population (as in an ultra-democratic society).


The only serious alternative I've seen for a territory-less government are for example, some extreme version of the Ottoman arrangement, where say the Imam had supreme authority over the Muslims, the Church had supreme authority over the Christians, the rabbi over the Jews, etc... Even these still entail some supreme authority over the individual, however, and it's far from clear to me that they are inherently any less oppressive and immune from class conflict as the traditional "state = government + terrritory".

All forms of government have territorial limits, even if that limit is the entire Earth, as in a global communist society or as you point out, the sum total of a particular subset of humanity.

What's also important is the form that government takes, as I alluded to above. Obviously a theocratic government that overlaps the territory of any existing government has its problems, but you can't honestly claim that it has the same issues as the form of government that a worldwide classless stateless society would have.

[∞]

Noam Chomsky The best government is one that governs the least

Hes a linguist and a political theorist, case closed, thread failed.

[Across The Street]

that quote was originally from someone unknown but Henry David Thoreau amends it in a sweet little pamphlet called Civil Disobedience

HDT goes on to say "That government is best which governs not at all."

[anticap]

"That government is best which governs not at all."

That actually sounds like the worst government ever.

[Across The Street]

Ehh, I'm sure it would be if you're into that sort of thing.

Seriously nobody on here who advocates government should be dabbling in Anarchist strains of thought.
The End.

[Amphictyonis]

that quote was originally from someone unknown but Henry David Thoreau amends it in a sweet little pamphlet called Civil Disobedience

HDT goes on to say "That government is best which governs not at all."

I'm not an 'individualist' in the manner of Thoreau but enjoyed reading civil disobedience and Walden. The part I liked in Walden was when he was watching the ants live their lives- his descriptions put some perspective on how strange life is. Him and Walt Whitman have put a small hippie streak in me. Leaves of Grass was good as well. Emerson isnt bad either.

As far as the no government I believe he said when man is ready for it there will be no government. That could happen in a few hundred years if we don't destroy ourselves and advance (socialiiy/economically).

The American individualists tend to apologize for capitalism so in the socioeconomic sense they don't have much to offer. Philosophically perhaps.