They can–but they can’t defend as successfully as a state can attack.
Look, I don’t know how to say this any more clearly. I’m not talking about whether a particular state is all roses and honey or whether it’s all prisons and torture. I’m not talking about whether a particular anarchism is all freedom and perfect defense or whether it’s all petty squabbles and The Dispossessed.
I’m talking about whether the anarchist society can, warts and all, survive. I’m suggesting that, except at the forbearance of the state, it cannot survive at all.
Tell me you get that, please. [Edit: not that you agree with it, merely that you understand the position I’m putting forward isn’t what you’ve been suggesting it is]
Yes, you and I can play a game of chess, because we have unanimous agreement on the rules. If someone else doesn’t agree…we cannot play a game of chess with them.
How, exactly, is any of this contradictory to what I said? You say “false,” but don’t even begin to say why!
I do agree it’s rather trivial… But that’s the reason several of us disagree with you so readily; we think you’re trivially wrong.
What mechanism do you propose to order social behavior in the face of persistent disagreement – let alone outright criminality?
Jenga referred to “mechanisms that prevent regression to a monarchical, feudal or capitalist state.” Since that really is the point of the thread, can anyone go into detail on those mechanisms? How are they arrived at? How are they put into effect? How are they enforced?
In fact, I’ve conceded that repeatedly. Governments have a long history of going sour. Revolutions are often followed by counter-revolutions, which often have the effect of reversing the gains made in the original revolution. The French and Russian revolutions are prime examples of this.
But some governments have managed to function relatively well, for a good long while. Britain’s Parliament, and the U.S. Congress, for all their faults, have managed to protect the rights of most of us, most of the time.
Anarchism can’t make such a claim. It doesn’t function, and, in fact, it is the opinion of many that it cannot function. It requires absolute unanimous consent, which is contrary to human nature, or else it devolves into a system of enforcement, which is what governments are.
You say we stack the deck? Dude, you haven’t even got a deck!
The only claim I’ve made in this thread on this point is this:[ul][*]If you remove the features common between failed states and what you are counting as functional states, you will have successful anarchism.[/ul]You want to know how an anarchy could sustain itself? How do your successful states sustain themselves? Can’t be abject aggression. Can’t be military. Can’t be a police force. Are force, defense, and police a feature of any successful society? It sure seems so. Are they also features of failed, conquered, or otherwise vanished states? Indeed. So what features of those states allowed them to be successful? If I knew the answer to that, I’d write a nice book and sing the elements to the most beautiful music. But at the end of the day I don’t know. Looking at the world around us, it seems no one else does, either.
Yes I understand you are discussing the sustainability of anarchy. Yes I understand your position is that it cannot sustain itself. But rereading our discussion, it’s not clear that I have actually ascribed any position to you at all.
This is the sentence that appears to be ascribing an incorrect position to me:
My belief isn’t that anarchism in a pure utopian peaches-and-cream form is impossible. My belief is that anarchism on a large scale will quickly be overtaken by some form of formal power-structure, whether that’s one formed by people from an adjacent society or by people who live within the anarchic society itself and who think that a formal power structure will meet their needs better. I think that’s a damn shame, but I don’t see any plausible way for an anarchist society to protect itself from that threat.
Sorry, Left, I thought it was clear I was lamenting the requests being made of me in this thread, not your position. (Notice the use of “they” in the first sentence of the paragraph you mention.)
We require at least one anarchist state that was successful in organization, defense, personal freedom, etc. If it is possible, why isn’t there a currently existing anarchist state?
The only hunter-gatherer tribes that exist currently are under the protection of archic states. And hippie communes only work because there is a police force preventing people from robbing them.
The problem is that archism is more efficient than anarchism. The successful and long-lasting states are so because there is a consensus among their citizens that a government should exist. Sure, some states succeed, and some fail. But all anarchies fail, and none succeed.
To which the anarchist responds, usually, “So far!”
How many thousands of years do you suppose the same thing could be said of democracy?
If you only count successes, and attribute to that success all the trappings of state even though those trappings were also present in the cases you ignore, then all you’ve accomplished is begging the question. When you stop doing that, we can talk.
That’s begging nothing. I don’t think anyone is asserting, “all failures are anarchisms, all successes are states.” Rather, it seems to be the case that all existential conflicts between states and anarchisms result in state victories.
New analogy: sharks are vicious, driven creatures. Kittens are wonderful little balls of joy (let’s not fight the analogy, okay?). I posit that if a shark can get itself into proximity with a kitten, it’ll eat the kitten. The kitten doesn’t stand a chance. And if you point out that some eaten entities also have dorsal fins, that’s got nothing to do with my position.
States are vicious, driven entities. Anarchist collectives are wonderful little balls of joy (again, no analogy-fighting). I posit that if a state has an existential disagreement with an anarchist collective, the state will annihilate the anarchist collective. The collective doesn’t stand a chance. And if you point out that some annihilated entities also have state features, that’s got nothing to do with my position.
This analogy fails to come close to capturing my position. I’m not just throwing out a tu quoque. My position specifically depends on what distinguishes failed states from successful ones. Then all this analogy illustrates is that we are talking past each other.
Why would the military of an anarchist nation need to be anarchist itself ? Last I checked there was no Divisional Congress frustratedly trying to get their orders passed through the Divisional Senate in the US Army. Makhno’s army didn’t have officers, but it was not leaderless.
Dub all you want, it’s still a fact. Look it up. The community agreed upon a small set of rules when it was established, and those rules are enforced organically (though for the most part they don’t need to be enforced at all, since by and large the citizens or Christiania agree with the rules to begin with)
Of all the archist states, some were successful and some failed. Of all the anarchist states, none were successful, and all failed. Thus, it is theoretically possible for an archist state to succeed, but not an anarchist state.
Your argument is roughly similar to asserting that I can fly by flapping my arms really hard. Because some fixed-wing aircraft succeeded, and some crashed.
Some kind of governing structure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a successful state. Since anarchist states lack that condition, they do not succeed.