I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between anarchists and the state. Obviously I understand the reason behind anti-statism but I think mindless opposition to any idea is unproductive. So I want to discuss the concept of an anarchist-friendly state.

The starting point is the thought: “what if some people cannot be anarchists?”. The effort needed to maintain anarchic structures is considerable and it’s possible that a lot of people aren’t willing to put in the effort. Voluntary association is fundamental to anarchist theory and that includes the creation of voluntary states. As long as these states are willing to work alongside anarchists there should be no reason for conflict, and states have a good reason to cooperate as anarchists could take over some of the problematic functions of the classical state like policing, after all any successful anarchist society needs to self-police anyway.

I’m not familiar with all of the theory surrounding minarchism but I think the term is applicable to these voluntary anarchist-friendly states.

Which brings me to a question: Could minarchist parties exist? And could they represent a form of electorialism that anarchists could participate in? They could be structured around instant recalls ensuring some level of protection against opportunists. Although such parties would require a change to election laws.

  • FundMECFS@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    4·
    12 days ago

    I think this all very much depends on how exactly you define a state.

    But I’d push back on the idea anarchist self organisation takes more effort than states. I don’t think it does. Just that the effort used to uphold states has been formalised and territorialised as “jobs” and sometimes just “culture”.

    • anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      3·
      11 days ago

      how exactly you define a state

      I’m seeing that from these comments. I consider the state a top-down managed structure with some form of governance and control/management of “it’s people” aka citizens. A state has clear ruling class who dictate the customs or laws of the population.

      It’s at this point the enforcement of those laws comes into play and things get tricky. Having a separate group privileged with enforcement allows that group to decide how to enforce laws. As we’ve seen that wont do. 1312. The anarchist solution is security culture, making the enforcement of customs 1 the responsibility of every person. However couldn’t that work with a state? It does requires more involvement and confrontation which is why I think anarchists should try and help out with this whenever they can. As any good anarchist would be used to de-escalation and conflict resolution.

      1: using laws in this context doesn’t seem right as laws are too specific to be enforced by everyone. Which would require some form of justice system which has the same problems as the police. they 1312 too.

      And objectively it isn’t that much more difficult to maintain a state, but because it’s those same “jobs” and “culture” that are going to keep a lot of people back and I think we need to account for them and try and coexist and cooperate with them instead of just yelling “statist” and excluding them.

      I’m not saying we try and turn the state into something anarchic. I’m saying we try and work alongside people who need2 the state to make sure they consider us if they get in power. It’s a lot easier to oppose a state that doesn’t try to control you.

      2: read “aren’t willing to let go of”

      I’m just trying to have faith in people and think that even when they aren’t willing to live like me they can still accept me, I feel like the right thing to do is accept them in turn. I’m probably very naive but that’s why I’m an anarchist in the first place.