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.

    • anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      1·
      11 days ago

      For the anarchist side, absolutely. But what about the rest? Those who aren’t willing to let go of the “old ways”? Those who have been raised to believe that law and order must be maintained? There should exist some mechanism through with they can be allowed to engage with the social revolution, otherwise they turn against you. Allowing them to federate would ensure they have a place and could help instead.

      • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        11 days ago

        Anarchism doesn’t mean there’s no law or no order. Even in anarchism both need to be maintained. These are not incompatible.

        • anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          2·
          11 days ago

          Anarchism doesn’t have law. It has customs. Law is a specifically worded series of commands that must be followed and if broken be interpreted by the legal system in order to determine the punishment. You cannot have law without also having the justice/legal system. Crime in anarchism is handled not by the courts but by the surrounding community on a case-by-case basis.

          That is at least how I see it. What is the point of writing down pages and pages of commands if the only ones that enforce them are the people themselves. I think with law people will just start arguing semantics or interpretation instead of the actual severity, effect and consequences for the crime.

          Here is the AFAQ section on law: I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights? https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci73

          What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an alternative law system based on religious or “natural” laws) is custom – namely the development of living “rules of thumb” which express what a society considers as right at any given moment. However, the question arises, if an agreed set of principles are used to determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?