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.
deleted by creator
When I say minarchism then I mean “minimal archy” with “archy” being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I’d be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist in my eyes.
We need a new name for them. I call them oxymorons but sadly I don’t think that’s distinctive enough. Totalitarian Capitalists/TotCaps? Fremcs (shortend from free-market capitalist)? Kinda hard to say. Maybe something with yellow or gold or money? golks? Dollups (from Dollar) (I think that’s a word already)?
whatever they are they are 100% archic. no an- or min- in sight.
I just call them fundamentalist liberals.
problematic functions of the classical state like policing
it’s not a problematic function, it’s the core function. without the threat of violence it is no longer a state.
show me an Anarchist who thinks you can co-opt the state without being corrupted by it and I’ll show you a Marxist.
There is no middle ground that doesn’t involve both sides giving up their core values.
deleted by creator
So what do you call a country that has voluntary membership and community policing? One that doesn’t have a police force or a justice system and is instead maintained by the will of all of it’s citizens, as those who don’t wish to be a part of the country can just leave.
I’d call it a damn fine place to live.
It’s not clear to me that this isn’t contradictory.
In what way would that be a country assuming you mean this synonymous to state?
If it doesn’t have the capacity or will for coercive violence what stops it being anarchy in practice? Who enforces borders? Who stops people redistributing wealth? who makes people work in hierarchical structures?
If everyone is constantly reaffirming their voluntary association with each other by participation in a collectively decided social structure that is in fact anarchy.
If the “community policing” is violence at the will of an elite then what stops them from reestablishing a state?
I used country because I couldn’t use state as “without the threat of violence it is no longer a state.”
Isn’t anarchy specifically managed bottom up? What if this state still has elections, government, ministries, state-run education and the like? Would that still be anarchy? I wouldn’t call it anarchy, I’d call it minarchy. Because by being voluntary it is fundamentally minimising it’s authority.
Borders and land ownership would be dynamic. If a citizen lives on a piece of land or citizens manage a company that land and company become part of the state. As soon as the people/companies move the border moves as well.
Fitting money into a minarchist state is tricky as even if participating in the state is voluntary money could still be exchanged outside of it. Unless you make the state currency digital and ensure that those who revoke their citizenship also lose access to their funds, but that’s probably going to create a secondary “unofficial” currency. money is tricky.
And does a state need to have an elite? If the minarchist party is comprised of influential and trusted community figures that are focused solely on the benefit of their community would that make them an elite? Could a state function with a benevolent elite?
I guess all of this is describing less of a state and more of a voluntary elected bureaucracy. But isn’t that what minarchy is? And couldn’t we transition a state to that?
I don’t understand how you envisage things like money or a company existing without the threat of violence to back them up.
Like ok, you run an election. I think your dogshit party sucks and I don’t listen to them. What happens to me?
Oh yeah forgot to write that company means any grouping of Individuals with the purpose of engaging in the economy. It’s a very general definition and doesn’t necessarily require money.
But to answer your question. Nothing. Because participation is voluntary if you don’t wish to be part of this “state” then you cannot be forced. The idea is there to be a space for those who want to be part of a state.
Actually It’s very likely that if you allow people to create these voluntary bureaucracies then every party will probably create their own.
In what way is this a state?
Concretely spell out the difference between this an people self organising horizontally.
Top down management structure. You still have a person or a group of people who command different branches like Education, Transport, Healthcare, Emergency response, Recourse allocation (water, food, electricity), Construction/Maintenance (Basically ministries). All of these are organised the same as they are in states. Top down. Vertical. Except at any point you can renounce your citizenship in which case none the benefits and responsibilities apply to you.
I think a problem with minarchism is that implicit question of what archism is being minimized. Typically under capitalist hegemony “minarchists” are simply arguing for the removal of social programs while preserving the violent enforcement of capitalism (eg. libertarians). If on the other hand we’re talking about “minarchism” from an anarchist perspective where we’re trying to minimize or eliminate the controlling aspects of the state/capitalism, then I would be more sympathetic to that cause. However I don’t think it’s very useful term especially considering how it’s been almost complete coopted by libertarians and pals.
Are we really going to let them decide our terms? If you’re letting others decide terms then anarchy means “The Purge”. Socialism means state control. and communism means gulags and secret police or social scores.
When I say minarchism then I mean “minimal archy” with “archy” being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I’d be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist.
Finland feels a bit like this. We do pay taxes (but they are used for good things like roads, doctors, and eastern border), you could have cooperative and do whatever, and I haven’t seen cops since I went to make travel passport. Not sure I’ll need it, where would I want to go now? The government just doesn’t care it seems. Even non-citizens could be elected on municipal level, so it’s quite suitable even for larger cosmopolite self-disorganisation.
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”.
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.
You need a whole culture and society that embodies these values and reinforces them at all levels.
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.
Anarchism doesn’t mean there’s no law or no order. Even in anarchism both need to be maintained. These are not incompatible.
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?
