Reminder to commentators here. Anarchy ≠ no organisation.

Wikipedia is organised. Does not mean that it has monopoly over violence. The fediverse itself is kinda anarchist.

State ≠ organization. State = organization that has monopoly over violence.

you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism.

It’s not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it’s pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how “close” they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.

Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.

The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.

You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.

That’s a police force, not an army. An army can be used to stop riots in an emergency, but that’s not their job and they tend to suck at it.

Legal and structural differences, sure. But fundamentally the same thing- weapons of the state to enforce laws with the threat of violence (internally or externally).

Is some people in some parts of the world losing some of their freedoms a bigger problem than war, colonialism and the sheer waste of resources for ‘defence’ that could be better used for constructive purposes?

Yes. Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me. The first thing I burn down is an authoritarian structure that affects me. Once I’m done with that, I move on to structures that affect others. But inviting an authoritarian structure to oppress me with the hope that it will lessen pain for people who hate me? No thanks.

I didn’t provide an answer because the answer is highly obvious.

Let’s say the means of automation are seized by the public. Anyone can use it. You don’t have to be rich to benefit from the “fruits of automation”.

People can now innovate more. Public services can be a lot more efficient. High frequency, low capacity self driving buses running in remote communities could be possible. The public’s bus fares drop. If we get AI safe enough to engage in healthcare… well healthcare costs down (meaning lower taxes for us).

Basically, any service that requires human labor… doesn’t end up needing it anymore. Noone has to do boring soul sucking jobs anymore.

By “redistribute the fruits of automation”, I mean plans like UBI, more universal basic services and so on.

Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.

The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.

Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?

To enforce laws. A “law” is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let’s say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.

The state’s last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.

Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get… the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to “talk”. It is not a state itself.

I’m so tired of the “AI bad” narrative on the left. SEIZE THE NEW MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND ACCELERATE.

Get rid of human labor, redistribute the fruits of automation to everyone so that we can be on a forever holiday with friends and family.

Yes, the current form of AI is not developed enough to accomplish this vision. Yes, billionaires getting to own it is bad. The problem however is not the technology itself and the advancement of that technology.

If I understood your question correctly, you are asking how one can be sure that anarchist militias would be well equipped and trained against a professional army.

There’s somehow an underlying assumption that anarchist militias themselves wouldn’t be professional armies.

Let’s say 3000 anarchist communes exist in a given piece of land. There’s a dictatorship nearby which could invade. 2800 of these communes recognise the threat and a need for their own defense force. They come together and form a defense pact. Requirements of the pact are that every commune supplies x individuals for the militia and x resources. Training is done at xyz training camps, yadayadayada.

Communes are free to leave this pact, but doing so makes them lose protection.

Effectively what you get out of this is a professional army just like any other. WITHOUT the existence of a state.

Organisation can be done by these communes without giving the high command of this defence pact monopoly over violence.

I don’t get your point, you ask me a question then assume to know what my answer is, then build your case on straw?

It was my attempt to lessen the impact of status quo bias by positing the idea of states as a novel, non status quo concept.

Yes, yes I would very much support that government.

Hmm… Most of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative (Africa, India, the Middle East). Queer folk would be outright banned. Women’s rights would be eroded super quickly.

I mean forget Africa and stuff. I’m in Canada, and I wouldn’t want to be in any union with the US despite sharing similar cultures.

they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?

How else would laws be enforced? A law is fundamentally a rule that is enforced with the threat of violence.

who is meant to uphold these values once they get trampled on? Is it then every man for himself, wild west style, and fuck the weak?

Anarchist militias. Again, no state ≠ no organisation. Anarchist communes would likely have their own militias. These militias would likely form coalitions with other militias for collective protection and efficiency. Large consensual organisation can form. These militias could also be involved in preemptive strikes against forming authoritarian structures.

The important point however, is that these power structures can be exited. Let’s say a coalition member decides to exit the coalition. While the coalition can become violent against this former member, the former member still has teeth, as it hasn’t given this coalition monopoly over violence.

Talking about human rights violations, almost always, it’s states that are actively involved in trampling human rights. Slavery, the Holocaust, Native American genocide, most genocides, etc. were all conducted by states.

Anarchists in fact DON’T believe in the goodwill of society. Which is why they’re against all states, (even if the states are democratic).

Lemme ask you a question. Would you support a world government? One democratic government, one armed forces. Only the UN has the ability to be violent. Noone else. I’m guessing you wouldn’t support such an arrangement. Why? Because you don’t trust the rest of the world to have the same values as you, the same way of life, etc. The world is deeply homophobic for example. The UN could immediately ban homosexuality. You wouldn’t want that.

The UN is an organization, yes. Is it a state? No. Would the world be better if it was one state? No.

Try analysing using the same technique to lower and lower levels. What about a country? Imagine country X doesn’t exist and instead, sovereign provinces in that country exist. They all want to make a deal to cooperate and further shared interests. Does giving up sovereignty over violence make sense as part of that deal? It almost always doesn’t (in my opinion).

Take this further down to cities and towns in those provinces.

Sovereignty over violence makes sure that exit from a cooperation agreement is possible. If you remove the ability to exit, then well… you’ve essentially allowed yourself to be enslaved.

Society is an attempt to string tribes together under agreed upon frameworks.

And anarchism doesn’t contradict this. Anarchism does not mean no organisation. “Agreed upon frameworks” means consensual organisation. No anarchist is against this.

However, non consensual organisation, where an entity with monopoly over violence forces frameworks on “ruled” tribes and peoples is something that anarchism is meant to solve.

Quite a few comments making false claims about anarchism unfortunately.

Anarchism DOES NOT MEAN NON VIOLENCE. Anarchism means that no institution should have a monopoly over violence.

What happens when a king decides to invade anarchist communes?

Anarchist communes form militias and fight back. Violently.

Anarchism does not mean no organisation. It just means no individual elements giving away their means to violence to an entity that claims to represent the group.

I am not an anarchist myself, but for different reasons. However critiques of anarchism presented in the comments of this post make no sense whatsoever.