4 ms·

The underpinnings of modern civilization is the state, and the base definition of the state is that which has the monopoly on violence. The alternative is anar

The underpinnings of modern civilization is the state, and the base definition of the state is that which has the monopoly on violence. The alternative is anarchy, and from anarchy a winner through any violence necessary will emerge and become the monopoly on violence becoming the state. You cannot have rule of law without coercion, and you cannot have coercion without some threat of violence.

trinsic2 4y ago
Its my understanding that anarchy is state without authority, or rulers. The idea of "disorder" has been tacked on because everyone believes that without some kind of authority, that's what anarchy would lead to, but from what I have seen in history, that ideology is not so conclusive. You can look at the Spanish revolution for reference. We don't know how that would have turned out because it appears that other totalitarian countries intervened.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  Humans are social animals, we work together to survive and prosper. In order to work together we establish agreed upon rules which are "law". In order for the rules to be enforced some form of coercion is used otherwise how would they be enforced? Throughout history some form of government exists with humans back to villages with chiefs or elders or council to arbitrate disputes and enforce law, violence is the basis for all human power structure, either you follow the law or you will cast out by force to then create your own power structure somewhere else or made to comply by force if you stay. Money allows people to freely trade, but in must be recognized by the state or theft of it will not be enforced and it becomes meaningless. It would be nice to think humans could just work together and agree on some basic economic rules and "let the market decide" but who would enforce the rules? That would just degrade into some aggressive monopolistic organization of people becoming the state again, power vacuums don't last and never have.
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    It seems to me that leaders (not rulers) and codes of conduct can still exist in this state. All that I understand Anarchy to mean is that there are no rulers that can oversee the many at the expense of the few.
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      Leader or ruler denotes hierarchy and rules (laws) that must be enforced, my understanding of the word anarchy refers to no hierarchy and no coercion and no government. How do you enforce a code of conduct without threat of violence? What is the difference between a ruler and a leader who gives the orders to forcefully enact a law? You may stick to a code of conduct because you believe it to be right, others may not, what stops others from doing whatever they like to you? You can defend yourself (through violence) but you cannot do that against a larger better equipped group, instead you must be in your own group that is organized by a set rules that you must follow, and if you don't then there must be consequences. There is no such thing as a stable anarchy, it's simply law of the jungle.
- nisegami 4y ago
  I've seen anarchy described as the removal of "unjust hierarchies", which feels like a cop-out that allows for hierarchies as long as they're "just"? But who decides that? Naturally, it'll end up being the ones with the most resources.
  - simiones 4y ago
    Well, "just hierarchies" in anarchist thought are extremely limited. For example, a just hierarchy is that between (non-abusive) parents and their small children. When a parent forbids their small child from eating another piece of candy, they are not an oppressive hierarchy imposing its will on the weak, even though to the child it may seem that way at the time, they are actually using the authority of their fully understanding of the world to help the child. Another example may be between teachers and pupils. When the teacher is speaking to the class, they have certain powers over the class (for example, to forbid them from speaking among themselves) that are just, as they come from the needs of the position, not from rigid power tripping. The point of anarchy is to look at all hierarchies through this lens, and renounce those that can't justify themselves in similar ways. It turns out, most hierarchies fall in the latter category - the world would be better without them - at least in anarchist thought. But some few do remain useful, and those are the ones that anarchists would keep. Note: I'm using "anarchist" in the philosophical and political sense, not in the more day to day sense that it has usually gotten. In fact, many "anarchists" in the common-sense terms are quite rigidly totalitarian in practice.

trinsic2 4y ago

Its my understanding that anarchy is state without authority, or rulers. The idea of "disorder" has been tacked on because everyone believes that without some kind of authority, that's what anarchy would lead to, but from what I have seen in history, that ideology is not so conclusive. You can look at the Spanish revolution for reference. We don't know how that would have turned out because it appears that other totalitarian countries intervened.

SigmundA 4y ago
Humans are social animals, we work together to survive and prosper. In order to work together we establish agreed upon rules which are "law". In order for the rules to be enforced some form of coercion is used otherwise how would they be enforced? Throughout history some form of government exists with humans back to villages with chiefs or elders or council to arbitrate disputes and enforce law, violence is the basis for all human power structure, either you follow the law or you will cast out by force to then create your own power structure somewhere else or made to comply by force if you stay. Money allows people to freely trade, but in must be recognized by the state or theft of it will not be enforced and it becomes meaningless. It would be nice to think humans could just work together and agree on some basic economic rules and "let the market decide" but who would enforce the rules? That would just degrade into some aggressive monopolistic organization of people becoming the state again, power vacuums don't last and never have.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  It seems to me that leaders (not rulers) and codes of conduct can still exist in this state. All that I understand Anarchy to mean is that there are no rulers that can oversee the many at the expense of the few.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    Leader or ruler denotes hierarchy and rules (laws) that must be enforced, my understanding of the word anarchy refers to no hierarchy and no coercion and no government. How do you enforce a code of conduct without threat of violence? What is the difference between a ruler and a leader who gives the orders to forcefully enact a law? You may stick to a code of conduct because you believe it to be right, others may not, what stops others from doing whatever they like to you? You can defend yourself (through violence) but you cannot do that against a larger better equipped group, instead you must be in your own group that is organized by a set rules that you must follow, and if you don't then there must be consequences. There is no such thing as a stable anarchy, it's simply law of the jungle.
nisegami 4y ago
I've seen anarchy described as the removal of "unjust hierarchies", which feels like a cop-out that allows for hierarchies as long as they're "just"? But who decides that? Naturally, it'll end up being the ones with the most resources.
- simiones 4y ago
  Well, "just hierarchies" in anarchist thought are extremely limited. For example, a just hierarchy is that between (non-abusive) parents and their small children. When a parent forbids their small child from eating another piece of candy, they are not an oppressive hierarchy imposing its will on the weak, even though to the child it may seem that way at the time, they are actually using the authority of their fully understanding of the world to help the child. Another example may be between teachers and pupils. When the teacher is speaking to the class, they have certain powers over the class (for example, to forbid them from speaking among themselves) that are just, as they come from the needs of the position, not from rigid power tripping. The point of anarchy is to look at all hierarchies through this lens, and renounce those that can't justify themselves in similar ways. It turns out, most hierarchies fall in the latter category - the world would be better without them - at least in anarchist thought. But some few do remain useful, and those are the ones that anarchists would keep. Note: I'm using "anarchist" in the philosophical and political sense, not in the more day to day sense that it has usually gotten. In fact, many "anarchists" in the common-sense terms are quite rigidly totalitarian in practice.