2 ms·

You keep skating by the fact that anarchist societies don’t exist and can’t exist, so it’s hard to take the rest of your diatribe seriously.

anonym29 1y ago
I literally gave examples of functioning anarchist societies above. I'll offer them again, since you seemed to ignore them the first time I mentioned them: Zapatistas, Rojava, various indigenous societies. Willfully ignoring them doesn't mean they don't exist.
- arrosenberg 1y ago
  Ok fair enough, I didn't read closely. Rojava and the Zapatistas both prove my point rather than refute it. The former is entirely dependent on US hegemony to keep them somewhat independent, otherwise they'd be absorbed by Turkey or Iran, and the Zapatistas exist within a much larger state as an insurgent paramilitary group. If the cartels disappeared tomorrow, the Mexican state would quickly reabsorb their territory and the Zapatistas would look more like FARC than an independent polity. Given those examples, I think most people, myself included, would opt for the stability and moral ambiguity of the western liberal state.
  - anonym29 1y ago
    First of all, I want to say thank you. I really appreciate that, for as different as our views may be, you're continuing to read and seriously consider the points I am raising, and respond in good faith, even after I allowed the heat of the moment to get to me when I called you a statist. Thank you for having the grace and civility to continue, and I'm sorry for allowing my emotions to provocatively shape my language towards you earlier. You're a good civil debate partner. Back to the discussion at hand: The main threat Rojava faced was ISIS, with Turkey becoming the primary threat after ISIS's defeat. But this only further strengthens my argument - these stateless societies exist under constant threat from states, not from internal collapse. The Mexican state is essentially semi-complicit with, and deeply infiltrated by the cartels. There is nothing stopping either the cartels or the Mexican state from attempting to steamroll through Chiapas, besides the will of the people who live there to function autonomously (and the will to assert that right to peaceful existence through force, if necessary). The Zapatistas have maintained their autonomy for 30 years not through state protection but through community self-defense. If anything, they prove that people can resist both state and non-state violence without becoming a state themselves. Your observation that these societies exist under threat from states actually reinforces my point. States don't tolerate alternatives because functioning anarchist societies expose the lie that states are necessary. Of course states and their allies try to crush them - the very existence of these functioning anarchist societies is a threat to state legitimacy You're welcome to prefer a western liberal state, and I don't refute that most people would. That said, not everyone even has the luxury of choice in the first place. Many Zapatista communities have even seen dramatic improvements in healthcare, education, and women's rights compared to their state-governed neighbors. For these people, the comparison isn't between "the stability and moral ambiguity of the western liberal state" or not, it's between "state-governed oppression & poverty" and "relative prosperity through autonomy". But I'm glad we can agree that functional, rights-respecting societies can exist without states. Once we acknowledge that, the question in my mind becomes: what level of genocide risk are we willing to accept across all states for the benefits you see some states providing? We can't cherry-pick Sweden while ignoring Syria - the collective sum of their outputs is the toll we pay for the existence of the state itself.

anonym29 1y ago

I literally gave examples of functioning anarchist societies above. I'll offer them again, since you seemed to ignore them the first time I mentioned them: Zapatistas, Rojava, various indigenous societies. Willfully ignoring them doesn't mean they don't exist.

arrosenberg 1y ago
Ok fair enough, I didn't read closely. Rojava and the Zapatistas both prove my point rather than refute it. The former is entirely dependent on US hegemony to keep them somewhat independent, otherwise they'd be absorbed by Turkey or Iran, and the Zapatistas exist within a much larger state as an insurgent paramilitary group. If the cartels disappeared tomorrow, the Mexican state would quickly reabsorb their territory and the Zapatistas would look more like FARC than an independent polity. Given those examples, I think most people, myself included, would opt for the stability and moral ambiguity of the western liberal state.
- anonym29 1y ago
  First of all, I want to say thank you. I really appreciate that, for as different as our views may be, you're continuing to read and seriously consider the points I am raising, and respond in good faith, even after I allowed the heat of the moment to get to me when I called you a statist. Thank you for having the grace and civility to continue, and I'm sorry for allowing my emotions to provocatively shape my language towards you earlier. You're a good civil debate partner. Back to the discussion at hand: The main threat Rojava faced was ISIS, with Turkey becoming the primary threat after ISIS's defeat. But this only further strengthens my argument - these stateless societies exist under constant threat from states, not from internal collapse. The Mexican state is essentially semi-complicit with, and deeply infiltrated by the cartels. There is nothing stopping either the cartels or the Mexican state from attempting to steamroll through Chiapas, besides the will of the people who live there to function autonomously (and the will to assert that right to peaceful existence through force, if necessary). The Zapatistas have maintained their autonomy for 30 years not through state protection but through community self-defense. If anything, they prove that people can resist both state and non-state violence without becoming a state themselves. Your observation that these societies exist under threat from states actually reinforces my point. States don't tolerate alternatives because functioning anarchist societies expose the lie that states are necessary. Of course states and their allies try to crush them - the very existence of these functioning anarchist societies is a threat to state legitimacy You're welcome to prefer a western liberal state, and I don't refute that most people would. That said, not everyone even has the luxury of choice in the first place. Many Zapatista communities have even seen dramatic improvements in healthcare, education, and women's rights compared to their state-governed neighbors. For these people, the comparison isn't between "the stability and moral ambiguity of the western liberal state" or not, it's between "state-governed oppression & poverty" and "relative prosperity through autonomy". But I'm glad we can agree that functional, rights-respecting societies can exist without states. Once we acknowledge that, the question in my mind becomes: what level of genocide risk are we willing to accept across all states for the benefits you see some states providing? We can't cherry-pick Sweden while ignoring Syria - the collective sum of their outputs is the toll we pay for the existence of the state itself.