Submitted by zkLY8xTQ in Anarchy101
If you, as a anarchist, had your own land, no one’s bothering you and no in tries to rule you…
What if someone chooses to be part of, let’s say a democratic state, would you respect that? Or are you strictly against anything that is not in line with anarchy, even if it doesn’t affect you.
all authority affects everyone
How? Why am I supposed to care? It’s none of my business, is it?! As long as they don’t bother me, why should I fight a system if I’m not even sure the people of the system want me to be against it?
And isn’t this contrary to the idea of absolute freedom we always talk about. Let the others have the freedom of being ruled, if they want to. It’s easy to say all these hierarchies are unjust, I agree. But you can’t deny that some people actually prefer it that way. I can’t just say everyone shares my opinion and if they don’t they’re simply brainwashed / opressed, it’s a fact that some people want a government.
Educate me :)
Why am I supposed to care?
It's not about you, it's about people who don't want the state's authority forced on them e.g. me. You don't need to care. Only anarchists reject authority.
there's no voluntary hierarchy: Either people decide together and can leave the decision whenever they disagree with the group, or there's an authority forcing them to stay.
The only hierarchy that could be left alone is the hierarchy of the spiritual over the real, because the spiritual doesn't actually exist, and even then religious people try to impose their religion on everyone.
yes that’s right, I did never in my life sign up for citizenship, in that sense, it’s not voluntary. and you’re also right, some states force you to have a citizenship - you in fact can not leave.
Yet people decide to stay in such systems with no desire to leave. Many desire change, for sure. If I were to go ask my neighbors if they’d prefer anarchy, I’d get some weird looks and many No s.
What you’re writing seems to me a rather biased opinion instead of a neutral view.
How can I force freedom on others. Forcing freedom. Seems off to me.
All. It brings us joy to hunt down and unmake all authority always, in whatever ways are appropriate in the given context.
And authority can never fully be destroyed, it can only be made latent, so even when it is not obviously present, anarchists are deepening practices that prevent its reappearance.
What do you mean by "authority can never fully be destroyed, it can only be made latent"?
If you look at an anarchic society, what you get is a bunch of different points (groups/individuals) that work to prevent the other points from emerging as the ruler.
That social arrangement, a kind of permanent decentring, reflects the thing that is being warded off - the inherent possibility (but not necessity) of a state. So when I say that authority is made latent, what I mean is that the possibility is there, under the surface, always a threat that has to be acted against.
That make sense? I'm happy to elaborate more if not.
Oh ok yeah that makes sense. Thanks
You are welcome.
don't downvote yourself, it forces mods to click your post to check if it was downvoted for breaking rules, thus wasting our time if we're not interested in the post
downvotes on raddle are used to alert mods of possible tos violations
Political entities give us false accounts of social relations and the power they generate. Had I my own land, in a completely isolated, deep in the forest and up in the mountains sense, then I wouldn't have any social reality to worry about.
Democratic states don't depend on people choosing to opt in. It's unlikely that the existence of a democratic state wouldn't affect me.
Yet people decide to stay in such systems with no desire to leave.
Why don't they leave, I was here first.
I am strictly against anything
I think that people can't choose to be part of a state. The state is hierarchical and people don't get to decide to join or not join. That means an authority is forcing them to participate. Also states have the tendency is to continue expanding. So someone living in a stateless society would definitely be right to be concerned about a state existing anywhere near them. So I think the question is invalid because people don't decide to join states. The state coerces people into giving it resources.
Edit: So I hope it's clear I'm against all authority and hierarchy, and that the 2 assumptions in your question are bad assumptions
So someone living in a stateless society would definitely be right to be concerned about a state existing anywhere near them.
Hell yeah I’d be worried! Power corrupts, it’s a matter of time. But concerns are no reason to fight.
I get it, I can’t argue you’re not forced. If one can not leave they are in on way or another forced, even if the don’t have the desire to leave. I’d say theres still a difference between being forced and a lack of options, but it’s very slim, I admit
But again how do you explain to me that many people do not have the desire to leave?
Edit:
So I hope it's clear I'm against all authority and hierarchy, and that the 2 assumptions in your question are bad assumptions
Thanks for sharing your opinion(s) 🫶🏼
What do you mean concerns are no reason to fight?
And I mean it's a fact that states expand if today the state wasn't invading my hypothetical land, doesn't mean it won't be invading me tomorrow. So maybe saying concerned wasnt the right way to communicate what I'm trying to say. The existence of any state is a threat or as /u/ziq said
all authority affects everyone
Here is my attempt at your new question.
Most people don't ever get an idea that there could be an alternative. You don't learn one in school, in the USA where I grew up the anarchists have been repressed pretty hard, I mean we learn anarchy as a word with a negative connotation, the mainstream media or state and capitalist communication infrastructure has no interest in informing people about anarchy in a way that takes it seriously. And obviously the educational structure of the state doesn't want to teach people an alternative. And people get socialised to live in a hierarchical society. Doesn't surprise me that a lot have people have trouble accepting anti authoritarian world views when the society they live in doesn't ever give them a glimpse of an alternative.
Edit: I'll answer your new question in one sentence: The state uses counterinsurgency tactics.
What do you mean concerns are no reason to fight?
Innocent until proven guilty, right?
The existence of any state is a threat
This is correct. My initial question though wasn’t if you’d respect the state, it was if you’d respect the decision of the individual to rather be part of it than not [and if you’d tolerate the state as in not trying to deconstruct it].
My bad if this didn’t come across clearly enough, “respect” was bad wording in my initial question.
But, according to the answers in this thread, there can’t be a single person in our 8 billion people who actually likes being part of a state.
I like your answer, because it’s pointing out the painful truth that anarchy is often displayed as something it is not, or isn’t even a topic discussed.
But again I can’t wrap my head around how you’re telling me theres not a single person who willfully is part of a state while also knowing the alternatives. And in fact there doesn’t have to be one. My question was based upon a assumption anyways.
Also I don’t dislike your opinion at all, it’s just the explanation and reasoning that seems off to me.
It may seem odd to you, but /u/stagn s answer is one of the more appealing ones in here, because, as of now, to me it seems to not be based on anything. And imo a opinion needs no foundation to be highly respectable. It’s when the reasoning is questionable that it’s validity starts to fade.
Innocent until proven guilty, right?
This response doesn't make sense given that we've established the state is a threat.
This is correct. My initial question though wasn’t if you’d respect the state, it was if you’d respect the decision of the individual to rather be part of it than not [and if you’d tolerate the state as in not trying to deconstruct it].
Already answered this point in my first response, the assumption here is invalid.
But again I can’t wrap my head around how you’re telling me theres not a single person who willfully is part of a state while also knowing the alternatives. And in fact there doesn’t have to be one. My question was based upon a assumption anyways.
I was more like explaining a bit why I feel authoritarians world views are common. And the phrasing here made me think of like fascists or conservatives or liberals or any other person who really actively believes a statist ideology or tries to carry out statist projects. Don't think I need to explain why an anarchist has a problem with them.
And I know the question is based on 2 assumptions actually both of which are bad.
The 2 assumptions are that 1) being under a state is a choice and that 2) the state wouldn't bother me because I happened to not currently live on it's territory. I think when the questions based on a faulty assumption, the main answer is to point out the underlying assumption is faulty.
But, according to the answers in this thread, there can’t be a single person in our 8 billion people who actually likes being part of a state.
No one said this, I think we just said being part of the state isn't a choice. See what I said about the facsists and shit above, and it's worth noting that hierarchy is also not good for people who 'like' it, or who are at the top of it for that matter.
I liked /u/stagn's answer too. I just thought I would try to explain a bit since you posted in /f/anarchy101 but I feel I'm not getting through
I second /u/fool's sugggestion that you read The art of not being governed if you are interested in getting some perspective here.
I would raise the text The Art of Not Being Governed for reframing the question of choice in the context of being governed, and the history of choosing to be governed.
What if someone chooses to be part of, let’s say a democratic state, would you respect that?'
No, people typically only choose a democratic state because they're in a state system that's worse. Or they're born into a democratic state and have fully assimilated into the cultural values that prop that state up; I'm not unsympathetic to the former and I can understand the latter.
But to choose to live in a state system implies that there's an option to live outside of the state system; that there's no coercion involved at all.
If you've already voluntarily surrendered your freedoms to the will of either consensus or a leader chosen by consensus, why should I respect your choices or desires when you've already clearly shown that you don't respect yourself?
The only way that that state won't encroach upon "my land" at some point in time is if it's literally physically unreachable to it; and at that point, what does it even matter whether or not I respect the people that are complicit in their own oppression?
I don't respect the idea of making life more miserable than it has to be by spending a majority of my time working so that someone else can get rich or obeying laws written by someone who conned a large group of people to give them enough power and influence to affect an entire society decades later now; I'm definitely not gonna respect it as an outsider looking in.
there was a discussion similar to this on here a few days ago
sry but not even a little similarity
Edit: that anarchists don’t rule appears to be self evident, huh?
that anarchists don’t rule appears to be self evident, huh?
I think what the question was referring to was how even anarchists contribute to oppressive systems in some ways like helping corporations by buying their products.
I think a "voluntary hierarchy" is a contradiction in terms. When anarchists talk about hierarchies, we mean ones that are imposed, where decision making power is concentrated into a few hands and forced upon others.
If by "democratic government" you just mean joining into some group that decides what they want to do through a majority vote, but where members are free to leave at any time, both formally and materially, then I don't think we have an issue. In fact, for larger anarchist organizations where consensus cannot be reached, we expect many things may be settled by majority vote.
ziq wrote
no because democratic states oppress the fuck out of people who don't accept their authority
all authority affects everyone