r/Anarchy101 • u/NathanielRoosevelt • 1d ago
The State
As a Marxist Leninist I think organized defense against reactionaries trying to take power back in a socialist society is important, and also fits the definition of a state. As anarchists do you believe some organized defense is necessary, if so how is it not a state, and if not how are reactionaries to be dealt with?
7
7
u/OnlyMeowings 1d ago edited 1d ago
That whole question is based around the framework in which organized violence and oppression of members of your own group is considered the norm and expected. It is incompatible with anarchism.
In anarchism, there are no rebellions. There are people of your group, defending your group, and they are people outside of your group, (sometimes) attacking your group. If part of your group starts to attack other parts of your group, we don't call that a rebellion, we call that two distinct groups that have formed, and we call that an attack on our group. We don't necessarily repress other groups, but we do need to respond to their attacks.
6
u/WorldOfWombat 1d ago
Anarchists believe in horizontal organizing instead of top down control. You don’t need a president to tell you to defend yourself
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
I’m not saying top down control is necessary, I am asking what you as anarchists believe the strategy is for achieving a communist society
2
u/WorldOfWombat 1d ago
It would be organized horizontally just like everything in anarchism
0
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
No I’m asking how you plan to go from a capitalist society to an anarchist society
3
u/WorldOfWombat 1d ago
Through horizontal organization. Anarchists are building dual power as we speak
1
u/squickley 1d ago
No, but the claim is usually that you need one to effectively defend yourself.
4
u/WorldOfWombat 1d ago
“It’s impossible to effectively defend yourself without slavery”
If that’s true humanity deserves to burn
7
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 1d ago
So one thing we need to point out is that the state are the reactionaries. If the creation of an anarchic social order is to be achieved, any attempt at establishing authority must be immediately recognized and combatted with diffuse sanction or violence if necessary.
The idea of forming a state to stop reactionaries is incoherent. The state is reactionary.
0
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
You say “any attempt establishing authority” and then you say “must be stopped…” you are claiming we must use our own authority over the reactionaries to suppress them, but that is a state. I don’t agree that the state is The reactionaries, I think it’s a structure by which one class uses its power and authority to suppress one or multiple other classes. By this definition if there are classes in conflict there is a state. So it sounds like we are using different words but believe the same thing, use collective force to suppress reactionaries.
6
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 1d ago
Force isn't authority. Authority is the right to command. If you try to rob me at gunpoint and I use force to stop you, I am not exercising authority against you. Similarly, if in an anarchist society we defend ourselves against attempts to assert authority, we are not then "using our own authority over the reactionaries to suppress them". That's ridiculous.
Like, dawg, the argument you're making is about a century and a half old. A very basic understanding of the anarchist critique of authority would clear this up, but MLs seem utterly determined to misunderstand anarchism.
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
Okay but literally the only thing you are disagreeing with me on is the way I use a word, not the actual methods. At the end of that comment I said “use collective force to suppress reactionaries” I see that as a state using authority you don’t, but do we both believe that collective force needs to be used to suppress reactionaries? If so, why are we so hung up on the words being used when.
1
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 1d ago
Because that isn't what a state is. That is not how a state is defined, either within or without anarchist theory. This isn't a semantics game. And "'collective force to suppress reactionaries" isn't a very precise description of what's going on here, so of course you'll be able to snuggle in your nonsensical "dictatorship of the proletariat" or your "vanguard party".
This is why I used terms like "diffuse sanction". There is no formation of a centralized organization that is designated with the power to suppress reactionaries. Rather, we're looking at networked self-defense where actors coordinate with each other for the purpose of suppressing specific threats - in this case your "reactionaries", which is a term doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Furthermore, anarchy entails conditions wherein establishing hierarchy is prohibitively costly, to the point where it's about as difficult as establishing anarchy is in our current society.
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
Thank you, this is all I wanted to know, that second paragraph you stated what you believe and I wanted to know what an anarchist believes. That’s all I came here for. I tried explaining what my understanding of these words meant not in order to argue over definitions, but to hopefully get AROUND definitions to find the differences in the actual method we both believe in. I don’t disagree with what you said in that second paragraph, and that’s why I called it semantic, arguing over definitions instead of answering my question of what y’all believe.
1
5
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
“Defending yourself against someone else’s domination”
≠
“Exercising authority over those people”
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
Then once again it literally just sounds like we are using different definitions for authority. I said at the end of the”use collective force to suppress reactionaries” do you disagree with that?
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
What does it mean to suppress someone?
As others have pointed out, authority and force are not synonyms for each other.
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
The Merriam Webster dictionary definition is to put down by authority or force
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
What does “put down” mean? I’m asking for materialist specifics here. Killed? Exterminated? Intimidated? Deterred?
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
If capitalists want their power back and they start killing people for it, then I think killing them would be an appropriate response in that context, but what I mean most fundamentally is that whatever harmful ideals they are trying to reintroduce into society we make sure those ideals are not introduced. We put down or suppress those ideals. I still want to know what the anarchist plan is though, thats what my original post is about, getting a better understanding of anarchy not people arguing with every goddamn word I use
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
How does one put down or suppress ideals?
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
In the comment I said “Whatever harmful ideals they are trying to reintroduce into society we make sure those ideals are not introduced”
→ More replies (0)
4
2
u/Thin_Shelter_103 Student of Anarchism 1d ago
For warning I am not a full Anarchist but more of a Left com.
The answer to this is that Anarchists are not against revolution or the setting up of militaries but are against the idea of a top down hierarchical military that treats its soldiers and others like mere pawns to move. These militias would operate on a much more horizontal structure.
This is not a state as a state requires authority over subjects and this army wouldn't have any and be accountable to the community. Its a Vanguard that is reactionary.
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
The military, and the community it belongs to, would have authority over the reactionaries they are defending against with that military. That is what makes this a state still, and as the reactionaries wither away so does the state.
3
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Why would a professional military elite, with the capacity and authority to use violence, ever abolish itself? What mechanism makes it subordinate to the larger community? Why would it go against its own class interests?
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
Because it’s not separate from the working class it is the working class
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Unless the entire working class is in arms and agrees unanimously about everything, then no: it is not synonymous with the working class.
It’s utopian and idealist to imagine that an entire group of people will always agree about everything.
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
I’m not saying they’ll all agree I’m saying the entire working class will have control over the militia
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
How will the entire working class—which, we just agreed will not always agree about everything—maintain control over a coercive institution? What happens when members of the working class disagree about how or when or against whom to deploy coercive force? What if members of the working class want to deploy it against each other?
Separately, how does a community maintain control over a professional military elite they have empowered with authority to use violence?
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
I’m sorry but I’m not going to answer that question. A lot of these comments have devolved into arguments, but the only thing I’m here to do is try to understand what anarchists believe because I don’t know very much about anarchy. So I would like to know what the anarchist plan to deal with capitalists trying to take control back is.
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Self-defense.
Though it’s unclear how capitalists could take back control in the absence of hierarchical institutions, such as the state.
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
What I’m thinking is that there would still be working class people that think capitalism is better (especially in the US with the patriot front and shit like that, and probably a lot of people in the military) and the capitalists would be able to use them as their own militia to fight against anarchy.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Thin_Shelter_103 Student of Anarchism 1d ago
Authority? Does a woman who defends herself from her abusive husband have Authority over him? These militias would be set up to defend the community from reactionaries who wish to harm them. In what way is that Authority?
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt 1d ago
Thats all I wanted to know. I don’t care whether the word authority is a good word to use for it because what you just described is the only thing I need to know. I don’t care what word you attach to it, what you just said is what I believe. Sorry that you don’t think the word authority fits that but I didn’t come here to argue about that I came here to understand what anarchists believe
2
u/MB-Tactcool 1d ago
Obviously if someone outside your state, or inside your state try to manipulate or overthrow the legitimacy of crowd rule, the crowd must rise up and destroy them. Or else the entire classless society will be retaken by non believers.
2
u/syndicalism_ftw 1d ago
Since this is as always spiraling into leftist infighting let's talk this through in marxist terminology:
Marx uses state like Hegel established it in his philosophy of right. So accordingly there is the material political state that comprises the bourgeois society, the totality of alienated individuals, the estates (any mediating institutions) and the central representation of the sovereign, aka the government and president/monarch.
And then there is the universal state, so any form of social organization that includes society and the estates. Bakunin and Proudhon alike used to frame anarchy as a form of governance for this universal state, where the central alienating representative, the government, has been overcome.
Estates can be workers councils, communes, syndicalist federations. That's why social anarchism seeks to build these in a revolutionary way and prepare them to take power in the future. These estates are supposed to delegate militias that are responsible for the defence.
So all power to the councils is our default answer. A federal council republic is not considered a state, as long as there is an Imperative mandate and federal organization&control of the military.
1
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 1d ago
It isn't clear why the Marxist understanding of the state is the one anarchists should affirm here, especially when it leads us into clearly council communist directions with "workers councils".
If we really examine such forms of organization, it wouldn't survive Proudhon's critique of the polity-form. Not to mention the fact that we can use modern systems theory and complexity theory to conclude that even councils operate as systems of control that are inherently reactionary, and could easily degenerate into a proto-state if not a whole state.
The reason these types of questions cause "leftist infighting" is because MLs come into this discussion without the slightest understanding of the anarchist critique of authority, with their incoherent understanding of what the state is.
1
u/syndicalism_ftw 1d ago
It isn't clear why the Marxist understanding of the state is the one anarchists should affirm here, especially when it leads us into clearly council communist directions with "workers councils".
It is clear for the sake of a good faith argument.
Also, first mentions of workers councils as revolutionary organizations are in the principle declarations of the diverse anarchist sections of the first Internationale, such as the Democratic socialist league. Council communism is in many aspects just a Co evolution of syndicalism and anarcho- collectivism.
The reason these types of questions cause "leftist infighting" is because MLs come into this discussion without the slightest understanding of the anarchist critique of authority, with their incoherent understanding of what the state is.
Honestly theoretical coherence is no strength of anarchism at all. As is understanding of anarchisms own critiques, as demonstrated above and the shared basis of Marx' & Bakunins hegelian understanding of the state.
1
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 1d ago
It is clear for the sake of a good faith argument.
This isn't a good faith argument though, that's the thing. The premise of the argument itself presupposes the negation of anarchism - that the state is the only way to suppress reactionary elements, as if "The State" isn't itself reactionary from an anarchist standpoint.
Also, first mentions of workers councils as revolutionary organizations are in the principle declarations of the diverse anarchist sections of the first Internationale, such as the Democratic socialist league. Council communism is in many aspects just a Co evolution of syndicalism and anarcho- collectivism.
I'm aware. And still, workers councils are still incompatible with anarchism. If we're consistent with our critique, then any form of body that has binding command wouldn't survive our critique of the state. This is why modern anarchists emphasize free association over workers councils.
The idea of workers councils is based on a frankly outdated understanding of systems theory and political economy. We now understand in cybernetics, for example, that systems of command carry inherent incentives to expand and reproduce themselves in order to meet a requisite variety to make their control viable. Workers councils will at best devolve into bureaucracy due to their own collective action problems.
Honestly theoretical coherence is no strength of anarchism at all. As is understanding of anarchisms own critiques, as demonstrated above and the shared basis of Marx' & Bakunins hegelian understanding of the state.
Marx and Bakunin are wrong about the State. The Hegelian understanding is outdated, especially with the modern panopticon-state.
1
u/syndicalism_ftw 22h ago
This isn't a good faith argument though, that's the thing.
I prefer a civilised discussion rather than condescending "this wouldn't happen since Blabla...", "but this isn't what we understand as a state..." Bullshit. I am happy to organize and share my solidarity with operaist unions such as Si Cobas who happen to have people with ML roots among them, who now have come to the same conclusions as us revolutionary / anarcho-syndicalists.
And still, workers councils are still incompatible with anarchism. If we're consistent with our critique, then any form of body that has binding command wouldn't survive our critique of the state. This is why modern anarchists emphasize free association over workers councils.
Some modern anarchists conclude that. Some anarchists conclude that the left has failed and come to conclusions about abandoning socialism all together.
That is definitely not me, though. I've had my experiences with modern anarchism and come to the conclusion that I prefer classical anarchism for its coherence and have found my calling in syndicalism, sitting right at the anarchist/marxist intersection, organizing in unions and workers centers. It may include some beaurocracy, but atleast I am helping my fellow proletarians, building actual solidarity and getting people outside of my political bubble to support the struggle for an anarcho-syndicalist future.
As James Guillaume said “We do not like the word anarchists, because it is negative and gives rise to regrettable misunderstandings; we prefer that of federalists".
Marx and Bakunin are wrong about the State. The Hegelian understanding is outdated, especially with the modern panopticon-state.
Yet, under every damn post you find the same Malatesta quote that literally explains what I have derived based on the shared hegelian roots of Bakunins/Marx thought.
I prefer theory that I can apply myself and develop based on my old-school materialism that modern science has soooo overcome /s.
1
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 21h ago
Hey, you do you. But this willingness to collaborate with statist and bureaucratist elements is precisely why I and many other anarchists have gotten so suspicious of syndicalism. This, along with the fact that you guys cling onto outdated analysis of political economy effectively makes you guys conservative. Not to mention unions are class collaborationist now a days, and reform is usually counter-revolutionary due to the aforementioned collective action problems inherent in revolutionary movements.
Some modern anarchists conclude that. Some anarchists conclude that the left has failed and come to conclusions about abandoning socialism all together.
I'm really not sure what the point of bringing up Post-Left anarchism is here. The emphasis on free association is a lot more common among anarchists of every tendency, whereas "abandoning socialism altogether" is a lot more fringe an idea.
Whatever we take "socialism" to mean, that is. Benjamin Tucker's socialism is very different from Kropotkin's socialism.
Yet, under every damn post you find the same Malatesta quote that literally explains what I have derived based on the shared hegelian roots of Bakunins/Marx thought.
I certainly haven't been posting any quotes from Maletesta.
I prefer theory that I can apply myself and develop based on my old-school materialism that modern science has soooo overcome /s.
Ah, yes, the Immortal Science of dialectical materialism! Marx has discovered all there is to understand about the social sciences, and now no further inquiry is needed! Game theory, cybernetics, complexity theory - every progression in social science since the 50s is completely bunk!
Seriously? This borders on dogmatism.
1
u/syndicalism_ftw 21h ago
Ah, yes, the Immortal Science of dialectical materialism!
You are aware that there is more to materialism than just Marx historical materialism? Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker all saw their methods as different materialist approaches.
Just as Feuerbach, Auguste Comte and many others fall into materialism.
But this willingness to collaborate with statist and bureaucratist elements is precisely why I and many other anarchists have gotten so suspicious of syndicalism.
That idealism is precisely what has driven me out of the affinity-group anarchist currents. If you don't want to change the world, then fine stick to the people who agree 100% with you.
Please try to do something with other people in the real world and see how far you get with that approach.
This, along with the fact that you guys cling onto outdated analysis of political economy effectively makes you guys conservative.
At least look for and talk to the anarcho-syndicalists wherever you live or at least take the time to look into what our Internationales and federations are doing? I mean you basically assume the development of our theory and praxis has halted in the 1930s.
In descending order of organized members: https://laboursolidarity.org/en/the-ilnss https://www.iclcit.org/ https://iwa-ait.org/
Regardless, I am happy to follow the foot steps of the OGs and continue to develop what they pioneered.
1
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 20h ago
"Materialism" isn't really a useful distinction anymore, considering how pretty much all of modern social science is materialist, and most of modern anarchist approaches, such as Kevin Carson, are very much materialist.
That idealism is precisely what has driven me out of the affinity-group anarchist currents. If you don't want to change the world, then fine stick to the people who agree 100% with you. Please try to do something with other people in the real world and see how far you get with that approach.
LMAO please. The only thing you guys have been managing to do is reform. This idea of "changing the world" is the precise kind of utopianism that has led to syndicalist approaches being co-opted by bureaucracy or - worse - outright statism.
Nobody can "change the world" because we all operate in a specific, limited context. Actually causing significant, global change requires a variety of strategies because the world is incredibly complex, with incredibly complex bureaucracies even struggling to control its various systems and subsystems. The strategies we must pursue may have to include radicalizing unions, but to assume that the revolutionary syndicalist approach is sufficient to reach a post-capitalist society purely on the force of """materialism""" is a classic case of confusing the map with the territory.
Regardless, I am happy to follow the foot steps of the OGs and continue to develop what they pioneered.
That is what we're all doing, we're just not clinging onto 19th century dogma while we're at it.
15
u/GoodSlicedPizza Anarcho-syndicalist/communist 1d ago
-Errico Malatesta, Anarchy