Political Memes

You cannot say in good faith that disorder is the concept of political anarchy, it is (in your opinion) a consequence of it.

So your argument here isn't about the actual application of anarchy, it's just that on meaninglessly theoretical version of political anarchy, it is technically not defined as disorder, right? If so, then yeah, sure I guess, but like I said that's quite meaningless since it doesn't reflect reality.

Anarchist societies of modern times are short lived indeed, but if you take a close look at them it’s always because of states intervention (Paris commune, Ukrainian revolution, Spain libertarian communists, and nowadays Chiapas and Rojava).

They're short lived because anarchy is flawed as an ideology and it always collapses in on itself. The world doesn't exist in a vacuum. The rest of the world is not going coddle some anarchist ideologues so they can play with their political anarchist fantasies in practice. We live in a world where people want stability and order, where states exist out of necessity for self defense, where resources are scarce and competition for them can get violent, where evil actors who pry on the weak do exist. This is our reality, any ideology that ignores it is not one to be taken seriously.

You choose on which axis to operate the distinction. You can differentiate violences based on their organization, on their legitimacy, on their targets, on their respect of any arbitrary moral values, etc.

The critical difference is the source where all of these things are derived from. A normal state derives these things from society as collective while in anarchy they're derived from individuals. In a normal society, violence is monopolized, streamlined, and it's application is utilized to make sure society is stable and orderly enough to be functional. In an anarchist society, there is no such monopoly or centralization as there is no government. Thus, without a central authority things like crime, fairness, and safety are up to individuals to come up with and enforce. This will inevitably end up in bloodshed, disorder, and injustice as different people with different opinions are going to be acting on their own and competing with each other to enforce different standards. That's an incredibly stupid idea that will result in a lot of unnecessary violence and dysfunction. You can't leave things like justice in the hands of individuals, it never works.

You can precisely not govern without enforcing it through monopoly of violence. It’s like saying “X is not radical, because it’s necessary for X”.

Yes, that's the point. It's not radical because it's necessary for something essential and always has been. For something to be radical it has to be extreme and a drastic shift from the ordinary. Governance through monopolized violence is the norm. Simply labeling as radical anyway doesn't make it bad or any less necessary.

organized violence is easier to hold back but far worse when unleashed, disorganized is the opposite. I’m not denying their difference, i’m saying in the end the amount of violence is the same, so the difference does not matter here.

This is just false. The amount of violence is not the same because you never get stability or order at any point in an anarchist society. Self righteous individuals and bad actors will always be fighting each other and amongst themselves because they want to take advantage of the chaos and take matter into their own hands. There's a reason why through 10,000 years of human civilization, anarchy has never come out on top even once. Keep in mind, you're not arguing against tyranny here, you're arguing against the monopolization of violence as a means to govern in general. Well, as history shows us, anarchy is just as bad tyranny.

My goal is not to romanticize either past stateless societies or current states, it’s to get the best of both. I don’t like the “All we’ve known was bad one way or another so why bother making something better ?” argument.

Anarchy isn't a better solution. It's one of the bad ways that we collectively moved past as a species. As it turns out, there IS something better than complete anarchy or complete tyranny, it's called liberal democracy. Checks and balances in the government, direct citizen participation in governance, establishing liberal values such as freedom of speech as rights, a society gets to enjoy both structure AND liberty.

Just to be clear, “universal” is used to mean “literally all”

Oh come on, don't be pedantic and argue semantics. You knew exactly what I meant. My statement was painfully obvious, true, and straightforward. If you're actually willing to sit here and tell me that humans as a collective lack pride as an emotion, then you're just engaging in bad faith.

most anarchists i know do not feel patriotism, especially as in “pride to belong to a nation”, and more generally as in “pride to belong to something greater”. I certainly do not.

This is anecdotal though. Humans feel pride in being a part of a greater collective, we're tribal creatures. Just because you have a negative view of patriotism as a label, that doesn't mean that you don't feel this emotion under a different one.

I can not say much more since your claim is both vague (assimilating patriotism to simple pride makes it even less definable) and not verifiable (you cannot point out every people feeling patriotism, and i can only say i know people that do not feel patriotism but you can always say that’s exceptions).

Well, how would you define patriotism if not taking pride in your nation? You're right that patriotism is vague and hard to verify because it's an inherently subjective concept. The only thing that's objective about is the underlying emotions. Things like a desire to see your group do better, pride in belonging to something greater, and a sense of responsibility to your people.

it seems that your more important value is stability of a civilization, from which you conclude that current states are good, and therefore patriotism, monopoly of violence are too.

Not quite.

1. I'm not saying I personally value stability, I'm saying that this is what humanity favors given our history and the trajectory it has led us to. 2 I don't think current states are good, I'm saying that having a state in general is necessary.
2. I'm saying that patriotism is a reflection of human nature, it's not an entirely artificial concept.

You also seem to deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are the only good option, and therefore anarchism and anti-state theories necessary leads to disorder.

Can this even be considered an opinion? I see it as an observation of something objective in human history.

My take is to start from solidarity rather than stability, making monopoly of violence and by extension patriotism bad, and therefore current states too. I deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are a dangerous form of organization for anything else, and therefore state theories, from fascism to authoritarian socialism along with bourgeois oligarchies, necessary leads to violence.

Let me ask you a simple question. If you're not up to replying to everything else, you can skip it all and just reply to this. I'll bold so you'll find it easier.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US government has collapsed in favor anarchy. In this scenario, you have the country in it's current state but just without the US government (federal, state, and local) or any of the American state apparatus. So that means no military, no federal reserve, no public schools, no police, no FDA, no CDC, no NOAA, nothing. The state has completely collapsed.** How would an anarchist society take place and how would it function in practice in this situation? **

Walk me through your logic step by step. For example, what "solidarity means"? How a society can function without a government? How would justice be enforced? How would you deal with people who reject this idea and want to reestablish a central authority? How would the economy function (as in, how would people get their new smartphones)?

If i’m not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after.

Of course we have different values, why else would be arguing? I'm not here to change your mind nor do I expect you to change mine. I'm having this discussion with you because I see value in talking to people who see things differently than I do. Challenging the views of others and having yours challenged is what makes to debates fun imo.