I'm not a moderator and am not going to assume that you made your earlier post in sincerity, but please do not make threats in this thread.


I don't even know what it is that you two are arguing about. This seems like a flame war that was just started for the sake of doing so.


Eh, I don't know. I suppose we just disagree. It seems to me that if a child comes from an extremely conservative family that imposes all too stringent rules on the child which impede the development and infringe upon the autonomy of the child, that, perhaps it is the case that someone should say something. I don't think overly simplistic solutions like imposing bans on styles of dress will do anything to help matters.

I guess I see the sliperry slope doing in the opposite direction. Enver Hoxha imposed a ban upon the wearing of beards. I see the ban on the hijab sort of like that. It's not like there isn't some fundamentalist injunction which stipulates the style of dress, but imposing a ban, to me, seems rather absurd. I can see what you're saying about children, but I still think that it would be an overreach of the State to too directly dictate how a child should be made to dress.

I don't think that banning them in schools is a good idea. It is a religous choice. It's one that I don't necessarily agree with, but I don't think that imposing a ban in schools is at all a good idea. You can't impose a ban on someone wearing a kippah or a cross. It kind of crosses too much over into the same kind of nebulous territory.

But such pragmatic realism is precisely the kind of concessionary logic which allows for the political situation as it stands today. Why agree to a state of affairs which disproportionately disaffects so many people?


To thrive is not necessarily the same thing as to exploit. There will still be specialists who exceed at what they do. It would not be beneficial to society to limit the potential of specialists.

I just don't think that equality is unnatural. Creatures have been shown to have the capacity for alturism. It is social. I guess I don't necessarily see an inherent human flaw which necessarily makes for the creation of egalitarian society to be coercive. Egalitarianism is as natural as Social Darwinism, both of which only exist because of a social relationship.

Being naive is better than being cynical in my opinion.

I have an added response from the previous comment. I guess I don't see the State as being "evil"; I just think that it lends itself too well in the way of evil.

I kind of see Anarchism as being necessarily amoral. Morality seems, to me, to invoke an appeal to the social mores of the ruling class. Anarchism could, perhaps, be Ethical. I think that a situational ethic could be invoked so as to be able to settle disputes. Granted, everyone is bound to have their own Ethical paradigm.

The "withering away of the state" is rather complex. On some level, it was used as a justification for all sorts of abuses in the Soviet Union. Someday, you were supposed to enter the kingdom of Heaven on Earth and anything could justified in the name of that. I actually think that the concept can interpreted quite positively from a Anarchist perspective, however. The "withering away of the state" describes a historical process which allows for the creation of new societies as the general populace generally becomes more aware. The whole "building a new world in the shell of the old" sort of thing.

I'm glad that you like what I have to say.

I don't see the State as being by nature the abuse of power, however. I just see that it inherently flawed by that it allows for that.

Liberalism, of course, has done some good, but I think that it is the case now that the Liberal project has deviated too far from what there is that is good about it to be meaningfully salvaged aside from either radical reform or some other political alternative. I think that Anarchism is the best option.

Yes, but Anarchists clearly do not call for that there should be no central government in the sense that there should be warring factions of various political extremists. That the lack of a central government creates a power vaccum does pose a problem for Anarchists, but no Anarchists would advocate for that power vaccums should be exploited for the purposes of installing a fanatical regime as, say, The Islamic Courts Union would. It's not quite apples and oranges as that the situation that an Anarchist project would produce does hazard that the power vaccum that is created can be exploited by all kinds of nefarious parties, but it's not like there was an Anarchist insurrection in Somalia which resulted in the civil war.

I don't know too much about what the Green New Deal implies, but don't necessarily see environmental oversight as hazarding crossing over into the nebulous terrirory of "statism". I just see it as merely only being so effective.

From what I can tell, the problem is that people are led to believe that there is this grand project of Liberalism which has all of these lofty ideals, many of which are laudable, when those ideals are sacrificed on a whim to either some sort of botched pragmatism or to the many machinations that Capital allows for. From an Anarchist perspective, aside from that it necessarily invokes the State, Liberalism isn't necesarily inherently problematic. The problem is just that is, by in large, disengenuous.

I think that dangers of "statism" also appear as a result of certain degree of hypocrisy and what is generally called "cynicism". The problem is that the structure of the State allows for the abuse of power by that it is hierarchic, but what particularly disaffects people is the abuse of power. The abuse of power is pathological. It feeds off of that it is reproduced by itself. The abuse of power necessitates revolt and is primarily constituted by the suppression of revolt. Totalitarianism is predicated upon the constant suppression of its constant revolt. Power can not be secured in the absolute. It is merely fueled by a inane, self-destructive quest to maintain its percieved ascendency at all costs.

The inherent flaw in the State is that it allows for the abuse of power. The distorted logic of beaurocratic state repression is an ideological problem, but it is not the problem itself. "Statism" is merely an excuse for the abuse of power. The real problem is not what it is excused by.

I actually wonder if it isn't somehow delusionally Communist determinist. There's a way of interpreting utopian ideals as projecting a kind of political eschatology. I'm not opposed to being hopeful or idealistic, though. You can say that there is a project that is always already underway which seeks for something like the liberation of all of humanity without becoming subject to the pitfalls of ideology. It's all just a matter of approach.

In regards to the topic at hand, I think that the Social Contract is a valid theory, but that it may need to be radically reconceptualized. I suspect that it'd be worthwhile to read Rousseau and to put forth a political project that proceeds from his theory.

But it's not the prevailing dogma. The Democratic Party does not advance anything like the Centralized state beaurocracy of the Soviet Union. The prevailing dogma is something like concessional Liberalism.

As the population becomes more educated, that is to say, as they become more aware, they will continue to demand more just social relationships. The dissolution of the aristocracy was resultant of that the aristocracy could no longer be percieved as being a just social relationship. I honestly suspect that taking the Social Contract to its logical conclusion will eventually result in something like the end goals of Communism.

Who is a statist? People say this, but I've almost never met someone who identifies as being a "statist". Even Marxist-Leninists don't call themselves "statists".

Their concept does draw from those ideas. My working definition of "Empire", which is rather poor, is the "regimens of the State and Capital as they relate to the reticulum of political power". Their definition would probably invoke their concept of "network-power" which I think is good enough, but may rely too much upon an information network metaphor. I'm pretty sure that they define their concept explicitly in the book somewhere, but I can't quite remember as to where and don't feel like sifting through the entire text.

I question whether the State is still the proxy through which the abuse of Capital is enacted. It is a proxy, but I wonder if it isn't the case now that there is something else that is going on. I kind of suspect that it ultimately is still the State, but am curious as to whether or not there are other theories.

I don't think that egalitarianism necessarily implies that the skilled will be hindered by that they will be forcibly held back in order to make up for those who are lacking in certain skill sets. It is more than possible to imagine an equitable social relationship that allows for proficiency. I think that what is good about technocracy can be maintained in a society that abolishes it.

Freedom is the freedom to live, act, choose, and do as one please, etc. I mean it in the sense that is generally understood by more or less everyone. Freedom is the prerequisite. I am suggesting that people will demand that they are free before they demand that they are equal. Equality simply follows from a preference for freedom. A person that is free to live, act, choose, and do as they please will need the substantial means to do so. I think that it is entirely possible to create a society where those means are garunteed without relying upon a coercive appeal to a distorted egalitarianism.

I am not advocating for a middle ground. I am advocating for the maximal advancement of both freedom and equality. As I don't think that they are at odds, I don't think that there is an inherent contradiction in my reasoning.

I haven't actually read Rousseau, but see the Social Contract as more of a state of affairs than a creative Ethical proclamation. It is the case that there is alway some sort of consent of the governed regarless as to how oppressive their regime is. There always exists a social relationship between who governs and the governed, and, so, there are always demands requested by the governed. A monarchy still needs to have the consent of its citizens in order not to be overthrown. There is no such thing as absolute power. There is only that it is possible to coerce a population into acquiescing to an unequal distribution of power.

Yes, but, according to @Terrapin Station, I am sure that you are still making "factual claims".

Well, I conceded the point and don't intend to try and ruin High Fantasy for you @Pattern-chaser. I don't know that I have too much else to say in the way of a reply.

I'm not discounting that there was not no government in Somalia. I'm stating that there are not a significant number of Anarchists in Somalia to consider the crisis there to be chalked up to an Anarchist aporia. Almost no one tried to implement an Anarchist project in Somalia. The crisis in Somalia is, in all liklihood, resultant of the failures of what could be considered to be Neo-Liberal Capital. It's not a crisis spawned by a delusional belief in "anarchy".

I'm positing that the State could have changed enough as a result of globalization for the concept to not be as applicable as it was in the past. I think that you're still kind of confused as to what it is that I was looking for. I'm not explaining myself terribly as I'm quite sure how to put this. I'm looking for something to replace what we understand as the State as a concept and not necessarily an alternative to the State. In Empire, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri created the concept of "Empire". I'm looking for something like that for the purpose of critique.

I am curious as to what you have to say about democracy if you care to elaborate, though.

Naked banking sounds pretty far out!

I just think that at all regulating how people dress is an overreach regardless as to that there are a few outliers which still pose certain problems.

I wish there was a better word for maximal because I think that it sounds somewhat ridiculous, but "maximal" is really the only term that I can think of that explicitly means "of or constituting a maximum or the highest or greatest possible". I mean that society should, at all times, be as liberal and equal as humanly possible. It should continually develop in such a manner.

I think that liberty and equality aren't necessarily at odds. I think that there's a natural human preference for liberty but that equality necessarily follows from this. Unequal conditions almost invariably necessitate some form of coercion. In order for everyone to be truly free, it follows that they must also be equal. Egalitarianism complements liberty rather than hindering it, in my opinion.

I've only realistically hashed so much of this out. I could, paradoxically, probably say more after getting a decent handle upon what the other position is. I suspect that my theory is antithetical to Ethical Egoism (which doesn't have anything to do with Max Stirner who was not an Ethical Egoist), but only know of a few places to find anything on Ethical Egoism. It'd be like the antithesis to Murray Rothbard and Thomas Hobbes.

Then again, why thing in purely negative terms? I really ought to be able to put forth a creative political ideas.

I posted the link to the Wikipedia article so that I wouldn't have to explain what it was. Participatory democracy just simply emphasizes the participation of individual constituents in a democratic project. It is that form of democracy that's more democratic than democracy itself. I think that what you are advocating for is a form of participatory democracy.

What I'm trying to explain is that I wasn't asking for alternatives for the State in the sense that "the State is bad and, so, what can effectively replace it?" I was asking for alternatives to the State in the sense that "the State may be an outdated concept, and, so, what are political axioms to be levelled against?"

I'm curious to find out more about what you have to say about democracy if you care to go on, however.


I don't think that Somalia has ever significantly attempted to engage in an Anarchist project. I think that you're equating "anarchy" as a pejorative with Anarchism itself. I haven't quite parcelled out enough of what I think that Anarchist society should be like to really explain that it's not like it would just be mayhem, but Anarchism really doesn't just advance mayhem. That's just the common cultural depiction of Anarchists.

I'm just not sure that that Israelis will accept Hallakah rule in any near future. I also don't know that that would ultimately effect a good political situation. I'd have to learn more about it, though

As for Hamas, I kind of thought that Fatah was preferable. Fatah is fraught with all sorts of problems, but I kind of think that they're preferable to Hamas.

I don't really support any of the political parties in Palestine, though. I think that effective change will just have to somehow come from somewhere else.


I see what you're saying. I would argue that Fascism can be considered as a form of totalitarian Capital and that the Fascist enmity towards Capitalism is somewhat insincere. It is probably the case that most anti-Semites just don't really have anything against Capitalism.

If you read the Wikipedia article on participatory democracy you will find out what it is.

I just don't have a working definition of "the State" right now. I think that you know what it is, however.

I think that you should be allowed to dress however you please, including the lack of clothes, regardless as to what "society's" values are.

I can't see the Israelis accepting Hamas's rule anytime soon. I also don't know how much positive change that that would really effect.

How is participatory democracy leased? Participatory democracy is what was practiced during the Paris Commune.

I don't know how to adequately define "the State" right now. It's like an almost purely negative assessment of a nation state.

How will Hamas guarantee law and order and who will possibly agree to the restoration of Ottoman millets?

I see what you are saying, but I don't think that that makes the misconception that Jews have a reach of power that could be likened to something like the New World Order not anti-Semitic.

I would just arguing against @Tzeentch's statement that

If a certain style of dress symbolizes something that conflicts with a society's values, I consequently see no issue in forbidding it. — Tzeentch

That statement didn't really have anything to do with the hijab.

Assumedly, you would let them wear whatever they want to in a free country.

Why should there be an exception?

Participatory democracy is that.

I mean the concept of the State from a more or less Anarchist framework. Like, I'm not asking what to substitute the State with; I'm looking for an alternative to the Anarchist concept of the State.

I see the point you are making about the survivor bias, but I am unsure as to how you came to the conclusion that you did. I don't think that "antifragility" results that in victims of oppression are given superhuman powers, I guess.


I think that it's sort of there a bit. There's definitely a tension that results from the views and attitudes that people have towards the Israeli state. It's not quite what is meant by "anti-Semitism" but I do think that there is an adverse relationship between Jews and some Leftists.

I think that Postone's theory hazards that anyone can be charged with anti-Semitism in spite of that it can be 'true', but not that that quote does that. We do know that Jews only assert a certain degree of influence over politics. We can evaluate overestimations of that. You could say that the concept of power just simply can not be quantified, but I would still be able to overestimate the power that someone has.

If by that you mean participatory democracy, then I agree.

I'm actually looking for alternatives to the concept of the State, though.

I agree that the charge of anti-Semitism can be an oversimplification, but I do think that there is a case to made for that anti-Semitism is problem in the Left.

I don't think that the impossiblity of an estimation of Israeli power necessarily implies that overestimations can't be anti-Semitic. I think that he makes a good point by stating that Jews, Zionism, and Israel are percieved as having more power than they actually do.


I have decided to clarify my position because I felt that I was too dismissive of your post.

I dropped out of Israeli-Palestinian politics a while ago because I just wasn't doing it any good. I think that the Israelis should abide by some sort of set of terms and conditions which are more or less outlined in the two-state solution, that there should eventually just be one state, that ideally Israelis and Palestinians would just form an Anarchist commune and abandon the idea of the State altogether, that the Israeli state doesn't really have the existential justification that it claims to, that it does, however, exist and that that has to be coped with somehow, that Israel really does use the charge of anti-Semitism to dismiss legitimate critiques of the state, that anti-Semitism really is a problem within left-wing circles, right-wing circles, and pro-Palestinian circles, that the focus of politics in the region shouldn't necessarily just be on Israel, that anti-Arab racism is also a real problem, that none of the political organizations in Palestine are really all that great, that Antideutsch is kind of a left-wing mob, and that Moishe Postone kind of makes some pretty good points in spite of that I don't really agree with him.

I actually consider myself to be Pro-Palestinian, but some people say that I'm "on the fence" because I think that anti-Semitism really is a real problem.

While the Israeli state can be considered to be unjust, that is not the problem which has been identified here.

Moishe Postone actually qualifies his concept in the quote at the begining of the article that I posted. He states, "It’s true that the Israeli government uses the charge of antisemitism to shield it from criticisms. But that doesn’t mean that antisemitism itself isn’t a serious problem." He does go on to state that "The way in which antisemitism is distinguished, and should be distinguished, from racism, has to do with the sort of imaginary of power, attributed to the Jews, Zionism, and Israel, which is at the heart of antisemitism", and is critical of anti-Zionism, but am actually unsure as to whether or not he is Pro-Israel. I would assume that he would adopt a vaguely sympathetic, but somewhat critical stance towards the policies of the Israeli state. Antideutsch took up his ideas and is vehemently Pro-Israel, but I think they may have misinterpreted his ideas.

Edit: In the interview that I read, he is actually talking about that, though, and it is I who am really on about another topic, so, that is, I suppose, the topic at hand, but I don't know that I actually care to get into a debate upon it.

The economy is sort of like a computer, though. It's like this insentient thing that people ascribe godlike consciousness to which merely processes data. At the level of absurdity, this can be considered to be quite literally the case when you consider the stock market.

Then again, it's also not like a computer. The stock market is comprised of social interactions that do occur in the real world.

The machine metaphor is meant to highlight the drudgerous conditions of the working class. It'd be totally different if we were talking about the economy. I see the machine of the economy as being more computational and the machine of labor as being more mechanical.

Edit: The economy is like an extraordinarily expensive synthesizer that no one knows how to play or program.

I've been wondering lately as to how applicable the machine metaphor really is to the current manifestation of civilization. There are certainly a lot of machinations, but how is it like a machine? What kind of machine is it? I think it stands to the gift that the person making the metaphor has for poetry to say that the current manifestation of civilization is like a machine.

This is just an aside, but lowercasing all of the terms seems, to me, to be an attempt to make them seem less ideological. Socialism, however, is an ideology. Perhaps someone would like to define "Socialism" as being a "set of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy" as opposed to a "system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy", but I'm not sure that the term shouldn't just be placed between two apostrophes. I also think that scare quotes should be avoided whenever possible, however. The usage of scare quotes indidcates that a person can not conceptualize another means to get their point across and, therefore, that eir ideas are not terribly clear. Perhaps "socialism" should just be effectively defined in each particular case, but I can see how doing so could be rather wordy. I kind of suspect that you just have to own up to that Socialism is an ideology, and, so, choose to capitalize the term. Ideology, to me, is just somewhat negative, and, so, perhaps I should lowercase the term as it really does refer to something else, but I just can't quite get past that it really isn't "proper" to do so. I suspect that there may be another term which is just simply more applicable, and that this is not just indicative of the limits of the English language. I don't really want to derail my own thread too far, but does anyone know what the political paradigm might be for what is meant by "socialism"?

Edit: Is it "Communitarianism"? You may have to qualify the term to use it as such, but I think that that could be correct.

I guess what I am positing is that the root problem isn't any longer the State. The State plays into whatever the root problem is, and may have been it in the past, but isn't any longer what the root problem is, if there is one. I'm not sure that it is even the case that there could just simply be one primary political plight which disaffects all of humanity. Take heirarchy, for example. In general, it makes sense to slate things against heirarchy because it generally results in a social configuration that could only be percieved negatively. It too readily allows for the abuse of power. Heirarchy may not necessarily be the problem in every given situation, however. It is possible for a chain of command to have merit. That it is unlikely is what makes slating a political position against heirarchy generally agreeable, but I don't think that we can fully identify heirarchy as a root cause per se.

I was under the impression that heirarchy necessarily implied that there was a sole ruler which is false. Google dictionary defines the term as "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority" which I think is more or less agreeable.

Defining heirarchical power as the capacity to make decisions which effect other people's lives could be interesting, but I'm unsure as to whether or not it is adequate given an Anarchist framework. It seems like you would have to invoke some sort of implicit coercion in order to use the term in a purely negative sense.

I like this Anarchist FAQ because it isn't written by a Post-Left Anarchist (which is something that I only have so many qualms with) and it defines Anarchism as being "libertarian socialism". I have kind of an odd manner of speech because I think that you should do things like capitalize certain terms such as the "Socialism" in "libertarian Socialism", but I do have more than a vague understanding of what Anarchism is.


I don't know that it would necessarily result in "disorder". "Disorder" is a charged term that refers to a state of confusion. Anarchism doesn't just seek to produce chaos. Because there is no term for "without order", I'm not quite sure how to precisely describe the state of affairs which Anarchists would seek to produce as it relates to order.

I do seek the abolition of the State. I do think that the State still stands in the way of maximal liberty and equality. I do think that the creation of "nations or territories considered as an organized political community under one government" can not result in maximal liberty and equality. There should be some sort of participatory democratic plurality. I'm not suggesting that the State isn't a problem; I'm just not sure that it is any longer the problem.

Edit: I don't really agree with what I stated in the first paragraph. I was just thinking about this too abstractly for the sake of argument.

I'm an atheist, but how do you know that they didn't worship the paintings in the caves?

How is it ridiculous? He's describing Structural Antisemitism as a form of racism which is slated as rudimentary anti-Capitalism. He, then, goes on to explain how this is particularly dangerous because it equates anti-Semitism as being somehow emancipatory. I don't agree with Moishe Postone as I think that he is far too critical of rudimentary anti-Capitalism, but what he is suggesting is not totally out of hand. There sort of is an anti-Semitic logic to some anti-Capitalist positions where the enemy is just seen as some unseen avaricious other who is so thoroughly demonized that they can ostensibly be treated in any way, shape, or form imaginable. I think that this is indicative of a pathology spawned by an inane adherence to revolutionary vengence and not necessarily indicative of anti-Semitic tendencies even though it does hazard that a person may have a greater proclivity towards anti-Semitism.

Postone is describing a particular kind of anti-Semitism and not necessarily anti-Semitism in general. I think that his argument is somewhat valid, but not necessarily sound, or, to put it better, that he identifies a social plight which does exist, but treats the problem too expansively and is, therefore, incapable of coming up with an effective solution to it.

The begining stages of anti-Semitism on the Left can be countered by confronting pathology. The anti-social hatred of the other is resultant of alienation. To dealienate a person means to accurately consider the pathology that was born of and, in all liklihood, resulted in further alienation. Postone is too dismissive of naive anti-Capitalism which he writes off as more or less just being "anti-Semitic" when a person honestly just might not know all that much about Capitalism.

I think that Postone's concept makes sense, but that it just isn't terribly useful to invoke. It would only apply to a few very particular cases. As a generality, I think that it unintentionally hazards becoming somewhat repressive.