The concept of the State is useful, hence it hasn't fallen out of use. No alternative concept is necessary, and alternative political theories where the State plays no role would just lead to disorder, which is not exactly my idea of a utopia.

I am not advancing that the State plays no role in whatever it is that goes down. To do so would be absurd.

In my opinion, aside from that there are wars and that there is a criminal justice system that could be regarded as being unjust, the State is, anymore, just frustrating. It's just kind of a nuissance and not necessarily the problem itself. I feel like there is some other heirarchic social configuration that is really what causes the most harm. I see it as being somewhere between the State and Capital and, perhaps, encompassing something else entirely, but am unsure as to what exactly.

I would, perhaps, invoke a concept of "regimens", but, as I have only just devloped this idea, I am only capable of saying so much.

Proceeding partially from Deleuze and Guattari's concept of "Several Regimes of Signs", I would suggest that there are regimens who enforce unjust social arangements. There is a regimen of what is negative about the State. There is a regimen of the war apparatus, a regimen of the police, a regimen of the mafia, a regimen of Capital, etc.

I don't know how useful this would ultimately be, but that is something that I am tossing out there.

I replied twice becuase I edited my post too much.

A regimen is like a minor regime. It's like a microcosmic totalitarian order enforcing political body. There is a regimen of Avanguardia Nazionale and a regimen of the Italian state. The social configuration of the Italian state is ultimately negative, but it is not negative in the same sense that the rule that Avanguardia Nazionale seeks to impose is negative in spite of that there probably is a connection between Avanguardia Nazionale and the Italian state. When you are dealing with either the Italian state or Avanguardia Nazionale, you are dealing with two entirely different political bodies. Everything is like this. The problem is that there are particular regimens who enforce something like their own will to power and not necessarily that there is a particular social configuration that necessarily results in illiberal, unequal, and warlike society.

This is an idea that I've just cooked up, and, so, it's probably bound to fraught with contradictions and drawbacks.

I am not advancing that the State plays no role in whatever it is that goes down. To do so would be absurd. — thewonder

But you've said that you're an anarchist.

I am an Anarchist. I interpret Anarchism as advancing some form of maximal liberty and equality. Because the State has stood so much in the way of this historically, Anarchism is often slated against the State, but I don't necessarily define "Anarchism" as being in opposition to the State. Some people might, and they could be correct, but, as I don't think that they are, I don't see a reason to adopt another term to refer to my political philosophy. Anarchism can be defined as what it advances positively as well as what it is slated against. I'm somewhat critical of a purely negative political approach as I think that it fails to offer a creative alternative to whatever it is critical of. Granted, I, too, don't have much to suggest as to what I think it is that society ought to be like. The distinction between Anarchism and Communism as being that Anarchism is slated against the State and that Communism is slated against Capital is, to me, somewhat confusing. It's easy to generally regard this as being true without taking into consideration the problems that doing so will eventually result in.

I'd say that this is an impoverished view of anarchism. Anarchists are against both state and capital because they are against hierarchies -- it is a radical philosophy in the sense that anarchists believe that the root of many social problems comes from hierarchical social organization.

Though perhaps this isn't the focus of your thread -- I just wanted to point out that unless one is aligned with the right-wing libertarian sorts, that anarchists are opposed not just to states, but to capital because they are both instantiations of hierarchical social organizations.

I've always understood "radical" in the political sense as referring to advancing a complete reform of a political body. Anarchists can be Radicals, but some Anarchists may not identify as such.

Just slating Anarchism against heirarchy is fine by me. I had thought that it was more of a problematic concept than it actually is as I had assumed that heirarchy implied that there was just one person at the top. I don't really think that President of the United States of America can be held to be responsible for all of the plights within the current geopolitical situation. It doesn't actually mean that necesssarily, and, so, my qualms were unfounded.

I've always understood "radical" in the political sense as referring to advancing a complete reform of a political body. — thewonder

You're not wrong. After all if you believe there is a root cause to many problems, what else would you do other than act to make a complete reform of a political body? If there is some root problem, then the very political institution you are railing against grows from that root problem -- hence needing to dig it up and start anew.

Just slating Anarchism against heirarchy is fine by me. I had thought that it was more of a problematic concept than it actually is as I had assumed that heirarchy implied that there was just one person at the top.I don't really think that President of the United States of America can be held to be responsible for all of the plights within the current geopolitical situation — thewonder

Maybe hierarchy needs to be clarified more. My preferred conception is to say that hierarchies are established when there are people who have decision making power when others are effected by said decision making power. What is decision-making power? I hope, at least, that this is clear: merely the ability to make decisions. But if you want to question me on this then we can. I merely mean that there are people who can say "Yes" or "no" or have the ability to formulate creative responses to questions, and those responses -- yes, no, or otherwise -- effect other people who do not have ultimate say in the decision. As an example: Voters may contact their representatives, and tell them the reasons they believe their representative should vote such and such, but the representative is the one who can vote "yay" or "Nay".

I've posted this before, but maybe it deserves a reposting. In spite of the ironies of having an authoritative resource for anarchy I recommend the Anarchist FAQ. -- looks like it changed since I posted it last. Damn it's almost like a bunch of folks who hate rulers are fine with changing shit on the fly. ;)

But it looks mostly the same. It's just a bunch of writing on the notions of anarchy. Hopefully it proves educational.

I am an Anarchist. I interpret Anarchism as advancing some form of maximal liberty and equality. — thewonder

Which would mean the abolition of the State, which would mean disorder. That's what it would mean, unless you set boundaries protecting the State and defined maximal with the State as an exception. But then it wouldn't truly be maximal liberty and equality. And it wouldn't be conducive to a just and orderly society by minimising the role of the State, anyway. That would be counterproductive.

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.

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.

An alternative to the State? Democracy.

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

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

No, I don't mean participatory democracy. I mean democracy. Like the self-rule of the people. So, in this case, the alternative to the concept of the State is the concept of the self-governed Demos.

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.

Participatory democracy is that. — thewonder

No, it's not. 'Participatory democracy' is the State's leasing of decision making to its subjects.

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. — thewonder

What's the anarchist concept of the State?

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.

Democracy is not participatory, it is self-governance. Participation implies other actors beyond the people. Who are these actors? In a typical liberal representative system these actors are 'the politicians' (or the State), who let the electorate 'participate' in the political decision making, usually through referenda. So, the electorate "participates" in the mechanism. In democracy these levels are flattened, there's no separate political class beyond the citizen. The citizens are the mechanism, they do not participate in it. All battles are given on this level. That's the conceptual analysis. In practice different outcomes are possible, but usually different conceptions of governance favor some outcomes more and some other less.

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

You asked for an alternative to the anarchist conception of the state. If you don't provide a working definition to what conception of the State am I supposed to give an alternative to?

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 don't need to find out what it is. You asked for a discussion on the conceptual level and I gave you a basic conceptual analysis. Why don't you just provide further conceptual analysis instead of sending me to wikipedia? I'm arguing that as long as distinct political levels exist, I have no good reason to call that a democracy. 'Participatory democracy' might be a genuine step towards democratization though. Having said that, we need to distinguish between furthering democratic practice within a democracy and trying to establish democratic processes in a non-democratic system. Even if at some point there might be a society which is effectively and essentially democratic in its processes while still maintaining the distinct political levels on paper, as a relic from its past (the reverse is possible too, of course). I know of no such examples. Do you know any?

Your wikipedia link in its 21st century participatory examples section, says:

In recent years, social media have led to changes in the conduct of participatory democracy. In the 2016 United States elections social media spread news and many[quantify] politicians used social-media outlets like Twitter to attract voters. Social media has helped to organize movements to demand change. Mainly through hashtags, citizens join political conversations with differing view-points.[22] To promote public interest and involvement, local governments have started using social media to make decisions based on public feedback.[23]

or

In the Russian Federation, President Vladimir Putin's annual Direct Line television Q&A sessions, wherein he answers a selection of the hundreds of thousands of questions which Russians submit via telephones or social media, provides a degree of participation for ordinary citizens[25] - an updated, more interactive version of fireside chats.

That these things are examples of 'participatory democracy' (or simply democracy) is but a joke. And putting together contemporary USA and Russia, the Athenian democracy, the Paris Commune, as examples of participatory democracy is a conceptual mess. Funnily enough, the go-to example of contemporary 'participatory democracy', Switzerland, is not even mentioned in the article!

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

What I don't know is what you have in mind as the anarchist conception of the State.

Anarchism is great in theory, but it's just pie in the sky. No successful or lasting real world examples come to mind. There was a brief period during the Spanish civil when anarchists gained power on some level, and then there's Somalia. I can't see how, in practice, in wouldn't result in disorder, manifesting in a whole number of ways. Government makes sense. How else would a society deal with what's dealt with by the various departments of state and by public services? It wouldn't, as people aren't capable of organising themselves on a society-wide scale without a government, without a set of rules over them, and without the enforcement of them. It would result in disorder, conflict, and every man for himself.

I interpret Anarchism as advancing some form of maximal liberty and equality. — thewonder

Out of interest, what do you mean by this?

If everyone is completely free, how would equality be maintained, and vice versa?

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 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 — thewonder

The wikipedia article is just bad and it's just an article in an encyclopedia, it's not theory or philosophy. That's why it can fit under the same category systems as different as the Athenian democracy or the russian dictatorship. Which is dumb.

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?" — thewonder

I didn't consider the State bad and in need of replacement. You asked for an alternative concept and I gave you one. Another one could be feudalism. What does it mean that the state is an outdated concept?

I don't think that Somalia has ever significantly attempted to engage in an Anarchist project. I think that you're equating "anarchism" 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. — thewonder

Between the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991 and the establishment of the Transitional National Government in 2006, there was no central government in Somalia.

And no, I'm aware of the etymology and origins of the term "anarchy", and what it is commonly associated with - it is similar in this respect to a term like "cynicism" - but I'm making an assessment irrespective of that. I genuinely think that it would lead to disorder, whatever we happen to call the political position in question.

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.

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".

Here's a simple way to put it: Is the world still organized in nation states? If not, what's the way it's currently organized?

"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?" is indeed a terrible way to put it.

My answer is that yes, the world is still organized in states. The states are still the proxies through which the ruling classes mainly act. Globalization is not new, it's just intensified both in space and time. In what way is the new concept of the 'Empire' distinct from the traditional concepts of 'empire', 'imperialism' and 'world sytem' and not just an elaboration on them?

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. — thewonder

I'm not sure if I follow. Humans are not created with equal faculties, and some persons are simply smarter, stronger or more social (to name but a few criteria) than others. Doesn't it follow that in order to make people equal we'd have to impede on the freedom of those more fortunate? As such, freedom and equality seem to be at odds so long as humans are not born identically.

And what constitutes this true freedom you speak of, and how is equality a prerequisite for this kind of freedom?

It seems you are advocating for a sort of middle-ground between freedom and equality, however doesn't the necessity for a middle-ground hint at these two concepts being at odds? Also, doesn't our current form of society already seek such a middle-ground? How would anarchy bring us closer to it? Anarchy would probably create more freedom, but in all likelihood at the expensive of equality.