Maybe not the State in particular, but statism in general seems to be the prevailing dogma.

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.

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.

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".

A statist is someone who believes the state should have substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. I believe this is the prevailing dogma, especially in the west.

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.

I think it’s a little deeper than politics, and by west I meant not just the US. But if you read the Green New Deal, or even the New Deal, it’s pure statism.

I'm not discounting that there was 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". — thewonder

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. The relevance of the example is that during that period there was no central government, which is what anarchists call for. Funnily enough, it didn't work out too well. Not the kind of place you'd want to spend your holiday.

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.

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 like what you wrote there.

The state is, by it’s very nature, the abuse of power. It has the monopoly on violence and coercion, on justice, on plunder and on rule-making.

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 love this statement. Evidence of this can be seen in slavery, which flew in the face of the founding notions of the country. But surely liberalism also made evident the hypocrisy and wore it down, leading to abolition.

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.

I’m with you on that. Anarchism is the best option. But I fear a moral and ethical populace populace is required for it to work.

That seems to be one of the problems with Marxism as well, the so-called “withering of the state”, which Engles thought was an inevitability. It turns out the state only got bigger.

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. — thewonder

Of course they don't call for that! But that's the kind of thing that you'd get by abolishing the pillars of society. It is the height of naïveté to think that it would actually go as imagined in your lofty ideals of a liberal and cooperative society. Wake up and smell the coffee.

I’m with you on that. Anarchism is the best option. But I fear a moral and ethical populace is required for it to work. — NOS4A2

Which is why it will never work.

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.

Being naive is better than being cynical in my opinion.

I'm being realistic, which beats naïveté any day of the week.

When people are not created equally in their faculties, does it not stand to reason that, when given complete freedom to exploit their faculties, those individuals with greater faculties will thrive and those with lesser faculties will not?

As a result they will become unequal. Examples of this we see all over the human and animal kingdoms.

If one wishes to "correct" this inequality, the freedoms of those with greater faculties will have to be limited.

Of course, one could be in favor of liberty, but at the same time favor equality in certain aspects of society, like equality to the law. Even then some liberty is being conceded of those who would otherwise use the law in their favor.

In short, equality is not a natural state of being, and needs to be forcibly brought about somehow. In this process, freedom is taken away from "the strong", who would otherwise be free to exploit "the weak".

In short, incoherent social darwinism 101. If 'the strong' exploiting 'the weak' is akin to exercising one's natural freedom, the 'weak' exploiting the 'strong' is equally akin to exercising one's natural freedom. Oh, what the heck, after all the strong was the weak and the weak was the strong.

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.

It is not only that freedom is not opposed to equality, they can only co-arise. If you don't have one you can't have the other. And 'the state of nature' has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever; if anything, it's its antithesis.

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. — thewonder

Thriving of the strong and exploitation of the weak, while not the same, often go hand in hand.

How would these specialists be compensated for their talents? Compensating them would lead to inequality, no?

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. — thewonder

Humans behave differently in smaller groups, so perhaps in a tribal context humans are more inclined to social behavior. Though, even in tribes there's a clear hierarchy, and thus there too people are unequal.

Do you have any examples that can make me understand the type of society you envision?

In short, incoherent social darwinism 101. If 'the strong' exploiting 'the weak' is akin to exercising one's natural freedom, the 'weak' exploiting the 'strong' is equally akin to exercising one's natural freedom. Oh, what the heck, after all the strong was the weak and the weak was the strong. — hairy belly

In principle, able-bodied males must do military service to protect the borders of the territory and lower its internal levels of random violence. If you do not want to perform military service, and the powers that be allow for that, you can pay compensation in lieu of military service.

Therefore, poor able-bodied males can in principle receive daily stipends for spending a few hours per day at the gym, the shooting range, and the exercise field. In many countries, however, private security firms will offer more money than the government for guarding property for all kinds of private clients. Furthermore, the government generally prefers younger men while private security firms do not seem to mind age, as long as you are sufficiently fit.

In my impression, there are no unemployed males with no income, especially here in SE Asia. They are all soaked up in private and public security-related work. I personally do not see why they should receive unemployment benefits instead of doing this kind of work. What's wrong anyway with going to the gym and the shooting range? They cannot just sit at home, can they?

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? — thewonder

I don't agree with the status quo, I just don't lend my support to unrealistic causes, for obvious reasons. When your pipe dream has become a realistic cause, then get back to me. I won't be holding my breath. In the meantime, if you really want to make a positive difference, then you should vote for your main left-wing party, as I do.

what I think that Anarchist society should be like — thewonder

Says it all, I think.

I agree that freedom and quality are somewhat interdependent and that they can co-arise, but don't know that I would say that freedom is not natural. I think that the desire for freedom is something which all human beings share. It only goes so far, but I do think that it is natural.


They may not be compensated monetarily but woul be rewarded for their merits in so far that it would be in keeping with free and equal society to do so. I don't think that people necessarily need something like a profit incentive in order to motivated to achieve great things. Because an ideal society would be, well, ideal, people would actually want to partake and contribute to it.

There are no examples. You can take the Paris Commune as an example or a lot of different Anarchist communes as being somewhat exemplary, but, I am sure, that there is some fault to be found in all of them. Anarchism is relatively new theory of what society should be like which has never been effectively tried. Had it been, I am sure that there would be a lot more Anarchists in the world. Suggesting that Anarchism fails because it never went anywhere is like suggesting that because the Gnostics were never able to overcome that most of the Christian faith regarded them as being heretics that they must've been wrong. They may have been wrong, but that they never successfully proselytized is not evidence of this.


There is no main left-wing party in the United States, though. I plan on voting for the Democratic Socialists of America if they put up a candidate. It's partially out of spite as the Democratic Party will consider that to be a vote that has been lost, but partially sincere as I do think that political parties should be more like the DSA.

I have found out that the DSA just supports Bernie Sanders and, so, my plans have been foiled. I'll just have to vote Green I guess. I've just realized that I can vote in the Green primaries. I might vote for Dario Hunter.

There is no main left-wing party in the United States, though. I plan on voting for the Democratic Socialists of America if they put up a candidate. It's partially out of spite as the Democratic Party will consider that to be a vote that has been lost, but partially sincere as I do think that political parties should be more like the DSA. — thewonder

The Democratic Party is the main left-wing party in the United States. They're a centre-left party, and that still counts as left-wing, regardless of your more radical alignment. Once again, albeit in a difference context this time, you don't get to just define things however you please. And with someone like Bernie Sanders at the helm, a result which would meet with my approval, then they'd move even further to the left.

I have found out that the DSA just supports Bernie Sanders and, so, my plans have been foiled. I'll just have to vote Green I guess. I've just realized that I can vote in the Green primaries. I might vote for Dario Hunter. — thewonder

Well, if you want to waste your vote, then so be it, but I wouldn't encourage it.

Well, yeah, I mean why vote for Howie Hawkins when there's Bernie Sanders? I am being somewhat stubborn. The Democratic Party just had it out for me and I feel some sort of need to get back at them. It's ultimately rather childish.

I just simply wasn't sure if you were using "left-wing" to denote being 'left' of center or to refer to the radical left. For instance, if I lived in Sweeden, I would take that to mean that you were suggesting that I should vote for Feminist Initiative or the Left Party, but you could have been suggesting that I should vote for the Sweedish Social Democratic Party, who, all in all, is probably pretty alright, but I would probably give the vote to the Left Party or FI given the chance to. My point is that in Europe there are other options.