Well from an anti-state perspective, supporting a country that commits radical acts such as monopoly of violence is by extension radical
This view is flawed because it mislabels the state’s monopoly on violence as inherently radical. In reality, this monopoly exists to prevent chaos by centralizing and regulating force. Calling it radical ignores the distinction between structured authority and unregulated violence. Supporting a state doesn’t mean endorsing oppression, it can mean recognizing the need for order over anarchy. The reason why humans have evolved to favor order over anarchy is because order provides stability, and this allows people to built up complex societies in relative safety.
I’d say tankies are also patriotic, just not for USA. Fatherland is a quite important concept in post-leninism forms of authoritarian communism. From my experience, it’s much more common to find anti-patriotism in libertarian communism / anarchism than in despotic communism.
Patriotism at it’s core is just a sense of pride, and that’s a universal emotion that everybody has. Everybody wants to feel like they belong to something greater. It gives us a feeling of nobility. All people share a feeling similar to patriotism, even if it’s labeled as something else… even anarchists.
There is a lexical error/approximation here. Anarchy does not oppose to order, anomy is. Anarchy just says that order must not emerge from authority but from solidarity. You can disagree, but saying that anarchy is disorder by definition is a mislabeling.
mislabels the state’s monopoly on violence as inherently radical
I disagree with this being a mislabeling (though i understand that it remains an opinion and you disagree with it). It is common to see any form of violence as radical, and i’ve seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying “Violence is never a solution”. Adding distinction of organized/disorganized violence is an arbitrary choice, and there is no logical imperative of doing so : holding all types of violence accountable, no matter their positive potential, is not a mislabel, it is a take on violence. On another note, i’ll add that organized violence can be undoubtedly far worse than disorganized one at times of war and massacre. Also, evolution from anarchydisorder to “order” is not that simple. From what we currently know, humanity lived far longer without structured power, and when those came with sedentarization, came wars and massacres too.
that’s a universal emotion that everybody has
Labeling something as “universal” without involuntary hyperbole is blatantly false. Humanity is made from diversity, and there are very few affirmations outside of physics that can correctly be applied to all of humanity. Everyone is unique, you’ll find some people without any patriotism (way more than you think) and even without pride.
Anarchy just says that order must not emerge from authority but from solidarity. You can disagree, but saying that anarchy is disorder by definition is a mislabeling.
This is just a semantic deflection. You’re appealing to a niche theoretical definition of anarchy while ignoring how the term functions in political discourse. The phrase “order over anarchy” reflects a real world tension between structured authority and the absence of it. You can argue that anarchist theory envisions a different kind of order, but that’s an ideal, not a demonstrated reality. In practice, large scale societies without centralized authority have consistently struggled to maintain stability. So no, it’s not a mislabeling, it’s a recognition of the risks that come with power vacuums.
It is common to see any form of violence as radical, and i’ve seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying “Violence is never a solution”. Adding distinction of organized/disorganized violence is an arbitrary choice, and there is no logical imperative of doing so : holding all types of violence accountable, no matter their positive potential, is not a mislabel, it is a take on violence.
You’re collapsing moral judgment with structural analysis. Calling all violence “radical” might feel principled, but it flattens critical distinctions. The difference between a lynch mob and a court ordered arrest isn’t arbitrary, it’s the difference between chaos and legitimacy. The state’s monopoly on violence isn’t radical, it’s foundational to modern governance. You can critique how that power is used, but denying the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is intellectually lazy. And yes, pre-state societies existed, but they weren’t peaceful utopias. Sedentarization brought war, but it also brought law, infrastructure, and medicine. Romanticizing statelessness doesn’t make it viable
Labeling something as “universal” without involuntary hyperbole is blatantly false. Humanity is made from diversity, and there are very few affirmations outside of physics that can correctly be applied to all of humanity.
You’re nitpicking language. “Universal” in this context clearly refers to the widespread nature of pride and belonging, not a literal claim about every human being. Patriotism taps into those emotions, which is why it’s so politically potent. The fact that some people reject patriotism doesn’t disprove its cultural force, it proves that it’s significant enough to be worth rejecting. If you want to critique patriotism, start by acknowledging its emotional appeal, not pretending it’s some fringe anomaly.
I’m just refering to anarchy as it is defined in politics, not in common talk. Anarchy as disorder is not politics, it’s something wider (a chaotic room could be called anarchy in that sense). Anarchy as politics is a system minimizing authority. You cannot say in good faith that disorder is the concept of political anarchy, it is (in your opinion) a consequence of it.
that’s an ideal, not a demonstrated 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).
it flattens critical distinction. […] isn’t arbitrary.
Distinction is arbitrary in essence. 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 state’s monopoly on violence isn’t radical, it’s foundational to modern governance.
Governance is a monopoly on violence. 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”.
denying the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is intellectually lazy.
I’m not as much denying the distinction as denying its actual positive impact. If you want another way to put it than “all violence is bad”, see it this way : 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.
pre-state societies existed, but they weren’t peaceful utopias.
Neither are states. 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.
“Universal” in this context clearly refers to the widespread nature
Well mb, you were actually making a involuntary hyperbole. Just to be clear, “universal” is used to mean “literally all”. You also used expressions “that everybody has” and “All people share” which makes me think that you are of bad faith here, and were clearly meaning to encapsulate everyone, but anyway, let’s say that’s not the case.
I then stand by my take : 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. 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).
Anyway, this discussion is beginning to be very splitted in subdiscussions, and i see that you engaged in a similar fashion with other people, so i’d guess it would be useful to sum up. I think all our points can be moved under those respective banners : 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. 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. 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.
If i’m not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after. I’d propose to stop there if we cannot bring anything useful other than “there are multiple opinions here”.
Lmao maybe for losers. I take pride in my own accomplishment. People who need to take pride in their country have to resort to external pride because they didn’t do shit themselves
This view is flawed because it mislabels the state’s monopoly on violence as inherently radical. In reality, this monopoly exists to prevent chaos by centralizing and regulating force. Calling it radical ignores the distinction between structured authority and unregulated violence. Supporting a state doesn’t mean endorsing oppression, it can mean recognizing the need for order over anarchy. The reason why humans have evolved to favor order over anarchy is because order provides stability, and this allows people to built up complex societies in relative safety.
Patriotism at it’s core is just a sense of pride, and that’s a universal emotion that everybody has. Everybody wants to feel like they belong to something greater. It gives us a feeling of nobility. All people share a feeling similar to patriotism, even if it’s labeled as something else… even anarchists.
There is a lexical error/approximation here. Anarchy does not oppose to order, anomy is. Anarchy just says that order must not emerge from authority but from solidarity. You can disagree, but saying that anarchy is disorder by definition is a mislabeling.
I disagree with this being a mislabeling (though i understand that it remains an opinion and you disagree with it). It is common to see any form of violence as radical, and i’ve seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying “Violence is never a solution”. Adding distinction of organized/disorganized violence is an arbitrary choice, and there is no logical imperative of doing so : holding all types of violence accountable, no matter their positive potential, is not a mislabel, it is a take on violence. On another note, i’ll add that organized violence can be undoubtedly far worse than disorganized one at times of war and massacre. Also, evolution from anarchydisorder to “order” is not that simple. From what we currently know, humanity lived far longer without structured power, and when those came with sedentarization, came wars and massacres too.
Labeling something as “universal” without involuntary hyperbole is blatantly false. Humanity is made from diversity, and there are very few affirmations outside of physics that can correctly be applied to all of humanity. Everyone is unique, you’ll find some people without any patriotism (way more than you think) and even without pride.
This is just a semantic deflection. You’re appealing to a niche theoretical definition of anarchy while ignoring how the term functions in political discourse. The phrase “order over anarchy” reflects a real world tension between structured authority and the absence of it. You can argue that anarchist theory envisions a different kind of order, but that’s an ideal, not a demonstrated reality. In practice, large scale societies without centralized authority have consistently struggled to maintain stability. So no, it’s not a mislabeling, it’s a recognition of the risks that come with power vacuums.
You’re collapsing moral judgment with structural analysis. Calling all violence “radical” might feel principled, but it flattens critical distinctions. The difference between a lynch mob and a court ordered arrest isn’t arbitrary, it’s the difference between chaos and legitimacy. The state’s monopoly on violence isn’t radical, it’s foundational to modern governance. You can critique how that power is used, but denying the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is intellectually lazy. And yes, pre-state societies existed, but they weren’t peaceful utopias. Sedentarization brought war, but it also brought law, infrastructure, and medicine. Romanticizing statelessness doesn’t make it viable
You’re nitpicking language. “Universal” in this context clearly refers to the widespread nature of pride and belonging, not a literal claim about every human being. Patriotism taps into those emotions, which is why it’s so politically potent. The fact that some people reject patriotism doesn’t disprove its cultural force, it proves that it’s significant enough to be worth rejecting. If you want to critique patriotism, start by acknowledging its emotional appeal, not pretending it’s some fringe anomaly.
I’m just refering to anarchy as it is defined in politics, not in common talk. Anarchy as disorder is not politics, it’s something wider (a chaotic room could be called anarchy in that sense). Anarchy as politics is a system minimizing authority. You cannot say in good faith that disorder is the concept of political anarchy, it is (in your opinion) a consequence of it.
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).
Distinction is arbitrary in essence. 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.
Governance is a monopoly on violence. 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”.
I’m not as much denying the distinction as denying its actual positive impact. If you want another way to put it than “all violence is bad”, see it this way : 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.
Neither are states. 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.
Well mb, you were actually making a involuntary hyperbole. Just to be clear, “universal” is used to mean “literally all”. You also used expressions “that everybody has” and “All people share” which makes me think that you are of bad faith here, and were clearly meaning to encapsulate everyone, but anyway, let’s say that’s not the case.
I then stand by my take : 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. 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).
Anyway, this discussion is beginning to be very splitted in subdiscussions, and i see that you engaged in a similar fashion with other people, so i’d guess it would be useful to sum up. I think all our points can be moved under those respective banners : 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. 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. 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.
If i’m not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after. I’d propose to stop there if we cannot bring anything useful other than “there are multiple opinions here”.
Lmao maybe for losers. I take pride in my own accomplishment. People who need to take pride in their country have to resort to external pride because they didn’t do shit themselves