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”.
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”.