there’s more advanced anarchism that differentiates bureaucracy from state and hierarchy but that always sounds like libertarians reinventing the state to me and it only makes any sense to me in vague “post-prison abolition we’ll still have somewhere to separate serial killers from society” way where the imagined structure is so different from what we have now that people don’t want to call it a state.
For me, the ultimate argument against anarchism is to define what a state is. A state is a weapon, an organized form of violence, that one class uses to oppress another. That’s from Lenin, but most anarchists should agree, right? So anything remotely organized, that anarchists or anyone else does to defend after a revolution against reaction, fascism and imperialism is already a state by definition. They might call it the grassroots self defense committees or lose federation of independent people’s militias or whatever. But if it works to suppress fascism, then it fullfils the role of oppressing classes in the interest of other classes and that’s a state.
For me, the ultimate argument against anarchism is to define what a state is. A state is a weapon, an organized form of violence, that one class uses to oppress another. That’s from Lenin, but most anarchists should agree, right?
No, anarchists and Marxist-Leninists use different definitions of the state, which contributes to a lot of talking-past-each-other. The definitions used by anarchists vary a lot, but tend to focus on monopoly on the use of force, use of force for coercion, or on hierarchical organization. While most historical anarchists are anticapitalist, the class character of the state usually isn’t usually emphasized. Federated community militias could potentially be a state under the Marxist-Leninist definition without being a state under a given group of anarchists’ definition. But on the other hand, they could easily be a state under some other anarchist’s definition, which is why it pays to find out what kind of anarchist you’re talking to. Unfortunately, the “bedtime is authoritarian” type seem to have become overwhelmingly common over the last 10 years or so.
Segregation of people who didn’t want to abide by an anarchist community’s (or states) agreed upon rules was always an issue I couldn’t resolve, no matter how many solutions/explanations were given me.
Firstly, rules people agree to have are…laws? Secondly, if they don’t agree, they leave. Who’s guaranteeing they leave/don’t re-enter to reoffend? Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty to criticize with most jail/prison systems I’ve heard/read about, but I have read good things about either Norwegian or Danish, for even violent offenders (I forget which, I think Denmark), that actually provide formal education, therapy, social reintegration strategies, and even pet or equine care (empathy, healthy attachment), open cells and more. In my admittedly limited perspective, although the investment up front is more costly, it seems less expensive in both monetary and social costs, but the truth of the matter is, addressing these issues before they become actual issues is the real investment, and real cost-saving strategy. We’re not there and with unaddressed multigenerational trauma coupled with emerging epigenetic discoveries, it may take several generations to get to a point of actual humanitarian segregation and hopefully, ultimately, phasing out incarceration.
Until then, I haven’t been able to conceive of how to properly address recidivism outside what I’ve mentioned. I’m open to ideas.
Getting together and get shit done is authoritarian, but try to ask them to do the dish, it’s all your tasks. I’ve organized with enough anarchists to accept the fact they love to push collective responsibilities around. They can discuss and “debate” all they want about whichever utopia, but they just can’t share the chores. They’d cook the shit but you the gallant one gotta clean theirs.
there’s more advanced anarchism that differentiates bureaucracy from state and hierarchy but that always sounds like libertarians reinventing the state to me and it only makes any sense to me in vague “post-prison abolition we’ll still have somewhere to separate serial killers from society” way where the imagined structure is so different from what we have now that people don’t want to call it a state.
For me, the ultimate argument against anarchism is to define what a state is. A state is a weapon, an organized form of violence, that one class uses to oppress another. That’s from Lenin, but most anarchists should agree, right? So anything remotely organized, that anarchists or anyone else does to defend after a revolution against reaction, fascism and imperialism is already a state by definition. They might call it the grassroots self defense committees or lose federation of independent people’s militias or whatever. But if it works to suppress fascism, then it fullfils the role of oppressing classes in the interest of other classes and that’s a state.
No, anarchists and Marxist-Leninists use different definitions of the state, which contributes to a lot of talking-past-each-other. The definitions used by anarchists vary a lot, but tend to focus on monopoly on the use of force, use of force for coercion, or on hierarchical organization. While most historical anarchists are anticapitalist, the class character of the state usually isn’t usually emphasized. Federated community militias could potentially be a state under the Marxist-Leninist definition without being a state under a given group of anarchists’ definition. But on the other hand, they could easily be a state under some other anarchist’s definition, which is why it pays to find out what kind of anarchist you’re talking to. Unfortunately, the “bedtime is authoritarian” type seem to have become overwhelmingly common over the last 10 years or so.
Okay, good point, thanks
Segregation of people who didn’t want to abide by an anarchist community’s (or states) agreed upon rules was always an issue I couldn’t resolve, no matter how many solutions/explanations were given me.
Firstly, rules people agree to have are…laws? Secondly, if they don’t agree, they leave. Who’s guaranteeing they leave/don’t re-enter to reoffend? Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty to criticize with most jail/prison systems I’ve heard/read about, but I have read good things about either Norwegian or Danish, for even violent offenders (I forget which, I think Denmark), that actually provide formal education, therapy, social reintegration strategies, and even pet or equine care (empathy, healthy attachment), open cells and more. In my admittedly limited perspective, although the investment up front is more costly, it seems less expensive in both monetary and social costs, but the truth of the matter is, addressing these issues before they become actual issues is the real investment, and real cost-saving strategy. We’re not there and with unaddressed multigenerational trauma coupled with emerging epigenetic discoveries, it may take several generations to get to a point of actual humanitarian segregation and hopefully, ultimately, phasing out incarceration.
Until then, I haven’t been able to conceive of how to properly address recidivism outside what I’ve mentioned. I’m open to ideas.
Getting together and get shit done is authoritarian, but try to ask them to do the dish, it’s all your tasks. I’ve organized with enough anarchists to accept the fact they love to push collective responsibilities around. They can discuss and “debate” all they want about whichever utopia, but they just can’t share the chores. They’d cook the shit but you the gallant one gotta clean theirs.