TrashGoblin [he/him, they/them]

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.

Haha, my thought, too.