Justify anarchism

Anarchists seem fairly trigger happy, usually. From what I've seen of their posts, the assumption appears to be that most people will be willing to work together because it is in their own self-interest to have a functional society without exploitation, and that the people who seek to disrupt this are promptly killed or exiled.

A better criticism of it is the fact that there's literally nothing stopping an individual from convincing people to follow him, forming a hierarchical military force, and absolutely crushing the anarchist not-a-state through superior organization. Pure anarchism only works if you assume that nobody is interested in filling the huge power vacuum.

mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists

You mean you'd have a bunch of armed people all following their own instincts and hunting for subversives within their own society?

I decent psychopath could have them kneeling at his feet and calling him king in a week with nothing more than a few well-placed rumors, a couple of Trump-style speeches, and a big dollop of divide-and-conquer.

The moment anyone started making moves towards conquest, and it was visible, the entire world's attention would be then turned on the seemingly random group of barbarians ravaging the landscape.

this thread is y u read bookchin

Anarchy was in place for much, much longer than anything else. It's completely natural, as man had been inside of it for millennium until the late copper age/early bronze age, when civilization reared its ugly head.

I'm not talking about a group of barbarians. I'm talking about the kind of manipulation and subversion that the CIA have perfected and used to great effect in numerous countries.

Any anarchist society paranoid enough to actually put up any kind of a fight would be so paranoid that it would rapidly splinter into a thousand small factions the moment someone did a bit of random vandalism and sent a few nasty letters under false names.

Unless anarchism just means "a hierarchy of fewer than 200 people", you're grossly misinformed.

The could subvert all they'd like but they wouldn't get anywhere without conquering something, and comparatively they'd be barbarians then. It's not hard to unite against that.

There was no hierarchy though, only in the really late pre-historic period did a true hierarchy emerge. Tribal leaders are not akin to kings or CEOs.

So, if I understand you correctly, you and other anarchists would, generally, believe that an openly hostile and violent society of trigger happy individualists is better than attempting to bring real, peaceful order to society via a governing body?

People can agree to things, write down their agreements, and act on them without a hierarchical state. Anarchism means the peaceful order you want would come from the people themselves rather than an outside, higher power that claims the right to make people follow its order. In any case, the police in a society with a state tend to be as openly hostile, violent, and trigger happy as you fear people would be in an anarchist society.

Well, I'm apparently very sympathetic to anarcho-communism, and indeed I have an authority problem that I've never quite been able to overcome, so I'm mostly doing this not as a defence of my position, but merely to really get at the benefits of yours.

So, for example, you see police as the threat to be feared. That's fair, I don't particularly like them either, though I see them as a necessary evil. In the case of a police force, at least the hostility is centralized to a body that can, to an extent, be held accountable for it, even if that accountability is limited. What you suggest, though, is that everyone ought to possess the authority of hostility and lethal force without repercussion. You may say that one person acting foolish would be mowed down, but what's to stop a chaotic civil war breaking out if like-minded individuals start taking not justice, but injustice into their own hands? In our current society, we call these aggressors criminals and they are locked up, with varying rates of accuracy and success. Your reply appears to be that in such a scenario, an anarchist society has no recourse. Society will fall if it may. That doesn't sound terribly safe or sustainable to me, and that's the part that worries me.

then they die. i have no qualms about killing beligerent, violent aggressors

Justify the nation-state.

I'm actively attempting to dissuade myself from the nation-state, so that's not incredibly productive in this conversation, but just off the top:

If a centralized authority is either consented to or abided by its citizens, then we can say that this body would be expected not only to carry out repercussions against its criminals, but also to serve and protect its people. This can be a very productive agreement because if a governing authority has the power to punish aggressors, then the average citizen doesn't need to have as much worry about aggressors because the latter will be generally apprehensive about the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, with state law and authority, rational and humane consequences for criminal acts can be both decided and enacted by impartial parties, resulting in a much more peaceful and less reactionary society. As an adendum to this, I also see some benefit to the democratic process, to ensure that the citizens would have some freedom in deciding the types of governing bodies they would have, which could ensure a lack of distrust on the part of the citizens and a lack of malicious intent on the part of the politicians, whose power would be considered tenuous.

Further, a society so constructed, even if it is not pleasant to every individualist, is much more likely to serve a collective purpose, a common good. After all, of everyone is bound to a single societal framework, then there is a sure fire incentive to cooperate within that framework as much as possible. This makes things like NASA possible, and that is a rather fine achievement compared to those of non-hierarchical societies who would, more than likely, have no real reason to aspire to such goals since they require a great amount of inconvenience.

no its not at all. we've done nothing in space that will benefit any of us or our children. maybe in 5-10 generations when mega corp+new earth gov colonizes mars and creates the hell hole that will be space-faring human civilization it will be. but for now they've done nothing, fuck space research. deep ecology, sustainable engineering, biology, studying electromagnetism and energy are the only scientific pursuits that are worthy

Exchange NASA with any of those other programs and my concern still stands.

Have you read Dugin? Isn't national bolshevism ultra-nationalism combined with left wing economics? This is more of a generic argument for the nation-state you might find a scodem use. Not that it's poorly worded or anything.

NAP is mainly an ancap thing, but that doesn't mean all anarchists don't agree on the basic principals of "don't be aggressive, don't be coercive, only use violence in defense". Ancaps just believe these rules apply to private property as an extension of the individual, while left-anarchists don't. They both believe there should be no coercion, ancaps just believe there's no such thing as economic coercion.

What stops wars is the fact that people tend not to enjoy dying in wars. When there's a state, the people running it get to send others to die rather than themselves, so I think pointless wars are much more likely with states than without.

If enough people want to die for a cause for there to be a civil war, then that would be a problem if there was a state anyway. If a state can avoid it turning into a civil war, then it would need to use large-scale political repression. That kind of repression is not a great base to build a society on, and if the state has so much power and the will to act against so many of the people that it's supposed to represent, then I wouldn't say that's very safe for the people, though it might be sustainable.

In all fairness, I consider myself a democratic socialist, but I have Nazbol leanings. That is to say, I find a lot of ideas within that ideology compelling, but I don't follow it entirely. I think nationalism is valuable if there is a metric by which one can assert that one's country or at least its values are superior to others, and the country I live in (Canada) definitely fits that category for me. I would even dare to say that other countries would benefit from emulating our values.

Then there's the more specifically Bolshevik ideas that think sound reasonable, like having a mobilized workers' party to operate in the interest of the working class, and the reconstruction of government policies through the success of such a party. My model is someone like Tommy Douglas, who I think represents something of the spirit of this country that ought be kept alive. And based on Canada's commemorative history to Douglas, I'd say most people here would agree. Unfortunately, our government has since forgotten that tradition and been soured by American enthusiasts, but I do believe it is both salvageable and worth saving.

I'll admit that I'm not the most savvy about all of this atm, but that's kind of why I'm trying to bug you guys. I would rather come out of this with a fuller and more cogent view rather than continue in the wrong direction if it can be proved that I'm not onto something.

Oh, and I haven't read Dugin yet. I intend to read a lot more, but I'm balancing all this with school, so I'm currently working with bare minimum knowledge of the ideological frameworks behind all this. It's a lot more expedient for me to have arguments here to figure out my information atm.

I don't have to.

Ah yes, what a paragon of virtue you are for not engaging in a debate with someone who is sympathetic to your views and actively trying to be convinced of their validity. How noble! How brave!

Read the thread, fucktard.

exactily why I don't have to.

Whatever satisfies your little man complex.

I live in Canada too, where do you live? I hold some Eurocentric views myself, but don't hold any views close to ultranationalism.

I was under the impression that Nazbol was a turd positionist ideology such as Asserism, and my challenge to justify the nation was moreso for inquisitive discourse on the grounds you were the other Nazbol on the forum who is a Duginist (I think).

I live in Vancouver, but I move around a lot, so I've been in some more places, even down in Ontario.

I don't like the Asserite strain NBF types. I think they're a bunch of weirdo conspiratards. I tend more toward the non-ethno-nationalist, but still nationalist NBP strain, the variety more closely aligned with Limonov's stance. He was still weird about Jews at times, but he didn't really incorporate it into his central philosophy for the party.

Me as well.

Have you read Limonov then?

Oh hi, neighbour.

No, I haven't read his stuff directly, but I've read about him and I did some work reading articles about the various elements he worked into his philosophy. I've been trying to look for any books of his that could be found locally, but so far no stores I've been to have sold them and I haven't found them for free on the internet, so my other option is to order them online from Amazon or something, but I hate doing that for some reason. Probably because I have to use my partner's credit card to do it which makes me feel weird.

Upon further inspection, his writing may not be worth much as far as political substance. His article in the various papers he wrote for, perhaps, but it seems like he was more of a speaker than a writer.

What's the motivation for people to rally behind a wannabe dictator? The society is already pretty much perfect. Why start shit for no reason?

You cannot possibly have this rosy a view of humans. We are so prone to selfish gains and power struggles. To suggest that nobody would agitate this system because it's pretty much perfect is to ignore the fact that humans are not, by and large, pretty much perfect.

I'm kind of like you in that I'm a secret faggot Nazbol sympathizer, but I live in America and the idea of "rallying" behind an American identity actually makes me vomit in my own mouth a little bit. Until we have a functioning leftist movement beyond the fucking internet I can't even conceive of identifying as an "American".
What makes my sympathetic to Nazbol is my own reaction(ary) to the alienating idpol that has literally nuked all rational discourse in the West.

I'm openly faggoty, actually. And you may not believe that your country has anything of value, but I think mine does, so I gladly identify with it. It hasn't quite been made unsalvageable by the influences of American culture.

Humans don't need to be perfect to simply act in their self-interest. People follow dictators because they believe there's a major problem and only the dictator can fix it. Additionally, people are much less likely to quickly resort to violence to solve problems in a peaceful, stable, and free society, and the ones that do are likely to be in the minority and would have to deal with everyone else, who are equally armed, who are not going to allow themselves to be oppressed. Dictators might have a large following, but the majority have always just wanted to be left alone, it is only with the coercion of the state and their inability to fight back which gives dictators and states in general their real power over people. Before strongmen and their goons could oppress peaceful communities simply because they were bigger and had weapons, but with guns being ubiquitous and a child being able to wield it as effectively and dangerously as a strong man, it has completely equalized the use of force.

Simple water shortage will cause it, with no apparatus to defend itself from the real resource problems, angry people will push against the wet paper bag of anarchism, not that it would ever get that far.

OK, Nazpol

...

Again, I'm sympathetic to anarchism, specifically anarcho-communism. I'm talking about society at large, not me. I am merely an ant in a colony. Retard.

That doesn't mean that everyone having access to equal force is a good thing, and that's my contention. You appear to be arguing for a world of open anxiety and hostility. You may say that people will follow their own interests, but there are some people with manipulative interests who would find ways to turn your society upside down or otherwise gain control over it. Guns are no match for charisma and a malicious plan. Nobody wants to shoot a man they perceive to be on their side. Sociopaths are great masters of cult behaviour.

Argument not found

Just because people can effectively defend themselves from aggression or coercion doesn't mean there'll be hostility or anxiety. Guns puts everyone on the same level; there'd be no more hostility than two men the same size and skill being in the same room together.
Yes, but much less than now.
No. There would be no method to do that like there is now with the state. Most soldiers and public workers under dictators did it out of coercion or just as a job, not because they believed in him.
And charisma is meaningless if no one sees there's a problem that needs a ruler to fix; plans are useless if the only way to succeed is to try to oppress the armed majority with a fanatic group of followers (who are following an insane leader, for some reason). All tyrants claimed the preexisting power structure to enforce their tyranny, all warlords succeed because they oppress unarmed, defenseless peasants. Most people just want to be left alone and leave others alone, and they would if they could effectively say 'no'. The minority who don't are created through shitty circumstances that would be eliminated in an anarchic, cooperative, peaceful society.

Neither is mentioning a vague resource scarcity problem without mentioning why it would exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

Temporary truce then, faggot.
But I'm coming for those spooks one of these days, boyo.

...

they want to break windows AND YOU WILL NOT STOP THEM