To anarchists: why shouldn't we have a government? What's wrong with a state...

To anarchists: why shouldn't we have a government? What's wrong with a state? I'm honestly at a loss to see why anarchists are opposed to things like universal healthcare and other government assistance to workers.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/bySz6
twitter.com/AnonBabble

kys

OP, healthcare and other assistances to people don't need to be given by a state. They can be given out by the workers, for themselves.

The state is the power system of one class over another. When there is no class of capitalists the state will either a) eventually cease to exist for lack of being needed according to Marxists/communists, or b) the state will be destroyed by the anarchists and will cease immediately by the will of the workers.

well how are they the same?

*not the same

Because the state violates the non-aggression principle. If it was all voluntary I wouldn't mind its existence.

This should be titled "To Socialists:" instead. You don't have to be an anarchist to realize states are inherently repressive and that those basic services can be provided without without one.

The NAP is incompatible with human society in general. You didn't choose to be indoctrinated by bourgeois ideology, an employee doesn't choose what employment options are available to him, nothing is voluntary.

What? Just because you didn't choose something does not necessarily mean it violated the non-aggression principle. Not choosing things is part of childhood, and it should be, for the obvious reason that children aren't mentally capable to make many decisions. You don't choose where you grow up, you don't choose your parents or your relatives, you don't even choose the language you speak. You will always be shaped by whoever raises you, there is simply no way around it. To the extent that we can make things better, I think removing things like mandatory government schooling in favor of private schools or homeschooling, could go a long way. As far as the employee who doesn't like his employment options, he can always try to increase them through education or perhaps by start his own business.

Its an external force wich wants to replace my self will with submission to its existance so it can utilize me for its own benefit. Also with submission to the state you grant your might towards the state wich constitute that you are not in power of yourself but that the state is in power of you, and whenever you NEED this power you need to be dependent upon the state to do the thing you think it needs to do.


Also this


A state is the centralisation of force over a territory wich it calls its own. (Nation) Its the actuall power of anything wich has CENTRAL Governance.

Governance is the method of how you manage society (Society = Unity under an idea like the idea of nation or the idea of commune or tribe) It can be centralised or decentralised.

Because the state are the power structures in place to defend the status quo ruling class. The state are not just things that groups of people decide to enact, like bus timetables or drinking ages.

So communists want to use the state to defend the gains of the working class; we can use it to put forward laws and changes to society that make the working class the dominant class instead of capitalists. We can use it to abolish private property, but still use it to defend worker's democracy.

Eventually there is no need to defend workers, and it's not possible to have any other sort of relation to the Means of Production, other than everyone owning it all.

This question isn't directed to you, anti-state capitalist.

You tell me.

Pure idealism. Even if you abolish private property, this doesn't make the working class the "dominant" class. The capitalists will be gone, but the "dominant" ie ruling class is now the state officials who hold all political power. The working class is still subservient, dependent on the mercy of the state to act in their best interests rather than its own.

If they are elected democratically, and they don't come from a distinct wealthy class with its own distinct class interests (unlike the vast majority of politicians today) nor can they be bribed with perks from special interest groups (again unlike today), then won't their political actions tend to mirror the broad preferences of those that voted for them? If they don't they'll just be voted out.

The problem with communal decision-making is that although some people have a boner for it, many others would find the process of studying up on all the fine details of policy issues (probably requiring thousands of hours to be really well-informed) and then hashing out the nitty-gritty with their community to be super boring and tedious. I think Zizek's comment below from his essay at archive.is/bySz6 are spot on:

Tryanny of the monarch is no better than tyranny of the majority.

That's why I called you idealistic. You're making two separate arguments here. That this form of state isn't really a ruling class, and that it is but that's okay because people want to be ruled. That they were elected democratically (which you should understand why that is not an argument) and because they surely will have no reason to behave in a way that prioritizes themselves and not the people, is preposterous. They are still in a position to decide what is best for the rest of us, and choose what we want or need. Just because we voted on who gets to decide for us doesn't solve the inherent problems of such a governing system.

And I disagree with Zizek on that point. What he is describing is a populace which has never known freedom. It ignores the material conditions which cultivate the mindset of the slave that is dependent on their slavery, and is afraid of what it means to be free; the unknown. Those who truly have no interest in operating politically are not forced to. The entire point is that one can if one chooses to, and is not reliant on someone making decisions for them. With elected officials, you give them your power in the infantile hope that they will do with it what you want them to, even though they have no means of understanding your values and can only do so by accident. "People don't know what they want" and yet we're supposed to accept that others do know what we want? In this matter at least, Zizek is being quite foolish.

Ideally, material conditions will have advanced enough that state society is no longer needed to provide social security.

marxism is a religion

Just FYI I am not the same user you called idealistic earlier.


It depends on your definition of "class" I guess. If they aren't more wealthy than most of the voters, and they didn't have any sort of distinctly different lifestyle before getting elected, does the mere fact that they get elected to a political position make them into a different class? Does any group that has a distinct set of skill and training and responsibilities in the society–mechanical engineers who have special responsibilities when it comes to planning new structures, for example–constitute a "class"? If not, what distinguishes the group of people who gain expertise in political issues and are given the responsibility of making decisions that reflect the broad preferences of the voters, so that they must be considered a distinct class but mechanical engineers do not count as one?


Not really, can you spell it out?


In what specific ways would they be able to prioritize themselves, if they don't have the option of gaining outsized amounts of wealth through politics?


No, he's describing a populace that finds political nitty-gritty like deciding funding levels for 1000 different programs to be really boring. What if I'd rather spend my time reading and thinking about other things, what options would exist for me in your ideal society? What if the majority of the population feels the same way?

Maybe one way of dealing with this would be that even in a society where every policy was voted on individually with no elected representatives, there could be experts who took the time to study all the issues and give lists of recommendations for how to vote on each one, then voters could just find an expert whose broad political priorities were similar to their own and whose judgment they trusted, and just vote their recommendations across the board without having to study up themselves are participate in long town meetings or whatever. Would you find this acceptable? In practice it's not really different than just donating my vote to an elected official but it would at least allow me the option of changing my representative any time without waiting for a new election cycle, or differing with the representative on a few specific issues while deferring to them on everything else.


People may know what they want on a broad level but not in terms of specifics. For example, I may want to hold back global warming or improve education levels of kids but not know what specific policy changes have the best realistic options for achieving those goals.

This is the most anarchist thing I've read this year, hands down.

I like how it's impossible to know whether this is an anarchist or a Holla Forumsyp.

...

I've seen some super Holla Forumsyp things from tankies. One was talking about raiding villages.

and raping…

I'm honestly at a loss to see why things like healthcare require a coercive entity that holds a monopoly on force, and whatever else it damn well pleases.

And racial pride, and nationalism, and dirty immigrants, and masculinity, and how we need to protect tradition, and violently remove "weak" non-violent protesters.

Honestly, I worry for this, but I think it can be handled by modern man, as we have been through the ussr , and we expect more from democracy.

The engineers are beholden to he decisions of the politicians, while the politicians are not vice versa. "Government" is not simply a discipline or craft like engineering. It's hierarchical power.
Only you, the lower class, think that.

Hillary Clinton was just "elected democratically." Power will always be used by those who have it keep that power, regardless of how it "should" or "shouldn't" be used. It's naive to think that the state will just behave because they aren't paid more. Money is only important because it begets that power they already have. You've cut out the middleman, not solved the issue.


There's no way to not do so. Say I'm a elected official that is really interested in space travel. I am personally biased to investing resources and development towards that end, regardless of what the populace at large wants. Or, I think we need more security, and I invest in that, and pass laws that restrict people's freedoms in the name of safety, regardless on what is wanted. Elections try to control this bias by letting people choose between candidates based on how we "think" someone will behave in certain circumstances, but you're still sacrificing your ability to adjust in case you're wrong.

"Welp, guess we have to wait another four years to get rid of this idiot so we can elect another guy and hope he isn't an idiot too oh wait he totally is time for another four years." Ad infinitum.


That's why I'm saying no one is forced to participate, certainly not on such miniscule scale. The point of participatory politics instead of representational politics is not to get everyone involved, but to keep anyone from being barred to contribute. If 99% of the population doesn't want to be involved in politics, that's fine. I'm simply proposing that politics be voluntary work, and that in the event those who are using power try and fuck over the rest of us, we have an actual means of overruling them.

It's a terrible example here for multiple reasons, but think of the original wikipedia editing system. You can leave it to those interested to take care of things, but can step in yourself and defend your interests if it isn't working.

Trusting other people to be you will never work.

...