Reminder that a strong centralised state is needed to break local hierarchies of exploitation. This is how progress happens in history.
The state freed the serfs. Not anarchists.
The state freed the slaves. Not anarchists.
The state passes worker protection laws, is the source of welfare and anti-discrimination, and pushes against corporations and big business to varying extents (they're held back by a lack of centralisation in an era of free trade, which is why states have made less progress recently).
Still you insist the state is your enemy.
If the state disappeared tomorrow we would go back to slavery and feudalism. They would hire armed guards to protect their property and we would be back to square one. Stuff like this doesn't usually bother me but 'anarchists' are so naive that it actually scares me.
Based a ML-pilled. The state is simply a monopoly on violence, and every ideology that isn't literally inconsequential utilizes it to some capacity. Weber, despite his flaws, makes an excellent point on this.
I agree op, but you're still a faggot for relegating humanistic values to animalistic. If there weren't so many fearful power hungry faggots top down, or bottom up in the world we'd do alright. The fear that drives you to rationalize control of another is born of an incapacity to uphold your own regardless of circumstance. You're free whether state or not, only more consequences with a collective state mind to answer to.
(Sorry, was fixing a typo when I accidentally clicked reply. ) The All Powerful State = Mass Delegation of Responsibility
The belief that a minority of people should be in positions of power over the general population, is the belief that 1 mind is better than 1000.
Why would we want only a tiny percentage of people to dictate how the entire society should live their lives?
The statist believes that ONE SIZE FITS ALL. The person who believes in individual autonomy believes that we should all have clothes that fit; metaphorically speaking.
The point is that the state is the only way to guarantee personal autonomy. I would argue that history shows this.
Ayden Robinson
Read Weber.
Justin Ward
Disclaimer: I'm a man. The state:
* uses my money to fund misandrist programs and organizations that spread hate against me * uses my money to support single mothers * doesn't grant me the presumption of innocence in any case where I'm accused of hurting or harrassing a woman * doesn't recognize my authority over my wife and children * takes my house and children, by force if necessary, and gives them to my ex-wife by default * forces me to pay for a child that I didn't want, or that's not even necessarily mine * doesn't grant me any reproductive rights: I can literally be raped by a woman at gunpoint and still be forced to pay child support * doesn't allow me to homeschool my children * punishes me more harshly than a woman for the same exact crime * doesn't recognize any of the issues I face as a man * allows my girlfriend or wife to abuse me with impunity, because male victims don't matter * doesn't allow me to carry a weapon of any kind for self defense purposes * grants itself the right to force me to fight in wars of conquest * limits my freedom of expression, doesn't allow me to criticize certain groups of people, basically every group is protected from criticism except straight white men * puts surveillance cameras everywhere, I can't go anywhere without feeling watched
Tell me again how the state equals freedom. Because it sounds like a vampire to me.
Ian Barnes
If all you mean by a state is an organized group that directs and monopolizes and organizes violence then you are not using a classed interpretation of the State nor is it something that goes against anarchism.
Logan Nelson
This is "authority is bad" tier. The state is literally just a monopoly on violence utilized by whatever class/ideology is in power. To not utilize it is to be inconsequential. You can complain about things all you want, but if you don't have a monopoly violence or a say in that monopoly of violence, it means literally nothing. Unironically a good thing if you fail to meet proper educational standards and fail to properly socialize your children.
I don't think I get you. What historical states would you have supported? What states do you support today?
Surely an anarchist is he who doubts the efficacy of any state in achieving progress?
Christian Walker
What are you defining as a state? Are you including the part where it is used for the enforcement of the will of a parasitic class on the class the drives history, or is every group that has set up rules and used violence to impose itself a state? Would the Zapatistas be a state, is the USSR?
Brandon Cooper
The state should have 1 role: design and distribution of weapons to the citizens to ensure mutually assured destruction on an individual and community scale.
With this, a state is not needed
Levi Howard
I should have used the term government / monopoly of violence / whatever. If you just dislike parasitic governments you're hardly an anarchist. Everyone dislikes them.
Liam Moore
If you're just talking about governance then I am for advanced forms of direct democratic governance which still implies the monopoly and use of force, which is why I still go by the flag of anarchy. If we're just asking about what governments I support, I support all states which are progressive towards the development of material history, which includes the current and historical Marxist ones of the last century
Tyler Baker
Don't most states progress material history in some or other way?
Mason King
Sure, but it's blatantly obvious that the US would currently rather bomb people by the millions rather than accept that the material base it has developed demands that it change its class superstructure and that the bourgs must die
Dominic Cruz
I suppose more importantly, the imperialist states move history more slowly than, and, directly align themselves against more forward thinking socialist aligned states.
This is just historical fact. I can't believe there are people ITT that would argue otherwise. Your anarchist revolution may temporarily disrupt hierarchies, but only with the support of the state can you truly break them.
Luis Howard
what a shitshow this board has become. looks like BO has accomplished his goal.
Jackson Cruz
Shouldn't he be holding The German Ideology?
Liam Roberts
Mad anarchist is mad
Bentley Rogers
Early anarchists were important but needed development.
Xavier Myers
not what a state is
Carson Cook
So a state of 5000 people can free themselves from 500 tyrants, but 50 people can't from 1 tyrant, how does that work?
Samuel Perez
The nation-state will not compromise on its territorial integrity. Seizing control of the nation-state is a pre-condition for holding territory long-term.
By contrast states are more or less willing to see other states go to the left, Amerikkka is the only that really cares if they do. And that's nthing compared to a nation state 2 miles away rounding up the troops.
Andrew Perez
read Stirner
Dominic Smith
based theorylet
Thomas White
While you were defeating Tyrant #1, Tyrant #2 studied the blade. While you were establishing civil liberties, Tyrant #2 mastered internal supply chains. While you wasted your days determining democracy, Tyrant #2 cultivated military strength.
Hudson Clark
I would of but I mass produced different versions of the meme for the zizek v. peterson debate. I replaced Stirner's head with Peterson's later on
Christopher Thomas
If major states fell apart in rapid succession it would trigger an economic collapse of such proportion it couldn't even be described. Humanity wouldn't even be feudal, it would be sent back the level of warrior chiefdoms.
The old B.O. was running into money problems keeping the board alive so xer made a deal with Micro$oft wherein Zig Forums would continue going in exchange for a sponsorship for the Direct X API. This all happened in 2014 btw so you may not remember
