• vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    331·
    12 days ago

    The image is a bit of circular reasoning, as it’s very close to one of the definitions of what a state is.

    But it’s good to be reminded of it once in a while.

    • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      221·
      12 days ago

      since you are not explaining what you are trying to say with this, i have to assume.

      i assume you are trying to imply that since all societies impose rules on individuals, states are no worse than any other way to organize a society, and criticising them (pointing out how they arbitrarily legitimize their own violence and criminalize that of individuals) is hypocrytical or pointless.

      if this is what you are trying to say, then i have to disagree. not all power structures are equal. states are a hierarchical way to organize societies, disempowering the many, to empower the few. rules are not imposed on people, by themsleves, but by a higher authority. they are authoritarian and oppressive. state violence is illegitimate and defence against it is likely legitimate. this is something states try to obscure and it is something people need to realise, so they will consider overthrowing the states ruling over them.

      if you did not mean to imply this. i am sorry for misunderstanding you. tbf i did try to get you to explain yourself. i would still like to read what you meant.

        • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          13·
          11 days ago

          you appear to maliciously misunderstand me, to avoid having your takes criticised. i find you unsufferable to interact with and really disingenius. i am going to block you but i still hope you will stop being this way for the sake of everyone else.

      • JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        173·
        12 days ago

        That you deserve it and that no society was about you, because the elites deserve their privileges of causing everyone else pain for their own profit.

        • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          182·
          12 days ago

          your comment does not seem directly related to the content of the post. i assume you are therefore implying something with your statement. otherwise, what led you to comment it?

            • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              20·
              12 days ago

              none. i am trying to understand why you said what you said. how is “all societies impose laws upon individuals” related to “states legitimize their own violence and criminalize the violence of individuals”?

      • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
        610·
        11 days ago

        I’ve yet to meet two anarchists who agree on what an ‘anarchy’ system would actually look like.

        • menas@lemmy.wtfEnglish
          3·
          10 days ago

          If you want to meet anarchists that agreed on how to organize, you have to meet organized anarchists

          • DagwoodIII@piefed.socialEnglish
            1·
            10 days ago

            Here’s my controversial opinion. Using phrases like ‘anarchy’ or ‘socialism’ is a complete waste of time if you’re interested in making any kind of change.

            Look at the campaigns of Mamdani and AOC. They talked much more about actual issues and laws than they talked about utopian plans for the future.

            If you say you’re a ‘socialist’ you give the MAGat ammunition. “Well, wasn’t Hitler a Socialist?”

            If you say ‘tax the rich’ you avoid that.

            You can spend time getting people elected, or you can spend time arguing about things that you can’t control.

            • menas@lemmy.wtfEnglish
              1·
              10 days ago

              I kind of agree; actions matters, world shall support. However, actions of many have to be coordinated to aime the same goal. And to do so, we shall be clear of the ideal we want. Hitler do not want to abolish capitalism, but you could have a fascist state that tax the rich. Without upper hand, confusions is counter productive

    • silasmarinerEnglish
      5·
      11 days ago

      Yeah ghastly is essentially just being definitional here

    • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      10 days ago

      i do not believe stirner opererated on that definition.

      here is maletesta’s definition of the state, which i find far more useful for critiquing states.

      “Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behavior, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force.”

      i would go as far as to say that the entire anarchist critique of states builds on such a an understanding of states, and in turn becomes less coherent with a defintion like the one you are using.

      • menas@lemmy.wtfEnglish
        1·
        10 days ago

        I don’t understand why those 2 definitions are excluding; if the last thing that enforce everything is the collective force, it means that everything has been built to be protected by the collective force. Legit violence is what is structuring everything else. It means that when justice have to choose between defending the police and the army (the wole institutions), it will defend it.

        • Gladaed@feddit.orgEnglish
          1·
          9 days ago

          No. It is so there isn’t civil war. No duels, vigilantes and non state actors who profiteer of e.g. drugs, fossil resources etc.

          • Oppopity@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            9 days ago

            Exactly. If people wield that power they can use it to stop people profiteering off of drugs and fossil resources.

            But instead the rich wield that power so they use it to keep people starving on the streets because they don’t care about the well being of everyone, only that they remain wealthy so they’ll crack down on anyone who gets out of line.

  • Egonallanon@feddit.ukEnglish
    9·
    12 days ago

    I do enjoy stirner. He was very weird in many ways and had some baffling opinions on things but he also had some intresting insights.

    • menas@lemmy.wtfEnglish
      21·
      10 days ago

      First, no revolution will fix everything. However it would improve it. Prisons do not protect against rape, including childrapes. Most of women do not sue for good reasons; most of cases are not studied, and even when they are, abusers are not condemned, and even in the last percent of case, when they are, a lot of times, this is not what the survivors wanted, and they is not protections for them.

      I said their is good reasons to not do go to the police. The first one is obviously, cops would not file the complaint. The second one, is that cops often are violent at that time against the survivors. From time to time, people are molested or raped by cops. The 3rd one is the vast majority of cases, perpetrators are relatives; it means that suing them could break the social and affective circle of the survivors. This is exactly the opposite of their need.

      A lot of this points are valid, even if the survivors is a child. A lot of child raped by their fathers, even after a complaint, will have to stay with him. If they would not, or someone make flee with them, cops would arrest them and make the child stay with his/her abuser.

      In the end, this abuse are not condemn in the bourgeoisie. They is a few exceptions, but rape, including of children, are very common every where, but complaint are never seriously taken by cops. Epstein is the exception because he got arrested, but their is a lot of similar case around the world. Even some bourgeois that show off about having sex with minor at the TY with no persecutions.

      My point is ; if you are afraid of a world of abusers not managed by society and that could abuse again, we are in this world.

      The principle of a no states world would be : make decisions to minimize agressions, including those we, as a society, have to make. This is not an utopia, a lot of the time the 2 are related : legit violence in the name of the community increase other type of violence.

      We learn how to do that now. In the solidarity network we make, those abuse exists, and we tried to deal with it. Sometimes in going to the police, sometimes not, depending of what is the need of the survivors. Sometimes we raise money, we include the survivors in some social circles. A lot of the time (again, when it is the need of the survivor), we exclude the abuser of the places she/he is used to go. We decide collectively if we would accept him in other places, depending of his situation and if he accept that he has abuse and want to change.

      Their is not perfect solution, but their is a process to improve. And we could improve it in being in charge, so in getting the power back