Thanks for your well thought out response.
Disclaimer for everything below: I am strictly only arguing along the axes of “state organised as a functioning liberal democracy” vs. “abolishing the state”, and “taking part in that liberal democracy” vs. “starting a revolution against it”.
Capitalism is not a necessary consequence of a state or of a democracy. Nothing below is to be construed as a defence of capitalism, especially not in any of its more pure forms.
Indeed. It has been advocated to me in that way, however, although by people who seemed a bit naive to me. Right-wing libertarians sound very similar, as well (they’d never call themselves “Comrade”, of course). At the surface, their “all governments are evil” rhetoric is almost the same, but what they want to replace it with is very much different.
If you want to experiment with alternate ways of organising means of production, go right ahead.
Thank you for the detailed and interesting read that led up to this paragraph.
I’m not sure I even understand what you mean by “not having a state”. You talk about “wielding power”, but you want to wield the power in some non-stately-way. When does a power-wielding entity become a state? Does “not being a state” automatically make wielding power over others less oppressive? What kinds of exercise of power are unwanted as a matter of principle?
Would that include the power that many modern states would exercise against people who have sex with young people under an agreed-upon age of consent, but also against fathers who threaten to murder young men who have (consensually) “dishonored” their daughter after that age of consent?
I think the main point for me is, as long as you talk about “trying to figure out how to do it better”, I’m all with you. If you organize something by anarchist principles, best of luck to you. What I don’t like is talk of “revolution” and “getting rid of the existing order” before there is something that’s known to be better.
It’s basically a “baby/bathwater” argument.
Many things have improved over the centuries and decades. “The state” has always been part of the problem, but it has also been part of our (partial) solution.
A lot of it has been about finding multi-layered compromises between different groups with different interests.
I believe that, while messy like any compromise, is actually more complex than any group of idealists can comprehend.
Now, “revolutionary” movements talk about destroying that and replacing it with a new system that they think is superior. If I see a group that says, here is how it’s done, let’s just throw away all the things that helped reduce the violent death rate from over 10% in the middle ages to below 1% in this century, because only our new way will take us to zero, then I’m quite unlikely to believe it.
And if that group says, we need to sabotage things, we are OK with our opponents being killed or having to flee, then I have to think about whether that group might just be a bunch of murderous radicals.
Suppressing revolutionaries: In a liberal democracy, a “revolutionary” is someone who would destroy the liberal democracy against the will of the majority by using violence. In Austrian law, that is called high treason and is punished with up to 20 years in prison. And I don’t see why it shouldn’t be. If there’s to be a radical change, why should it be violently imposed on us by a radical minority? I want to vote on the revolution.
Substantial minority of the population: About 54% of the Austrian population at the last general election. That’s about 75% of those eligible to vote. You have to be 16 to be allowed to vote; the last election had 6,384,331 eligible voters, or 74.7% of the population. Those are all automatically registered; they could just show up for the next vote on a whim, if they don’t like the way things are going.
Are they? I can’t confirm that for Austria. Show me those studies. Sure, there is corruption, and there is a certain distortion due to the fact that even if “simple people” can rise to become part of the government, they will end up being “important people” and therefore no longer share exactly the interests they started out with.
True. I never claimed otherwise. I just implied that the conditions under which liberal democracies impose rules on others (majority + constitutional safeguards) are the best we’ve developed so far. A revolution that tries to “defeat the enemies of the revolution” is likely to do much worse.
Describing liberal democracies as “authoritarian” is still a ridiculous hyperbole. At least as much as describing all anarchists as proponents of chaos. It’s like evangelical fundamentalists calling the pope an atheist.
Are you referring to the American two-party system? I got to take my pick from 9 parties at the last election, 6 of which are now represented in parliament.
I’ve been shamelessly using numbers and my personal experience from Austria here, even though it’s a small country that is mostly irrelevant to at least 99.8% of humanity. However, I feel that if your general statements about liberal democracy are untrue for one tiny country, then it casts some doubt on the whole thing. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that a “revolution” is necessary in some places, while other places can be salvaged by gradual reform.
The worst thing my “enemies”, “oppressors” and “overlords” can do to me now is put me in prison for a few years, or take away my worldly possessions. But that’s only the worst case; most of the time, they will only e able to get me to work in a job that isn’t exactly the one I wanted and pay me less money than I deserve. Also, we’ve got enough of a “social safety net” (state-run) that I won’t ever starve, and I will always get the medical treatment i need. Your revolution should provide the same safety for me, or I am unlikely to support it.
I’m not taking anything as a personal insult, don’t worry.
