
Common stirner W

Common stirner W
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.
I find that most people are not actually familiar with the definition of a state. And it helps remind just how brutally direct that definition is
Thats such a spook lul (Stirner quote)
This spook?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
I’m afraid I’m not really understanding what he’s getting at. It seems like some weird cross of superstition and social construct, but I’m not sure what makes it different from either of those things.
Also, I really hate 19th century prose for anything but fiction ;)
A state is just a group with a monopoly on violence.
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.
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.
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.
All societies impose rules on individuals.
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.
what are you trying to say?
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.
Exactly what I wrote.
What did you think I meant?
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?
Which particular word confused you?
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"?
I've yet to meet two anarchists who agree on what an 'anarchy' system would actually look like.
ive met plenty.
If you want to meet anarchists that agreed on how to organize, you have to meet organized anarchists
Part of the point is not deciding on the end before you get there, only the direction, so everyone can have a say.
what’s ur fav boot flavour, you seemingly enjoy licking the dirt off them
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
all 45 comments