The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
How did gangs take control of Haiti? How did warlords take control of Somalia? I guess those governments just decided to dissolve and hand over their monopolies on violence to other groups.
? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control of large swaths of territory. They also took territory in Syria after the Arab Spring put Assad on his back foot, unable to maintain power in the east.
ISIS wants your stuff. But, your government stops them from taking your stuff. Uh oh, the government is gone. Now ISIS shows up, and they take your stuff.
No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state for humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.
There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.
Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.
There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.
Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.
The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.
power vacuums are fictions deployed by imperialist forces to justify regime change
How did gangs take control of Haiti? How did warlords take control of Somalia? I guess those governments just decided to dissolve and hand over their monopolies on violence to other groups.
I don’t know the particular histories you’re talking about, but I bet it involves private property, prisons, and policing. none of that is anarchy.
? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control of large swaths of territory. They also took territory in Syria after the Arab Spring put Assad on his back foot, unable to maintain power in the east.
power vacuums are a myth
Why are they a myth?
they are a story that people tell to explain the world. but they are not a phenomenon that can be empirically tested.
It’s not so hard to understand. Let’s try.
ISIS wants your stuff. But, your government stops them from taking your stuff. Uh oh, the government is gone. Now ISIS shows up, and they take your stuff.
another story
I don’t even understand the point you’re trying to make.
there is no such thing as a power vacuum. it’s just a story telling device.
What is anarchy then? Is it not some state in which everyone agrees not to take power?
this is a no true Scotsman.
No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state for humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.
you can’t prove this
You are arguing against a complete strawman, and seem to know nothing about anarchism.
Anarchism is not against government, or even some heirarchy, it’s about the abolishment of unjust heirarchy.
Pure anarchism? How do you define that, and which philosophers did you read to get to that definition?
https://gcide.gnu.org.ua/?q=Anarchy&define=Define&strategy=.
Yes, that’s a co-opted definition that doesn’t come from any anarchist philosophers. The definition has changed because people use the word differently. Note, anarchy is completely different from the political philosophy of anarchism.
There is not a single anarchist philosopher that means that definition when they say they are an anarchist, the first anarchists did not use anything resembling that definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Proudhon would be rolling in his grave if he knew people were saying that’s what anarchism was. There’s never been an argument made by anarchist philosophers in support of that, as it would be stupid and obviously terrible.
There’s a million terms where the definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with the academic study of it… this happens all the time in politics. The language may change, but the academic usage of the term is already established, dictionaries stay up to date with language changes, rather than using academic definitions.
Another example: the marxist definition of private property has nothing to do with the current definition, what marx meant when he said private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush.
no, it doesn’t
Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.
any time.