If you dilute the definition of the state so much that it loses all itsā characteristics, then anything can be a state, correct. If anything collective can be a state, then my gardening association is a state. Time to print ourown money and declare our garden sovereign territory. /s
My preferred definition of a state is the institution which pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. Another definition I like is based on David Graeber and David Wengrow, in which a modern state combines power over people through violence (police and military), control of knowledge (bureaucracy) and persuation (people believe in states, therefore they work).
Neither of these kinds of states are necessary to have a democratic society which makes decisions from the bottom up, instead of top-down.
You claim that thinking things through leads to ādishonesty inherent in the ideologyā. Yst, you fail to bring up any examples. Just because you lack creativity, doesnāt mean youāve disproven that basic democracy doesnāt work. People wouldnāt vote for āabsolutely everythingā, but people who are affected by political decisions have a say in those decisions, proportional to how much theyāre affected. If I donāt care about something, I wonāt vote on it. Easy as that.
And think of what youāre advocating: The āprivate unitā youāre describing is de facto a dictator. No one voted for my boss. Yet they can make any decision without hearing any of the workers out. It is an opt-out dictatorship, yes. But given how much I need that specific job, opting out could mean that I canāt pay my rent to the appartment-dictator. Opting out of that tenancy dictatorship would mean that I donāt have any shelter and probably get harrassed by cops.
Iām not sure that my ideology is the dishonest one, to be frank.
Itās not that itās a collective, itās that itās a body that governs the collective. What I was describing were acts of governance. Since a state is a governing body, Iād say what I described fits that bill just fine. States having a monopoly on violence is a great observation, but itās not a necessary part of the definition.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
For the record, I have not advocated for anything here. I can tell you can tell Iām not a socialist and thatās fine, but Iām also not a full on capitalist. I just think itās silly to suggest that socialism doesnāt rely on any state. The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
Name one state in history which doesnāt have a monopoly on violence. You can use your less specific definition, if you want. But then arguing with other people will probably get nowhere and/or be very confusing.
And since I donāt know what you mean by state, please tell me what you mean by āgoverning bodyā.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
I exclusively mean the workers ownership of the means of production. If there are no workers, because for example itās a patch of land (that doesnāt require heavy farming), then the community who lives near that land and use it to feed themselves owns it. As soon as someone from the upper levels of some hierarchy latter (be it economic or bureaucratic) owns the means of production, I wouldnāt call it socialism anymore.
The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
Youāre always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of āactual anarchyā. Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership. Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Also, private ownership of the means of production is actually a dictatorship over those means. Or rather: the workers who work in them. If I can tell everyone what to do, or theyāll have to leave, then thatās an opt-out dictatorship. Thatās clearly a hierarchy. How can you call that āactual anarchyā? Especially if people need the job or whatever is produced in that factory/workshop/farm to survive.
Name one state in history which doesnāt have a monopoly on violence.
I wasnāt giving you push back on this idea. I outright said itās a great observation. It just doesnāt fit in the definition. Itās like saying humans always eat, so that should be part of the definition. Obviously not, the definition of human doesnāt include food, but that doesnāt mean itās untrue humans eat food. These kinds of definitions are set up to contradict other ideas in dishonest ways, often a priori, and usually in a way that neglects established theory, which is really bad for meaningful discussion.
please tell me what you mean by āgoverning bodyā.
and entity that enforces rule of law
Youāre always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
This is interesting to me, because my play-by-play literally started out with worker rule and then explained step by step how they may or may not structure their organization. Although you missed it and implied the opposite, we actually agreed that it would be completely impractical for a collective of workers to vote on everything. Because of the impracticality of involving everyone on all decisions, some things have to be precompiled, rules and guides for how to do the job get created democratically. Eventually workers would see the need for someone to manage the logistics of operation, so manager positions get created.
And the thing is, I described this without suggesting it created a top-down hierarchy. I just described the decision making process and how these positions emerge, and you inferred the top-down structure yourself. Same goes for the authoritarian comment, I never said things go authoritarian, you inferred that when I suggested certain contexts involve certain rules of operation. If your bar for authoritarianism is any rules and regulation at all then I would say that yes thereās need for authoritarianism, because thereās need for rule. My bar for when itās authoritarian is higher than that though, and thatās fine.
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of āactual anarchyā.
Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, which conversely means that a capitalist advocates against the non-private means of production. If all means of production are completely privately controlled, then there is necessarily no state involvement, because as soon as itās introduced, there would be some means that are not privately owned.
Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership
lol you did the thing I said! Right in the same comment, oh my. And itās actually the reverse logic which is even worse. You claimed statehood means monopoly on violence, but here youāre saying a monopoly on violence implies statehood. Thatās not the same thing! For real, this is actual application of logic: statehood -> monopoly on violence is not the same thing as monopoly on violence -> statehood. Two different statements, and you canāt derive one from the other.
Itās also not even true, if we ignore the theoretical voluntary cooperation in the hypothetical, in the case of no statehood property would be protected by private militia. One personās militia would have no reason to protect other property inherently, and no one else would be restricted by the state from doing the same.
Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Private ownership stems from the human intuition of personal property. You can observe babies evolve a concept of ownership before they learn language. They understand what their space is, and itās incredibly common for babies to have a favorite toy they carry around. When you take it, they get upset, because itās theirs. These instincts donāt go away, and people clearly evolve a natural concept of ownership. What people call or consider ātheirsā has very little to do with their political ideas on ownership theory.
In reference to tribal people, itās a little silly to lump them all as one type of culture, but even still, they tend to have a lot of respect for personal boundaries and property, and this includes the means of production. When a tribal hunter takes home a hunt, they use it to provide for their family first and foremost, and unused excess is given to neighbors. This actually formed the basis of free market trade, when people realized if they adopted techniques to increase excess, I will have more to provide, and they can exchange their excess more readily with mine.
As stated in the other comment: Youāre missing the distinction between states and government.
and entity that enforces rule of law
But why is anything concerning the law outside of the governing body? Your definition doesnāt seem complete.
Apart from details of the management body: I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didnāt you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism? Where does authoritarianism enter the picture, if the decisions are made bottom-up?
Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government.
Here we come to the definitions problem again. Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy. Economical hierarchy (I own something that you need to survive) is a form of hierarchy. Also, as āpoliticsā describes anything concerning decision making in groups: Good luck having a society without political institutions. Even private corporations are political institutions. Why you exclude the economic sector from your exclusion of hierarchy, I also donāt really know (well Iām guessing that itās convenient for your ideology, but thatās just a guess).
If all means of production are completely privately controlled, then there is necessarily no state involvement, because as soon as itās introduced, there would be some means that are not privately owned.
But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.
You can also view capitalism through class-relations: The owners of the MOP and the people they employ. The employed have to follow the orders of their private boss in order to survive. If you switch out the private property owning boss with a party bureaucrat and the class relations donāt actually change, thatās called state capitalism. Thatās how language works. Adding a word to another word can create a new term.
Two different statements, and you canāt derive one from the other.
Lol, are you seriously trying to formal-logic me? A monopoly on violence is a necessary feature of a state (state -> monopoly on violence). If the means of production are privately owned, class tensions between the people with private ownership of the means of production. If these tensions are not resolved (which the owners have no incentive to in capitalism), they would lose their property through the violence of the employed classā¦ or theyād āinventā something that pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. A state.
Itās also not even true, if we ignore the theoretical voluntary cooperation in the hypothetical, in the case of no statehood property would be protected by private militia. One personās militia would have no reason to protect other property inherently, and no one else would be restricted by the state from doing the same.
Thatās what we had in the middle ages in Europe. Itās called feudalism. Or warlord-ism. People with more economical power have more resources to fund a private army. And why would I refrain from overpowering my market rivals, if I have the means to do so?
Private ownership stems from the human intuition of personal property.
The jump from personal to private property is incredibly big. Native Americans didnāt have any concept of absentee-ownership. Or of ownership of anything that other people need.
In reference to tribal people, itās a little silly to lump them all as one type of culture, but even still, they tend to have a lot of respect for personal boundaries and property, and this includes the means of production. When a tribal hunter takes home a hunt, they use it to provide for their family first and foremost, and unused excess is given to neighbors.
Lol, you A) have no idea of antropology and B) are committing the same thing that you are claiming is silly. :D
No, thatās not how āa tribal hunterā generally behaves. Immediate return societies are overwhelmingly incredibly egalitarian (and donāt really have the modern notion of oneās family, which must come first). They share everything.
I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didnāt you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism?
You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question. Good work requires organization, organization requires planning and logistics, rules are created and/or people appointed to take the job of handling logistics. I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers, is that where you inferring authoritarianism from? Again, I didnāt say authoritarianism. If you think having any authority over anything strictly means authoritarianism, then thatās where it falls.
Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian? Thatās where the answer to your question lies. I donāt have much skin in this evaluation.
Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy.
This was in my definition. Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government. And yes, I did mean state and government when I said state and government. They advocate against the ruling organization itself, and they also want to take power away from the people who rule it.
But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.
I agree. Remember when I said Iām not an anarchist? We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society, that doesnāt mean that anarchism doesnāt refer to a lack of statehood.
I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so Iāll type it out again. Humans eat food, itās necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of āhumanā absolutely has to include āsomething that eats foodā? No, it doesnāt. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I canāt stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.
Iām not exaggerating when I say this is the most important part of my previous comment. I will not respond to you anymore if you donāt entertain this thought. Do you disagree that āsomething that eats foodā should be part of the definition of human? If so, why should you include āsomething that has a monopoly on violenceā to the definition of a state? You keep appealing to definitional problems, so letās work it out instead of ignoring an incredibly important point.
You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question.
Apparently, you didnāt really make it clear to me.
I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers
I begin to see where the misunderstanding is coming from. I donāt think that some logistical management implies authority. By āauthorityā I mean a position of command and control. Just because someone is in charge of logistical planning, doesnāt mean they get to fire me.
Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian?
When any questioning of an existing hierarchy is being punished by the authority.
This was in my definition.
No it wasnāt. You said āwithout political institutions or hierarchical governmentā. This leaves out other hierarchies, like economic, ethnic or gender hierarchies.
Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government.
Pardon my french: That is some grade-A bullshit. From the very beginning of the political movement we call āanarchismā, it was at least also about the abolition of capital. Yes, the abolition of the state is always an important part. But anarchism is rooted in power analysis which is highly skeptical of any hierarchy. One of the most famous quotes by Proudhon was āProperty is theftā, after all.
We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society
Thatās not what Iād call an anarchist society. This would be an āanarcho-capitalistā society. In anarchist society, all means of productions would be held in common.
I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so Iāll type it out again. Humans eat food, itās necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of āhumanā absolutely has to include āsomething that eats foodā? No, it doesnāt. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I canāt stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.
You are really not talking sense. You said āeating foodā is necessary for humans. That means that itās a necessary feature of a human. It is however not a sufficient feature of a human. Not everything that eats food is human. But if something doesnāt eat food, you can rule out that it is a human, since it doesnāt satisfy a necessary condition. Hereās the Wikipedia page, since itās such an important point for you.
I never claimed that monopoly of violence is a sufficient feature of a state. It is necessary, though. If something doesnāt have the sufficient property of a monopoly of violence, it is not a state. That is not a definition I made up for my world-view to function. There is consensus in political science that this is a necessary property of a state.
If you dilute the definition of the state so much that it loses all itsā characteristics, then anything can be a state, correct. If anything collective can be a state, then my gardening association is a state. Time to print ourown money and declare our garden sovereign territory. /s
My preferred definition of a state is the institution which pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. Another definition I like is based on David Graeber and David Wengrow, in which a modern state combines power over people through violence (police and military), control of knowledge (bureaucracy) and persuation (people believe in states, therefore they work). Neither of these kinds of states are necessary to have a democratic society which makes decisions from the bottom up, instead of top-down.
You claim that thinking things through leads to ādishonesty inherent in the ideologyā. Yst, you fail to bring up any examples. Just because you lack creativity, doesnāt mean youāve disproven that basic democracy doesnāt work. People wouldnāt vote for āabsolutely everythingā, but people who are affected by political decisions have a say in those decisions, proportional to how much theyāre affected. If I donāt care about something, I wonāt vote on it. Easy as that.
And think of what youāre advocating: The āprivate unitā youāre describing is de facto a dictator. No one voted for my boss. Yet they can make any decision without hearing any of the workers out. It is an opt-out dictatorship, yes. But given how much I need that specific job, opting out could mean that I canāt pay my rent to the appartment-dictator. Opting out of that tenancy dictatorship would mean that I donāt have any shelter and probably get harrassed by cops.
Iām not sure that my ideology is the dishonest one, to be frank.
Itās not that itās a collective, itās that itās a body that governs the collective. What I was describing were acts of governance. Since a state is a governing body, Iād say what I described fits that bill just fine. States having a monopoly on violence is a great observation, but itās not a necessary part of the definition.
The dishonesty I was referring to is that some socialists claim it refers to worker ownership, but is actually the state ownership of the means of production.
For the record, I have not advocated for anything here. I can tell you can tell Iām not a socialist and thatās fine, but Iām also not a full on capitalist. I just think itās silly to suggest that socialism doesnāt rely on any state. The theoretical conclusion of complete socialism is one governing collective having complete control over how basically everything functions (i.e. totalitarianism), while the theoretical conclusion of full capitalism is exclusive private control over absolutely everything, implying no governing state (i.e. actual anarchy).
Name one state in history which doesnāt have a monopoly on violence. You can use your less specific definition, if you want. But then arguing with other people will probably get nowhere and/or be very confusing.
And since I donāt know what you mean by state, please tell me what you mean by āgoverning bodyā.
I exclusively mean the workers ownership of the means of production. If there are no workers, because for example itās a patch of land (that doesnāt require heavy farming), then the community who lives near that land and use it to feed themselves owns it. As soon as someone from the upper levels of some hierarchy latter (be it economic or bureaucratic) owns the means of production, I wouldnāt call it socialism anymore.
Youāre always implying that collective ownership somehow leads to top-down rule rather than bottom-up rule. How does that happen? If the whole society is based on bottom-up democratic decisions, where does it get authoritarian?
I also wholeheartedly disagree with your definition of āactual anarchyā. Private ownership needs some kind of monopoly of violence to actually enforce the private ownership. Also: Where do you think private ownership came from? Do you think it naturally emerged from the first time humanity coordinated itself collectively, back when we were hunters and gatherers?
Also, private ownership of the means of production is actually a dictatorship over those means. Or rather: the workers who work in them. If I can tell everyone what to do, or theyāll have to leave, then thatās an opt-out dictatorship. Thatās clearly a hierarchy. How can you call that āactual anarchyā? Especially if people need the job or whatever is produced in that factory/workshop/farm to survive.
For further info, I suggest you to read this. Itās very informative. If you prefer videos, thereās this one.
I wasnāt giving you push back on this idea. I outright said itās a great observation. It just doesnāt fit in the definition. Itās like saying humans always eat, so that should be part of the definition. Obviously not, the definition of human doesnāt include food, but that doesnāt mean itās untrue humans eat food. These kinds of definitions are set up to contradict other ideas in dishonest ways, often a priori, and usually in a way that neglects established theory, which is really bad for meaningful discussion.
and entity that enforces rule of law
This is interesting to me, because my play-by-play literally started out with worker rule and then explained step by step how they may or may not structure their organization. Although you missed it and implied the opposite, we actually agreed that it would be completely impractical for a collective of workers to vote on everything. Because of the impracticality of involving everyone on all decisions, some things have to be precompiled, rules and guides for how to do the job get created democratically. Eventually workers would see the need for someone to manage the logistics of operation, so manager positions get created.
And the thing is, I described this without suggesting it created a top-down hierarchy. I just described the decision making process and how these positions emerge, and you inferred the top-down structure yourself. Same goes for the authoritarian comment, I never said things go authoritarian, you inferred that when I suggested certain contexts involve certain rules of operation. If your bar for authoritarianism is any rules and regulation at all then I would say that yes thereās need for authoritarianism, because thereās need for rule. My bar for when itās authoritarian is higher than that though, and thatās fine.
Anarchy is the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, which conversely means that a capitalist advocates against the non-private means of production. If all means of production are completely privately controlled, then there is necessarily no state involvement, because as soon as itās introduced, there would be some means that are not privately owned.
lol you did the thing I said! Right in the same comment, oh my. And itās actually the reverse logic which is even worse. You claimed statehood means monopoly on violence, but here youāre saying a monopoly on violence implies statehood. Thatās not the same thing! For real, this is actual application of logic: statehood -> monopoly on violence is not the same thing as monopoly on violence -> statehood. Two different statements, and you canāt derive one from the other.
Itās also not even true, if we ignore the theoretical voluntary cooperation in the hypothetical, in the case of no statehood property would be protected by private militia. One personās militia would have no reason to protect other property inherently, and no one else would be restricted by the state from doing the same.
Private ownership stems from the human intuition of personal property. You can observe babies evolve a concept of ownership before they learn language. They understand what their space is, and itās incredibly common for babies to have a favorite toy they carry around. When you take it, they get upset, because itās theirs. These instincts donāt go away, and people clearly evolve a natural concept of ownership. What people call or consider ātheirsā has very little to do with their political ideas on ownership theory.
In reference to tribal people, itās a little silly to lump them all as one type of culture, but even still, they tend to have a lot of respect for personal boundaries and property, and this includes the means of production. When a tribal hunter takes home a hunt, they use it to provide for their family first and foremost, and unused excess is given to neighbors. This actually formed the basis of free market trade, when people realized if they adopted techniques to increase excess, I will have more to provide, and they can exchange their excess more readily with mine.
As stated in the other comment: Youāre missing the distinction between states and government.
But why is anything concerning the law outside of the governing body? Your definition doesnāt seem complete.
Apart from details of the management body: I agree to your code of conduct for a democratically run. Cooperative. But didnāt you imply that socialism automatically implies authoritarianism? Where does authoritarianism enter the picture, if the decisions are made bottom-up?
Here we come to the definitions problem again. Anarchy is usually understood as the absence of any hierarchy. Economical hierarchy (I own something that you need to survive) is a form of hierarchy. Also, as āpoliticsā describes anything concerning decision making in groups: Good luck having a society without political institutions. Even private corporations are political institutions. Why you exclude the economic sector from your exclusion of hierarchy, I also donāt really know (well Iām guessing that itās convenient for your ideology, but thatās just a guess).
But without any state involement: How are the property relations maintained? Private armies? That would result in warlord-feudalism.
You can also view capitalism through class-relations: The owners of the MOP and the people they employ. The employed have to follow the orders of their private boss in order to survive. If you switch out the private property owning boss with a party bureaucrat and the class relations donāt actually change, thatās called state capitalism. Thatās how language works. Adding a word to another word can create a new term.
Lol, are you seriously trying to formal-logic me? A monopoly on violence is a necessary feature of a state (state -> monopoly on violence). If the means of production are privately owned, class tensions between the people with private ownership of the means of production. If these tensions are not resolved (which the owners have no incentive to in capitalism), they would lose their property through the violence of the employed classā¦ or theyād āinventā something that pacifies class tensions with a monopoly on violence. A state.
Thatās what we had in the middle ages in Europe. Itās called feudalism. Or warlord-ism. People with more economical power have more resources to fund a private army. And why would I refrain from overpowering my market rivals, if I have the means to do so?
The jump from personal to private property is incredibly big. Native Americans didnāt have any concept of absentee-ownership. Or of ownership of anything that other people need.
Lol, you A) have no idea of antropology and B) are committing the same thing that you are claiming is silly. :D No, thatās not how āa tribal hunterā generally behaves. Immediate return societies are overwhelmingly incredibly egalitarian (and donāt really have the modern notion of oneās family, which must come first). They share everything.
You inferred that, and I already directly answered this question. Good work requires organization, organization requires planning and logistics, rules are created and/or people appointed to take the job of handling logistics. I think it is implied that logistical managers to have authority over workers, is that where you inferring authoritarianism from? Again, I didnāt say authoritarianism. If you think having any authority over anything strictly means authoritarianism, then thatās where it falls.
Genuine question, when would you consider something authoritarian? Thatās where the answer to your question lies. I donāt have much skin in this evaluation.
This was in my definition. Anarchist thinkers tend to emphasize the lack of statehood more than the hierarchy thing though. Their primary goal is the abolishment of government. And yes, I did mean state and government when I said state and government. They advocate against the ruling organization itself, and they also want to take power away from the people who rule it.
I agree. Remember when I said Iām not an anarchist? We actually completely agree on the practical results of an anarchist society, that doesnāt mean that anarchism doesnāt refer to a lack of statehood.
I want you to think really hard about the analogy I gave you, so Iāll type it out again. Humans eat food, itās necessary to life. Does that mean that the definition of āhumanā absolutely has to include āsomething that eats foodā? No, it doesnāt. That would mean that anything that eats food would be human. I canāt stress enough how important and apt this analogy is.
Iām not exaggerating when I say this is the most important part of my previous comment. I will not respond to you anymore if you donāt entertain this thought. Do you disagree that āsomething that eats foodā should be part of the definition of human? If so, why should you include āsomething that has a monopoly on violenceā to the definition of a state? You keep appealing to definitional problems, so letās work it out instead of ignoring an incredibly important point.
deleted by creator
Apparently, you didnāt really make it clear to me.
I begin to see where the misunderstanding is coming from. I donāt think that some logistical management implies authority. By āauthorityā I mean a position of command and control. Just because someone is in charge of logistical planning, doesnāt mean they get to fire me.
When any questioning of an existing hierarchy is being punished by the authority.
No it wasnāt. You said āwithout political institutions or hierarchical governmentā. This leaves out other hierarchies, like economic, ethnic or gender hierarchies.
Pardon my french: That is some grade-A bullshit. From the very beginning of the political movement we call āanarchismā, it was at least also about the abolition of capital. Yes, the abolition of the state is always an important part. But anarchism is rooted in power analysis which is highly skeptical of any hierarchy. One of the most famous quotes by Proudhon was āProperty is theftā, after all.
Thatās not what Iād call an anarchist society. This would be an āanarcho-capitalistā society. In anarchist society, all means of productions would be held in common.
You are really not talking sense. You said āeating foodā is necessary for humans. That means that itās a necessary feature of a human. It is however not a sufficient feature of a human. Not everything that eats food is human. But if something doesnāt eat food, you can rule out that it is a human, since it doesnāt satisfy a necessary condition. Hereās the Wikipedia page, since itās such an important point for you.
I never claimed that monopoly of violence is a sufficient feature of a state. It is necessary, though. If something doesnāt have the sufficient property of a monopoly of violence, it is not a state. That is not a definition I made up for my world-view to function. There is consensus in political science that this is a necessary property of a state.