[SolarCross]

Forgive me but I am prone to daft and preposterous ideas but couldn't us anarchists just form our own 'state' in which to do our anarchist thing? Do we always just have to muddle along inside someone else's state complaining from the sidelines. Is the only option revolution? Could not some or all of us get together and form our own 'state'? Of course a state is a precarious thing if it has no territory but territory doesn't necessarily have to be taken by force it can also be bought with money! For example Russian sold alaska to the US and China leased hong kong to the UK. Maybe we anarchists could find a nation desperate for cash with some surplus land and buy it from them in which to organise our anarchist utopia. Is this not an exciting idea? Shall we do it?

[Jackal]

Anarchists forming their own state does not seem very anarchist in principle.

EDIT: I had a bit of a mistype. I mistakenly wrote "anti-" in front of anarchist. Fixed.

[Rei Murasame]

Such a state would also have to exist in a world of global capitalism, and you would end up being funded and supported by non-anarchists, and thus beholden to them. It's one thing to seize a factory, but I don't think anarchists have anything on how to build a country out of nothing.

[SolarCross]

I am not proposing to 'seize the factory' didn't you read my OP? I am suggesting we collectively buy the land for our state. As to funding we should be very careful about who we borrow from if we borrow at all but that goes for any individual or collective (corporations, states etc). As a matter of honour we should abide by any contracts we make but we should be very careful about any fishy clauses same as anyone.

To anyone who thinks there are not enough anarchists in the world to make a viable state take a look at this page. The smallest of the small is the vatican city with only 770 citizens occupying a territory only 0.2 sqaure miles! I think we could do much more than that.

[Invictus_88]

You mean like Freetown?

[SolarCross]

Anarchists forming their own state does not seem very anarchist in principle.

EDIT: I had a bit of a mistype. I mistakenly wrote "anti-" in front of anarchist. Fixed.

@Jackal

I know what you mean that is why I put 'state' in single quotes. It would not be like a traditional state with a ruling class and an underclass. I envisage it as being internally anarchy but for the sake of interacting with the outside world a state. Perhaps an example would help you to understand what I mean. Let us say you have a opensource information system called linux and you need to run some software that was designed to run on a completely different and propreitary information system called windows. Directly you can't do it but with a suitable interface you can. Either you can run your program on windows which in turn runs on a virtual machine that in turn runs on linux or you implement a compatibility layer that catches and translates the system calls the program makes to windows into its linux equivalent. In order for our anarchist collective to interact with the wider world, trade and diplomacy etc. we need to provide an interface they will understand and that is where the 'state' part comes in.

Does that help you to understand?

Fact is if you want to live as an anarchist you need to do it somewhere and with other people. The usual way this done is very small scale communes here and there (within existing non-anarchist states) that operate internally as an anarchy but interact with the wider world as a cooperative (a kind of corporation). In these situations the anarchy is a bit of a comprimise as they still have to yeild to the rule, law and economics of the surrounding state. What I suggest is to take it a step further and have an anarchy that is entirely soveriegn. However it wil still need to interact with the wider world hence the use of a 'state' interface.

[SolarCross]

You mean like Freetown?

Heh I suppose so. Freetown was founded by freed slaves. Our state of anarchy would be founded by freed wage-slaves.

[mikema63]

We libertarians have a few hair brained ideas in this direction, like the Seasteading Institute for instance.

http://www.seasteading.org/

The plan is to design, develop, and build artificial islands in international water to create our own societies on, of course since the plan is for multiple islands that follow whatever politics your group may have you guys are more than welcome to one. Its mainly dominated by libertarians but i see no reason we cant all have our little islands of innovation.

[Kman]

Anarchists forming their own state does not seem very anarchist in principle.

EDIT: I had a bit of a mistype. I mistakenly wrote "anti-" in front of anarchist. Fixed.

Anarcho-capitalists have no problems with voluntary cooperation and pooling resources to buy something you want is voluntary.

[Paradigm]

What you seem to be suggesting is not so much a state as an autonomous zone. Such zones have existed before, notably the Ukranian Free Territory following the Russian revolution, as well as certain parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and even the Paris Commune. But none of these have been long-lasting, and if you think states will simply allow such a territory to exist unmolested, I would suggest that your analysis could use some serious work. The revolution must be global if it is to have any hope of success.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The state of Kiribati may be going cheap. Climate scientists say it's doomed by rising sea level, so they are buying land on Fiji to relocate the entire population to. If you don't believe in climate change, it could be a good bet, and they might be glad of the cash.

Tuvalu might be an even better bet - only 15ft high at its highest - but they seem more optimistic, for the moment.

[SolarCross]

What you seem to be suggesting is not so much a state as an autonomous zone. Such zones have existed before, notably the Ukranian Free Territory following the Russian revolution, as well as certain parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and even the Paris Commune. But none of these have been long-lasting, and if you think states will simply allow such a territory to exist unmolested, I would suggest that your analysis could use some serious work. The revolution must be global if it is to have any hope of success.

'All unarmed prophets fail' - Nicolo Machievelli

Yes I am aware that such an autonomous zone, as you like to call it, faces some peril from other states. All states face this peril, large and small especially the small. It is important to be pragmatic as well as idealistic or else the ideals will never survive. The state of anarchy should certainly be armed and active diplomatically. That said I think obtaining a territory through purchase rather than merely claiming it through force of arms should smooth the way considerably.

As to global revolution - if no one is willing to do anything until everyone else on the planet is willing then the revolution will never happen. At this moment in time, the internet age, the prospects for a global revolution are the best they have aver been, the arab spring, OWS, etc but even all that is far short of a global revolution. Should we just sit twiddling our thumbs pontificating until some far future lala land will grant permission for a global revolution? I think not.

[Paradigm]

Yes I am aware that such an autonomous zone, as you like to call it, faces some peril from other states. All states face this peril, large and small especially the small. It is important to be pragmatic as well as idealistic or else the ideals will never survive. The state of anarchy should certainly be armed and active diplomatically. That said I think obtaining a territory through purchase rather than merely claiming it through force of arms should smooth the way considerably.

Even if such a purchase could be made, all you will have succeeded in doing is selling out by setting up just another privileged group that gets to live apart from state capitalism. Unless enough oppressed people from other countries start immigrating to upset the hierarchical orders of these other states, in which case they will swiftly come down on you with all the force they can.

As to global revolution - if no one is willing to do anything until everyone else on the planet is willing then the revolution will never happen. At this moment in time, the internet age, the prospects for a global revolution are the best they have aver been, the arab spring, OWS, etc but even all that is far short of a global revolution. Should we just sit twiddling our thumbs pontificating until some far future lala land will grant permission for a global revolution? I think not.

You've completely missed the point. Of course you start by waging revolution at home. That's a given. But once you've established local autonomy, you don't rest on your laurels. You continue supporting revolution abroad, until the revolution has spread to a point where no state can pose a threat. What you absolutely do not do if you want a successful revolution is make peace with the state. It's antithetical to everything anarchism stands for, and will inevitably come back to bite you.

[SolarCross]

@Paradigm

I am well aware of the perils the state of anarchy faces from other states especially hegemonic ones. EVERY state, revolutionary or not, faces it. My favourite revolution from history is the Iranian one of 1979 at least in part because despite of the terrible opposition it faced from other states, during its tender early years right up to the present, it was largely successful and that gives me hope. Of course the Iranian revolution's guiding ideals were not anarchic but they none the less in opposition to the goals and strategems of the hegemonic powers and so faces the same kind of opposition that an emerging anarchic state would face.

Since you seem to prefer to find problems than solutions I'll mention one that I think is the greatest peril our state of anarchy faces. This is the peril of pragmatism versus idealism. Julian Assange raised this question on his TV show, actually in different forms he raised it with all his guests though none had even a remotely good answer to it and some didn't even seem to understand the question; they just didn't have the particular mental furniture to accomadate it I suppose. Chomsky was the stupidest (I'm sorry to say) his response was to go off on a diatribe about how terribly the cubans suffered from the US. Which of course is correct but wasn't even remotely the answer to the question. For Julian the punishment the US inflicts on Cuba is a given, he already knows this and knows why they do it, what he wants to know is for the cubans to survive is not necessary for them to adopt the very same authoritarian structures and policies that they revolted against in the first place. Even in a less extreme example than Cuba, doesn't a revolutionary state or society, autonomous zone (whatever you call it) where 'luckily' hegemons are too busy smashing up someone else and leave you alone, in the end have to as a matter of efficiency and functionality have to adopt heirarchies, coercive institutions, privilege disparities, information control etc. So for Julian (and for me) the question is can a new society based on anarchic or some other set of idealisms function and survive without making comprimises as a matter of pragmatism to the point where the new society is not substantially different from the society it hoped to improve on?

It is terrifically pertinent and pressing question that I don't think many people with revolutionary aspirations and ideals consider at all certainly none of Julian Assange's guests despite their revolutionary credentials had any answer to it. That worries me and I think I could tell it rather dissapointed Julian Assange.

[Invictus_88]

Heh I suppose so. Freetown was founded by freed slaves. Our state of anarchy would be founded by freed wage-slaves.

Not that one, I meant Freetown Christiania!

[SolarCross]

Not that one, I meant Freetown Christiania!

Ok you this freetown? Yeah it could be something like that. I would hope for something bigger but it is pretty cool nonetheless.

[Paradigm]

Since you seem to prefer to find problems than solutions I'll mention one that I think is the greatest peril our state of anarchy faces. This is the peril of pragmatism versus idealism.

I've seen your notion of pragmatism and pointed out just how unpragmatic it actually is. To know what is pragmatic, one must first have the right analysis, an area in which you are sorely lacking. And don't give me this shit about me preferring problems over solutions. My conversion to anarchism began with direct action, and I've engaged in it ever since. As many Occupiers have had to learn the hard way, playing nice with the state is not pragmatic at all. The solutions will have to undermine the authority of the state, not ask permission from them.

[KlassWar]

There's no middle way between Worker Power, which is freedom and prosperity, and Bourgeois Power, which is oppression and exploitation.

Any compromise with the enemy is bound to fail. The sole hope is to smash the bourgeois state to pieces and hand all power to the working class's mass organizations.

[mikema63]

I've wondered if the people who felt that the bourgeoisie knew that they were exploiting people or if they thought that it was likely that many simply did not believe they were.

I've never understood why its always got to be violence as the first, last, and only solution to so many peoples political goals.

[SolarCross]

I've wondered if the people who felt that the bourgeoisie knew that they were exploiting people or if they thought that it was likely that many simply did not believe they were.

In my opinion I suspect some genuinely don't see themselves as exploiters at all, and some are clever enough to know it but push it out of their mind because it makes them feel uncomfortable, others with a more sadistic bent both know it and relish in it. Regardless of how the expoiting classes percieve, collectively and individually, themselves vis-a-vis the wage-slaves what they do is expoitation and that is a problem that needs a some solution (maybe not necessarily a final solution by means of the guilotine).

I've never understood why its always got to be violence as the first, last, and only solution to so many peoples political goals.

Sadly it is a rough and tumble world and it is just a brute reality that 'political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'. Diplomacy is only effecitve if backed by force. There are soft kinds of force like civil disobediance, going on strike, sit-ins, love-ins, hunger strikes, rallies and protests of all kinds but history has shown they are usually utterly ineffective. I think most people however don't see violence as any kind of option to achieve their political goals, most people don't have much ability at the practice of violence and are afraid of violence's awful consequences and that is why they remain under the control of those who are comfortable and able with violence.

Thanks for contirbuting the seasteading idea to the discussion. I had thought of something similar myself although my vision was a lot less fancy and a lot more ramshacke. I envisioned lashing together retired supertankers, obsolete warships and decomissioned oilrigs into some sort of floating city state. Heading for the high seas has some obvious advantages; virtually every square inch of land is claimed by someone, so making a new state on land means buying or stealing from some other entity who may not want to sell or ask for a silly price or fight back. Moreover you are at a higher risk of getting tangled up in turf wars. Another advantage is the space you can expand into is practically limitless. However going to sea has some serious drawbacks too.