Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.


+1 vote
what exactly would be the point? to maintain government bureaucracy, laws, taxes, elections, etc? what part of government would you desire to maintain, and why?

personally, if i could wave a magic wand and make select tentacles of the spectacle disappear, i'd start with the compulsory school and money systems....but of course i can't do that....i don't even know how to abolish them in the relationships of the few people i know well....

and to follow up on funky's comments of what and why.....

how would one even go about "abolishing the military and corporations"?

1 Answer

+2 votes
One doesn't seize power without force, in most cases (waiting for the Gandhi reference...) So if one assumes maintaining a government, probably a military is required. That's gross. Not to say that martial formations might be needed at times, but a standing military class of specialists seems to carry the seeds of hierarchy and domination pretty inherently, at least to me.

As to corporations, the Bolsheviks started with the goal of eliminating private ownership, and ended up with state capitalism. Was it better? Was it worse? Depends on your perspective, but it was definitely shitty.

The state is amorphous. It isn't just politicians and government, it is the apparatus that enable and facilitate large scale social organization, and this includes corporations and the military, but also could include unions who play by the rules of the state and corporations (and if they don't, get crushed by the military).

It all goes hand in hand. Anarchists are against all of it.
by (22.1k points)
What do you mean by state capitalism? Like would you say it's something distinct from state socialism or the same thing?
"What do you mean by state capitalism?"

the soviet union was a capitalist entity internationally, (ie, they did business with countries they wanted to remain impartial to and not form an alliance with) but within its own borders was the typical totalitarian nightmare where people lived in fear of a dictator.

Overall the problem with the question is you can't really separate all the entities the asker posed, which is what ingrate was getting at in the end. They all require a systematic use of force and/or coercion. There are "governments" and counsels that don't have corporations and militaries, such as those meeting groups that activists use, but they aren't really the same thing as a nation state or a government.

Ultimately I think bureaucracy is dysfunctional within itself, so i can't really image a lasting, productive one that doesn't use force.