Humans cannot exist outside structure,that's just how it is. If something lacks structure it lacks proper organization and it would eventually lead to chaos dooming any anarchist movement to failure.
The human needs to live inside a structure to compare himself with it. If not he would either go insane or create it.
Anarhists seek to abolish the state beacuse they see it as a treath. One to freedom, a boot on their necks that can only create problems, a central entity that cannot fully represent the individual in any shape or form, a coercive form of organization that sustains itself trought violance, that monopolizes violence. The state created big bissniss and it is sustained trought lobbying.
While the criticism of the curent state, the servile state is true their solution is just a bunch more of it. Rather than heaving one universal coercive state that imposes itself trought violence,they want a bunch of states with extra steps called comunes or convenants. They will never accept that those are states beacuse their definition of a state is diferent from ours that beeing coercive central political entity. My definition of the state and probably the common senses is anything with a political organization (inside of comunity) and with a structure. Comunes and convenants are still states,they have laws, reprezentatives some even public property, theyre just the equivalent of a city-state but that beeing as big or as small as possible. Now considering that they need to not be coercive in their organization those microstates or private states need to work togheter in something called pan-anarhism. Once the anarhist colaborate to disolve the state eventually (will not happen) everyone is free to do whatever they want, and that would lead to the formation of comunities, ancom, ancap, ansyndical andistr, comunities that will compete with eachother in one nation.
This sounds great on papper doesnt it? everyone heaving their own laws their comunities colaborating with eachother, but will that truly happen?Do you have any guarantee?
No. You don't have any, you also don't have any guarantee that other groups that want to unify the nation under one flag won't arrise, have fun beeing in a total state of civil war betwen capitalist nazis fascist and comunists or whatever else ideologies.The problem here is that unlike statism, anarhism lacks structure, its not universal. But lets say pan-anarhism works and they won't just be in a state of total civil war....what do you do with the other states yk?..it's not 1800's anymore, sure back then you could tehnically defend your comunes and convenants in your pan anarhism thingy trought united federal local militias, beaucuse everyone then just used guns and sword but today..states have big militaries with aircrafts, nukes, helicopters, tanks and all of that. Do you really think other states wont try to conquer your pan-anarhist nation?
In order for any anarhism to work you need pan-anarhism to work but for pan-anarhism to work you need to universally apply it globally...and lets be real now that is impossible. Someone will always try to unite his nation under his flag and others will follow suit if not anarhism will be the natural state of things. We have evolved past anarhism, something in our human psyche changes leading a strong desire for union, for states.
Total voluntary action is utopic, circumstances force you to take decisions, circumstances enforce a state and the circumstances can only change if human nature changes but I doubt we will ever achive humans that would be fully moral and ethical creatures. Coercive action is needed to enforce coehison, the state is unethical but it is necessary, anarhism creates more problems than it solves
The state might be unethical but so are we.
If you think anarhism would decentralised the economy well...with the state gone the few protections that there are for smaller buisnises are gone also making monopolies easier to form and mentain.Yes there is the posibility for competition to appear in order for monopolies to break but again, HUMANS ARE NOT MORAL CREATURES we are creatures that seek comfort and convenience, monopolies could temporarily produce at lower prices than the rest beacuse they have the monopoly on infrastucture, killing any competition in the process, no ,humans won't just buy more exepensives goods to crumble a monopoly just for the sake of it, we are ignorant creatures if we weren't TEMU and SHEIN and the whole FAST FASHION won't exist.Even if we would just do that and monopolies would crumble under themselves, Nazi germany would had eventually crumbled under itself but at what cost? Much bad it would had done util it would had fully collapsed. Same thing applies to monopolies.
The servile state is the thing anarhist try to fight against but ultimately destroy the state as a whole.
When we say that the state has the monopol on violence it means it makes the laws uniservally applied to everyone, it has the monopoly on the army to defend itsef and has police to enforce the laws and prisons to punish those who are against the law. This is neither a good or bad thing by default, the procces of passing the law and the law itself is what determines if its good or bad.The state's monopoly on violence is needed.
The individual must be the only protected minority even from himself
The servile state is the structure of a state betwen pure capitalism and socialism, an entity that extensively intervines in the lifes of the people and the economy but not in order to help, but in order to mentain itself, not to offer prosperity but to just offer stability. The servile state is both socialism that leads to a class of beurocrats owning everything and also crony-state corporatocracy that creates and sustains the monopolies of politicians(still beurocrats), their friends or other's monopolies in exchange for money (lobbying) trought favoring legislation and turning a blind eye to monopolistic practices. So the servile state must mentain, in order to mentain itself two classes, one of few owners, be them privates(today's capitalism) or beurocrats(socialism).The solution it's not abolishing the state as a whole, if tomorow the state dissapears monopolies just don't have who to bribe anymore while mentaining the monopoly on infrastructure.
The economic system of the servile state is proletarism, one class the majority of the people would just be workers with no ownership over the means of production, both in socialism and capitalism,it is a system in which the many are forced directly or indirectly (by circumstances facilitated by the servile state) to work jobs they do not want with no sense of ownership.
You vill eat tze bugs, you vill live in tze pod, you vill own nothing und be HAPPY.
The servile state will come and tax the the owner class in order to give to the proletarian class crumbs of the value they produce, this can be achived either trought extensive wealfare programs and also by setting a minimum wage. All of those measures are not to ensure prosperity but stability, to prevent revolt, it is a smoke screen for the proletar.
By setting the minimum wage the servile state ensures 3 things, that the proletar has the ilussion of a possible good life (that usually doesn't happen beacuse when raising the minimum wage, if theres also an income tax for everyone or wagetax the servile state just raises their income to later redistribute part of it to the proletars while also raising the prices in the process in order to mentain itself, if they want to raise the minimum wage they will create inflation) while also setting a moral standard of "ethicality" of "example" "legitimy" to a low wage by the companies removing the obligation of the companies to give fair wages beacuse "hey it was already decided by the state at a universal level" , and the 3th thing is ensuring that any small enterprise has a hard time getting off the ground by not afording to have many workers, most of small enterprises can't afford paying the minimum wage to their employees leading to them finding workers harder and in need to remain small scale to not be an actual competion to the lobbyers.The minimum wage can never be a fair wage, it is only a smokescreeen for opresion of the state agaisnt the individual, too high for a start-up too low for a monopoly.This specific thing also lead to why you can't find jobs if you have no to minimal experience, already established greddy monopolies won't just hire you and teach you how to do your jobs in order to get experience.
Today we can see the servile state quite easily, it is represented the best by workfare combined with the gig economy, you work all day, you neither own your labour or the products of it, the means are owned by someone else, you work for cheap to barely scrape out so that the state can provide you with social housing and a check, a small one. The only good thing that the gig economy has offered are flexible programs...but that's beacuse so many people are forced into it...and they usually don't work just one job. The proletar in this case is fully at the mercy of the state while still working.
Beacuse of the top down structure of the servile state it is merely imposible for the avarage folk to ever become economically indepedent from the state. The servile states guarantees the labor contract and forces you to work, it creates beurocracy to check if the work contracts are respected or not, contracts heavily influenced by it, then goes and targets small enterprises or non-friendly ones specifically. It reverses the social contract and ties freedom with the obligation to work, not for yourself but for it. If you don't work for it you suddeny have no acces to healthcare housing and electricity, social housing and social programs are two edged sword.
The servile state offers you social programs, pensions, subvenctions, social services but not for fariness to help the most vurnarable but to controll them, to controll the proletars the working clases, to create an "contract for food".
The people who desire the servile state are either people that have not realized that it is servile or they have daddy issues. Why do they have daddy issues? Beacuse they desire a central strong men-like entity to come and give them everything they want, to give them wealth(people who support ai acceleration so that UBI can happen and we can have utopias are the best example), comfort and security, to "give" them the means of production whithout owning them, so they desire to be children with a father figure.
The solution for the servile state is not to abolish the state as I have already disscused but to abolish the servile opressive structure of it.
To change it. In order to change the opresive structure of the servile state and to destroy the proletarist cancer that it sustains we must flip the power dynamic of the state, to make the power buttom up not top down, somewhat. To do that we must hold holy the principle of subsidiarity, subsidiarity shall be the founding law of the ethical state. Subsidiarity means that problems shall be solved at the lowest socio-economical unit as much as possible, this means that power would be fairly distributed in the hierachy of the state and economy, from here comes the term "distributism". If we apply this principal to the state and it proves to be effective as it would, it will also set an example to the economy and private buisnisess might start to structure themselves as such.
But how do we achive subsidiarity in gouvernance? Simple trought local gouverments. This might look different for every country and how we shall achive this in organization is left to much debate but in my opinion we should try to make a federation of federations.The central part of the state shall merely act as the unifing law of common sense and as the global representative of the nation. The structure of this state shall be highly hierarchical and private but also very mobile, every region county city and village shall be treated as a voluntary comunity, an convenant syncronized with the central universal entity.
There would be two conceptions of the state, the universal state that enforces the universal common sense laws that are the base of every other law inside the nation, those beeing: Subsidiarity; corruption is equal to treason/betrayal of the PATRIA;indivisibility;The individual and his rights must be protected at all costs even from himself if necessary; The individual's rights are to:life , property , opinions, work and freedom.And many other laws that shall be left up for debate, one thing is clear, the universal laws should be the common senses and as few and as bold, as easy to understand as possible, inside the central state there should also exist the universal legistion for the things that work universally like car laws.The other entity would be the particular state that can exist inside the universal state, this one interprets and adds it's laws.
You could kinda interpret this as libertharian corporatism ,inside the structure of the state, yes private comunities, convenants as hoppians call it or comunes as ancoms call it can exist with their laws and prefered way of life but here they are caled particular states, they can be as small as a city and as big as Rusia if they can but the particular state is syncronized with the central state made up of representatives from all the particular states inside the corporatist structure of gouvernance
How would this look in real life? Let me give an example of how it would work in Romania.Firstly we devide the country into regional states in a federative structure on the basis of cultural and linguistic diferences, this would lead to 12 region-states and the capital-state(that is the administrative city of the nation-state-, both particular and universal at the same time, why universal? beacuse there might be common laws inside of them universally agreed trought universal vote of the representatives inside the regions making them universal states. why particular? beacuse those universal laws might differ from region to region but they are compatible beacuse they can only exist inside the ultimate universal state represented by the nation-state of Romania.
The region states would be:
-Oltenia
-Muntenia
-Dobrogea
-Moldova
Basarabia(we doing greater Romania + Timok valey the true romanian lands)
-Bucovina
-Maramures
-Szekerland
-Transilvania
-Crisana
-Banat
-Timok
Inside of the region-states there would be the county-states syncronized with their region-state. Lets give the example for Oltenia, Oltenia would be made up of:
-Dolj
-Gorj
-Mehedinți
-Olt
-Vâlcea
Inside each one of those there will resign the particular states syncronized with the universal county-state. Every village , city or comune will held a referendum to decide how big or how small they are and they will form their laws in the limits of the universal laws. Inside those can also exist particular comunities, as big as a village part of a comune, a neighbourhoud or family.The universal state shall merely be the structure reprezentative of the means of cooperation betwen self-gouverning comunities(particular states), to be more specific:
The nation-state shall merely be the structure reprezentative of the means of cooperation betwen the region-states
The region-state shall merely be the structure reprezentative of the means of cooperation betwen the county-states
The county-state shall merely be the structure reprezentative of the means of cooperation betwen the particular-states.
The particular-state shall merely be the structure reprezentative of the means of cooperation betwen the self-gouverning comunities.
The self-gouverning comunities shall merely be the structure reprezentative of the means of cooperation betwen the families.
The family is the lowest socio-economical unit therefore subsidiar corporatism (this is how I'll call this) is a comunitarian ideologies. Why have the family as the lowest socio-economical unit? Well beacuse the family gives you individuals that will give you families and comunities and will build the nation. The family should be promoted and protected at all costs, be it a conformist one or non-conformist.
But how will this subsidiar corporatism thingy even work? Well again I want this to be an evolving way of aproaching the state question not rigid so I would like to let it up for debate mostly but in my opinion we should do an synsthesis between gouvermental technocracy and populism (popular republic , bassically a form of liquid democracy in which things are left also for the popular vote trought referendums) creating something I would like to call "Popularism".
So now here depending on how sustainable this is we either dissolve local councils for villages and cities to reach a more direct type of democracy thing or we just make the particular states , the private communities, the convenants ellect or just give representatives that will be put in the local, village/city council instead of the mayor sellecting people from political parties locally to be put in the local councils. The mayors will be ellected either by the local council, assuming that the particular state would have an technocratic way of sellecting their representives (one per particular state) or we would just hold an contest and make the top 20 most intelectual, most educated individuals from the comunity as a whole (village/city) decide who won said contest.
The mayor will be put into a county council consisting of all the mayors inside the county and the leader of the council will be decided trought contest, again an council of the top 20 intelectuals inside the comunity as a whole, in this case the county will decide who won the contest. The leader of the county council will be put inside a regional council consisting of all the leaders of the county councils inside the region, the same way we ellect the leader of this council. The leader of the regional council will be put inside the national council consisting of all the leaders of the regional councils inside the nation-state.
The leader of this council will be the president, now here again I'll leave this to much debate on how the president the head of state would be ellected, we could ellect him trought popular vote and give a balance betwen the tehnocratic way of doing thing and the more democratic, populist way of doing them or we could ellect the prezident as how we ellected the rest of the leaders of councils but higher the number of people participating in the decision of who won the contest. The selection procces of the prezidential candidates shall be left to much debate also if we go with the democratic route, do we keep the signature system? Do we limit the publics choice only to the heads of the regional-states?
The technocratic route would not be that diferent either, the same process arises but I think the most decent of doing the "ellection" would be to change the semantics a bit. Instead of this beeing an electoral process it would be a contest betwen the canditates and the council that will decide who wins the elletion is the population that knows for starters how to read, how to writte and knows the attributes for the prezident.
Electing the prezident in the colective zeigeist is something more intimate than any other ellection, if here we limit the people's ability to decide their reprezentatives based on intelectuals capabilites (aka letting only those with a highet education to vote), the rest would feel disenfranchised and will take to the streets.
As much as I would personally like for the people to not ellect the reprezentatives but have the right to dismiss them, for the prezidency that might not be the best solution, the prezident wining the contest, and who decides who won the contest is the popular vote of the population that is at least educated enough to know what they're votting for might be the best solution and give a nice balance to the technocratic part and the popular part.
The ministries shall be subordonated to the syndicates, the institution shall be subordonated, shall be the structure of the means of colaboration between the various syndicates in the ministry's respective field of operation. An corporation as such shall be created by the state that will work like an federation of the syndicates that trought it would be syncronized with the minister. The syndicates would send their respective reprezentatives and also tehnocratically decide trought the molecular system I had already explained above who wins the contest to have the minister's seat. Let's take for example an education ministry, there would be created an education corporation that will syncronize togheter all the teacher's syndicates for coehison. This education corporation will decide trought contest who wins the education minister seat. Who other than the people teaching our kids would know better to decided who shall take the mandate for the education ministry? If not other than the teachers. The contest cannot be rigged, if it's rigger then the teachers trought the education corporation can hold a referendum to dissmis the minister.
The republic or you can even have a monarchy under this system, they're not contradictory but I prefer a republic personally. A republic that would be a prezidential one, the gouverment would be all of the above, a molecularist way of doing things alongside the prezident would form the executive branch of the state.
The legislative branch shall be again left for much debate on how it is gonna be structured, the particular states have their respective legislative power, but we need to have an universal parliament that would decide the universal laws that limit the particular one. The parlamentars in my personal opinion should be of two types, deputees and senators. A bi-cameral parliament, the deputees shall be 3 to 4 from every county ellected by popular vote, uninominally in two tours of ellections and the senators shall be not more than 200 put there trought contest that happen inside the best universities, and the best 200 law-makers would win seats in the parliament.
The juridicial system shall be fully independent, fully apolitical and fully technocratic at all costs, every post in the jurudicial branch shall be won trought contest.
The people should also have the right to dissmiss their representatives, a mandate would be 4 years in which after half of it is passed an popularity referendum will be held to determine if they would keep their mandates or not. This would give an incentive to do a good job while also keeping an eye on the unelected technocrats that could make mistakes or could be corrupt.
Now as the final of this essay, "manifesto", "schizo-paranoic rambling" or however you wanna call it, I want to adress why I belive ellecting mayors technocratically is better than trought popular vote and why I belive that people should not ellect their representatives but have the ability to dissmis them. Well for starters the people mostly are easily guiable and today with the age of AI post-truth is not only theoretical, I have somewhat of an essay I need to remake that already explains this quite well, but it was more of an anti-democratic rambling I made during the 2024-2025 romanian prezidential ellections:Subsidiar Tehnocratic Paternalism. Now there is also another reason I belive it gives more reprezentation to you, yes to you, you don't need to have just charisma to swayy the masses off their feets, to infatuate them with you but you only need your skill to win the contest, to educate yourself, to prove that you can be the leader, the mayor and not just to manipulate colectives of idiots to vote you.
I belive that this system of gouvernance could lead to an apartidical state, one in which political parties are not needed anymore but political pluridism still exists trought indepent candidates with their ideas. The politicians shall not decide who is prezident, minister or head of the judiciar branch, I belive that this system, popularism with a molecularist and subsidiar corporatist structure will lead to more reprezentation of the people and less power to politicians or political parties.
Political parties shall not be banned, but this structure incentivize more independent candidates.
So in conclusion, if something lacks structure it lacks proper organization and it would eventually lead to chaos dooming any anarchist movement to failure.
The human needs to live inside a structure to compare himself with it. If not he would either go insane or create it. Anarhism is a stupid utopian ideal that will never work beacuse of the human nature, in the past yes it worked but we have evolved past anarhism with the discovery of agriculture, that has not just domesticated animals but humanity itself.The is not moral but we are not moral either.We shouldn't try to abolish the state, no no, the problem is the Servile State not the state itself, this state sustains the economic system of unfairness in which there are two classes, the proletariat, majority of the people that do not own their means of production and the owner class the beurocrats or capitalists, the few that own most of the means of production, heaving an unfair monopoly sustained by the state.
And the solution to all of this is local gouvernance and decentralization that is left to much debate on how it shall look but I gave my opinion.
Well this took long enough, I hope you enjoyed and I'm curios about your opinions on the matter, I won't add any comment features on the site any time soon, so until I do..just add me on discord, you have my socials on the main pg. Please excuse any gramatical or sintax error I might had made.
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 International