I'm an anarchist, but I would have no objection to a minimalist state (minarchy), if it was limited to enforcing the abolition of capitalism (which in practical terms would mean the criminalizing of private ownership of the means of production). I.e., the opposite of what minarchism usually means (nightwatchman state, limited to protecting such property). I think anyone who objects to this is in effect arguing in favor of capitalism, which means they're not an anarchist. Interesting paradox, no?

If you'll notice, this is really just a play on words. This socialist minarchy is really no different from what we call anarchy, except that anyone who wanted to install capitalism would be forcibly removed instead of merely shut off from the community until he decided to leave. But that doesn't make it non-anarchist. Anarchists wouldn't wait for a serial killer to leave on his own, they'd drive him out with pitchforks and torches. And capitalism is an even bigger threat.

I want to learn if there are any flavors of libertarian Marxism that are basically minarcho-communist. I would consider them firm allies.

I don't think anarchists have to be opposed to all states no matter what. If a state is to the benefit of humanity as a whole, any sensible anarchist should support it i think.

Comprimise is the word. But there's always a future, and any comprimises dont have to be in effect forever.

Basicly what i'm saying is that anarchists should support reform while most of the world wants a state. Not that we have much power anyway. But it's good that we show ourselves to be sensible people.

hmm

interested, on one hand you could say minarchism is sort of related to anarchism, in the same way as marxism, but in my view its a polar opposite! on one hand you have the state as the ultimate evil, and then, minarchism believes that the state is the ultimate protector of rights, decides, a purely anarchist community wouldn't have problems stopping capitalism from starting up again

what your saying reminds me of the CNT, and they fucked it up didnt they?

I consider socialist libertarianism and 'socialist minarchy' to mean pretty much the same thing. They're both versions of soft anarchism and I have no problem with them, indeed I identify myself as a soclib.

You know, I gotta wonder why you guys even bother calling yourselves "anarchists" at all considering how enamored you are of the state as long as it's doing "radical" or "progressive" things. FFS

You know there's more to anarchism than anti-statism right?

I'm more concerned with a happy and healthy society than getting rid of the State at all costs. The only reason I want to abolish the State is because I think people would be happier without it. If an example of a State with a happy, free and content population were presented to me I would no longer advocate the abolition of the State.

If there were a better way to Communism, I'd take it, but Anarchism is the only one that's practical.

There is a state like that!!! It's called the unconscious state!!!!

Flags progressed a bit these past years. We've gone from being retards to be half sensible.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

The whole reason why I am anti-state is because I believe a state, no matter how small it is when it is born, is a State. It WILL seek to centralize power and eliminate competition, not to mention seek to extract money from the populace it "protects".

Also, I think that people will tend towards violence and "evil" simply because it's easier to do, especially if you have weapons and the ability to do it. A state is a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force/violence, so I think the small percentage of humans who tend towards violence will flock to it. Why would we ever want to create an institution with this power?

But, if I did see, in my lifetime, a benevolent "successful" State, I would probably support it, but keep my anarchist principles as a better way. After all, a successful minarchy would be pretty close to anarchism. I just don't think it will work.

Ofcourse as ANARCHISTS we want a ANARCHIST society. However most of the world isnt ANARCHIST and wants a state.

How can we argue with so many people?

Give in. Let them have their state.

Hahaha funny, just realized 'nya dnar' is Ayn Rand bacwards

But don't read too much into it. I'm not a secret agent of Ayn Rand or anything. I chose the name because the minarchy I spoke of would be the opposite of the kind she advocated.

It's somewhat excessive to claim that a minarchy is "anarchist" in nature; the distinction renders that obviously false. It is legitimate to claim that minarchism is libertarian, however. But the elementary criticism that if the minarchist state is so small anyway it may as well not exist has never been rebutted, IMO.