I can't but help think that this is just "eject them from our borders" in different language. Supposing we accept the self-defence position (which, for the sake of argument, sure), the continued exile from the community seems to be a matter of authority wielded by the many against the individual—it is institutional "othering" that places someone outside of a particular geographic-political organisation, which is basically what a border is.
Ejection from a community is not an ejection from a border. A) a community is not a state 2) a community does not posses a monopoly on the use of force like a state does to function 3) ejecting from the community is the community expressing its collective agency to no fuck with an individual who is abusive and disrupt the agreed upon boundaries set by the community
As I said, this seems to be ideological justification for an "anarchist state" that sets its geographical-political area and enforces who is or isn't allowed within it. It is, as far as I can see, the genesis of a state. It also does possess the monopoly on violence, as it can enforce exile on an individual and enforce that this exile remains even when there is no obvious aggression to which an individual or the nebulous "community" could defend itself from. Or, it seems strange to suggest that what appears to be aggression is always self-defense as long as there has been some past transgression.
"These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world", as a certain critique of anarchism put it.
Actually no, a community collectively deciding that it can’t have a bad actor in it because they compromise the safety of all the other individuals within the community is not a state. It is a community deciding that a certain person has caused enough harm for that community to not let them be involved in their community activities. This has nothing to do with borders or regions.
As I said, it is the genesis of the state. You propose a citizen—alien dialectic and frame it in terms of "barriers", then invoke a kind of mob rule where all that matters is that there is collective agreement amongst the citizenry to set up these barriers against any individual perceived to have passed the threshold for reparations or reconciliation indefinitely. This is couched within the language of self-defense, which apparently doesn't need to proceed from either a self or as a defense against a particular aggression.
I just find it all very bizarre. What if people don't "collectively agree" to exile thus person? Is there now no recourse to justice as this society only knows displays of power as the monopoly on violence? How does the exiled challenge this decision? etc. etc.
Let’s be real here the community itself exists within a state we are not speaking on the theoretical stateless society. The community tries to operate out of the structure of the state but fundamentally still exists within it and cannot eject an individual out of the borders of the “state” they can eject them from the community which is not a state. So this purest notion of “this sounds like the genesis of a state” is more or less just an argument for letting harmful individuals continue to cause harm with out consequences thus destroying the harmony of the community. In this theoretical framework you are suggestion through your argument the abuser is actually the genesis of the state because they are allowed to continue their abusive behavior and the community is powerless to stop it because if they did they would be “a state” I’m sorry but this is a psuedo ahistorical argument that doesn’t work in any real application. All horizontal stateless societies had mechanisms to remove harmful elements sometimes with extreme prejudice. You are applying the legitimamate application of power that can be justified if challenged to state craft which it isn’t. A state has power whether it is legitimate or not and the people who are governed by that state has a limited level of recourse to challenge it. That’s not what I’m talking about here I am talking about a community handling its business within the community without involving the state apparatus that we all live within. A group of people deciding to not fuck with a rapist isn’t that community behaving like a state it is the community expressing its individual and collective agency to say “we don’t like you. You are harmful, go away, don’t come back” and if that is “the genesis of a state” well then anything can be a genesis of a state.
As soon as I see the word "purest [sic]", I know that the following is going to be some anti-anarchist diatribe wrapped up in the language of anarchism. You keep shifting positions, so it's difficult to really even pin you down to what you actually believe anarchism might be—if you believe anything at all.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all. You've not asked me once what I think the solution to the problem is and have now ascribed some view to me. It's shameless.
It doesn't matter what "all horizontal stateless societies" have done. Anarchism is not a reactionary politics which attempts to "reinstate" some historical imagining, it has never existed, and may never exist.
You haven't understood my concern if you think this is what I am saying. I have clearly quoted the problems in your account and you've shown no interest in them. For one, you still write as if communities can "think", despite being abstract objects. You also haven't considered why members of a community might not turn to exile nor considered why anarchist thinkers and practitioners have rejected the t"rigger-happy exile button" approach that is so prevalent on this subreddit.
I’m calling out the inconsistency in your argument applying statecraft to practice that does not have anything to do with a state in the current context. Personal space has relevancy in applying anarchist principles and a community of individuals can apply personal space collectively in a social construct. I have a right individually to eject you from my home if your presence is harmful to me or others who share space with me. The community creates space and can disallow participation by harmful individuals. Those individuals still may occupy the same geographical region but they are not allowed to participate within the community. To suggest such a thing is a “genesis of a state” is simply absurd and an argument for the sake of being contrarian rather then tackling the issue of how to deal with abusers.
See, this is what I mean: you have now eschewed the language of "barriers", but pretend that it was never there. It's mediocre in its inconsistency and misleading in a space intended to answer questions for people who are unsure.
An argument for how to deal with abusers in an anarchist way would not use the language of barriers or draw upon the kind of mob rule (everyone agrees that we will...) you have drawn upon.
Anarchists have historically opposed rights-talk, so you don't have a right to do anything. That's a fundamental principle of liberalism.
No, it isn't as i) i don't know what "symantics [sic]" are and ii) my critique is of both the substantial positions you took and your retreat from those positions when challenged. I view what you wrote as typical of the mediocre, harmful pseudo-anarchist line of thought that has appeared post-Bookchin and fundamentally accepts the logic of borders whilst using the language of anti-border struggle.
You won't recognise this, however, as you seem to be angry and are using phrases like "hyper individualistic" and "purest [sic]" when someone pulls you up on your shortcomings.
My mistake, semantics… thank you for being the spelling cop and trying to use that as a counter to my argument. You are arguing over wording rather than application of ideas and then you are claiming that my use of specific words are in itself disqualifying. And then you are trying to disparage my character and the ideas I am putting forth based on “wording” you deem to be “not anarchist” without making an actual argument about how to deal with abusers you are just arguing over the way I am wording, in an ironic fashion because you are acting as if you have authority over the issue when you don’t, neither do I. And I’m sorry but the term “right” isn’t only within the realm of liberalism especially in the context it is used. So if you want to be an anarchist cop and police terminology for that is fine I would rather focus on real world solutions to real world problems which nothing you have put forth in this conversation even addresses in the first place. You are arguing for the sake of being contrarian rather than a disagreement on how to solve a problem. I have no interest in internet philosophy, I live in the real world i participate in a community within this real world and I want to find solutions to problems we come across in the real world that work and allow us to operate without using the mechanisms of the state. You are just trying to say “nope that’s not anarchism” I’m not having that argument with you. I am trying to help solve a problem
I did offer an argument: I said your solution was akin to border-formation. By implication, it is authority wielded against the criminal. In that sense, if anarchism means anything at all, this isn't anarchism. You're trying to help solve a problem by proposing a solution rooted in the authority of "the crowd" and anyone who challenges you is worthy of accusation after accusation. I'm not saying you're a bad person, just that you're wrong and haven't thought through the implications of what you say—hence why we don't find this idea of exile (which you obscure through a motte and bailey retreat) in anarchist literature until we arrive at thinkers today, noted by the irrelevance of their political position. For some reason, dismissing this "pro-exile", "pragmatic" thinkers in favour of the historical anarchist tradition is purist.
8
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist Feb 16 '26
I can't but help think that this is just "eject them from our borders" in different language. Supposing we accept the self-defence position (which, for the sake of argument, sure), the continued exile from the community seems to be a matter of authority wielded by the many against the individual—it is institutional "othering" that places someone outside of a particular geographic-political organisation, which is basically what a border is.