Back

@HeavenlyPossum we need the state to coordinate efforts amongst millions of people. That takes many forms and it includes coercion.
If we want large societies, we need coercion, maybe that is the problem.
I can see anarchism working well in smaller scales.

@jocarren @HeavenlyPossum
Makhnovshchina - At its height, the population of the Makhnovshchina was roughly 7.5 million people, spread across 75,000 km2 of territory.

Revolutionary Spain - Catalonia, Aragon, and the Levant. Frank Mintz estimates "1,265 to 1,865 collectives, 'embracing 610,000 to 800,000 workers. With their families, they involve a population of 3,200,000." Gaston Leval, a French Anarchist who fought in the war, describes a "revolutionary experience involving, directly or indirectly, 7 to 8 million people."

Zapatistas in Chiapas - approx 250,000 people in 2014.

Rojava - 2024 estimate 4,600,000 people

@davva23 @HeavenlyPossum
armed revolutionary movements are inherently coercitive

@jocarren @davva23

Defending oneself from aggression is not meaningfully coercive, and certainly not in any sense that I would object to as an anarchist.

@HeavenlyPossum @davva23
a group of people imposing their interests through violence on another group of people is not coercion?

@jocarren @HeavenlyPossum @davva23 by that definition you should object to the State more than people self organising

@hakan_geijer @HeavenlyPossum @davva23
Ironically, I do. I'm trying to build a solid argument for it, that's why I'm counter-argumenting all these points, do you think I haven't thought of this?

I'm trying to do dialectics, my people.

No wonder everyone kicked out Marx and Engels from their meetings

@hakan_geijer @HeavenlyPossum @davva23 ahh shit, I'm all over the place, mostly marxist socialist (but not leninist). I will try to expand later when I'm on the computer.