This thread is for discussing politics, political science, and other politics-related topics in a general, non-country/region-specific context. Do mind sensitive topics, especially controversial ones; I think we'd all rather the thread stay free of Flame Wars.
Please consult the following threads for country/region-specific politics (NOTE: The list is eternally non-comprehensive; it will be gradually updated whenever possible).
- For Asian countries, see the following:
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
.
- For China, see Official China Discussion Thread
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
- For the Philippines, see Philippine Politics
.
- For South Asian countries, see The South Asia Politics, News, and Analysis Thread
.
- For Southeast Asian countries, see Southeast Asia Politics Thread
.
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
- For Australia, see General Australian Politics Thread
.
- For Europe as a collective whole, see European Politics Thread
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
.
- For Finland, see Finnish politics
.
- For France, see French Politics
.
- For Germany, see German Politics Thread
.
- For Ireland, see Irish Politics Thread
.
- For Poland, see General Polish Politics/Other Issues Thread
.
- For Russia, see The General Russia Thread
.
- For the United Kingdom, see British Politics Thread
.
- For Ukraine, see War in Ukraine
.
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
- For the Middle Eastnote and North Africa in general, see General Middle East & North Africa Thread
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
was locked accordingly.
- For the Arab Spring specifically, see The Arab Spring
.
- For Turkey, see Turkish Politics
.
- For Iran, see Iran Discussion
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
- For Northern Americanote ...
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
was locked accordingly.
- For Canada, see Canadian Politics
.
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
- For Latin America, see The Latin America thread (VE, BR, AR, CU, MX...)
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
.
- For Venezuela, see Venezuela and the Chavez Legacy
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
- For the South Caucasusnote , see South Caucasus thread
.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 25th 2025 at 9:51:19 AM
Also not all anarchists want the same level of anarchy, you will find anarchists who want a end to hierarchy within certain structures, so co-operative businesses, democratic schooling, anarchical local government, ect...
Remember that anarchists aren’t inherently opposed to government, that’s the big thing that sets them apart from libertarians.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
Uh, but that doesn't make sense? Most anarchists I've interacted with consider themselves to be the true libertarians, and anarchism is defined by the obliteration of hierarchy. You can't have a state and no hierarchy, the structure of the former inevitably creates the latter.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 21st 2020 at 9:29:34 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThat depends upon the size of the state and the mechanism used to run it, I’d say that a couple micro-states are small enough that they could be run efficiently without hierarchy.
A state is an entity that deals with other states, nothing about that requires hierarchy, it requires delegation to be done effectively, but you can delegate actions in an anarchical society.
Edited by Silasw on Apr 21st 2020 at 5:14:24 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI think there is little to no defacto difference between "no state" and "state small enough to not have a formalized vertical hierarchy".
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 21st 2020 at 10:51:17 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangExcept perhaps vast numbers of social programs and safety nets. The "Phipps Ideal Society" is essentially a government of Post Offices, DM Vs, and Social Security Offices full of civil service not leaders.
Also a vast number of laws and regulations preventing anyone from wielding power over another.
My post-anarchist utopia is a government a 1000 miles wide and an inch deep.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 21st 2020 at 10:58:34 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.You can't have large numbers of social programs and a small state.
The size of the state, and its power, is determined by the funding and talent it receives. Thus the more responsibilities you give a state, the more resources it receives, and the greater its size.
Hence why democratic socialism is the more sensible anti-capitalist idealogy, unlike anarchism it recognizes the good a strong state can do.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangA strong state will inevitably turn to tyranny because a state needs to be hobbled in its ability to retaliate against its citizens. Checks and balances should be the most important thing any government defines as well as ways to enforce them. We're suffering now from the fact we don't have a way to drag people out into the streets when they abuse their power.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.A strong state will inevitably turn to tyranny because a state needs to be hobbled in its ability to retaliate against its citizens. Checks and balances should be the most important thing any government defines as well as ways to enforce them. We're suffering now from the fact we don't have a way to drag people out into the streets when they abuse their power.
No, this is just right-libertarian nonsense.
A strong state can protect the common good, there are a number of ways to stop it from hurting the populace that doesn't involve the traditional American irrational hatred of government.
You can have a state that helps everyone or a weak one, but you can't have both.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI'm not sure it's accurate to say anarchists aren't intrinsically opposed to government...in fact, I'm pretty sure that's the most common definition of anarchism.
Some of this, of course, depends a bit on how we define a state. I'd tend to argue that the society most anarchists describe technically has a pseudo-state of sorts, but an informal and de facto-based one.
For example, you'd still have "rulers" of an anarchic society, but these rulers' power wouldn't be founded in formalized rules per se (such as a President being elected or a Monarch being inherited), so much as "well, I tell people to do things and they tend to do them", most likely because they're looked up to.
Similarly, you'd have laws of sorts, but in a more 'informal' way. For example, there wouldn't necessarily be a policy for what to do to litterbugs, but you'd still want to avoid littering based on the fact that it's a good way to make enemies and lose friends.
This has some ups and downs, here. The big upside is that it'd be difficult to have someone like Skhreli (or however you spell it) doing something technically-legal but gravely immoral (at least, not if it's seen as such). Someone like that would be lynched right away (of course, it'd be hard for someone to do what Skhreli did specifically in anarchism, but the point is that even if they could, they couldn't get away with it). This does, however, pose a few big problems.
To give one example, I'd argue it encourages a very...localist/xenophobic mindset of sorts. Hear me out here. For a lot of the system to work it implies a sort of "everyone knows everybody" mentality. What stops Disproportionate Retribution in such a society, for example, is the fact that they're someone you know personally and you're sort of interdependent on them. However, imagine a traveler who passes by and commits some minor crime. This all goes out the window right away and there's not a huge incentive to not just burn the guy at the stake, especially if the guy wasn't planning on returning anyways. This sort of mentality gets ugly fast.
In addition, you'd run into such people like that traveler being "heroes to their hometown". Basically, one thing would lead to another and you'd get a bunch of tightly-knit, small societies constantly in brutal conflict with each other.
Leviticus 19:34To give one example, I'd argue it encourages a very...localist/xenophobic mindset of sorts. Hear me out here. For a lot of the system to work it implies a sort of "everyone knows everybody" mentality. What stops Disproportionate Retribution in such a society, for example, is the fact that they're someone you know personally and you're sort of interdependent on them. However, imagine a traveler who passes by and commits some minor crime. This all goes out the window right away and there's not a huge incentive to not just burn the guy at the stake, especially if the guy wasn't planning on returning anyways. This sort of mentality gets ugly fast.
Indeed, I imagine this would be the greatest downside of an anarchist system. When your society is ordered around decentralized small-scale actors then that's a recipe for parochialism.
Which is absolutely lethal if one's society has to face any kind of large scale threat.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI’m talking about actual real world states, so the Vatican, Monaco, Liechtenstein, overseas territories of larger states, Andorra, ect... They all have very small populations and you could feasibly get everyone there to meet and run things.
The most common definition is simple chaos, people aren’t super well informed about anarchism.
Anarchism doesn’t mean no rules, the anarchical school I grew up in had more rules than most schools, specifically because you don’t have leaders who can punish based on their own judgment, you either have to get the entire community involved or you have specific individuals enforcing specific rules. However such rules aren’t the end of things, the fact that you didn’t break a specific rule simply meant that things went before the community meeting for discussion (though I know of other places using a jury system), also it normally meant that a standard punishment didn’t exist to throw at you.
Now you’re right that such a society will develop informal leaders who have no extra formal power but who are listened to by the community due to their experience, for us that was largely the staff and kids who had been there a long time.
Oh 100%, I’ve seen it in action, while we were never strait up hostile towards outsiders we very much regarded them as others and actions were taken with consideration only for how it impacted us, society beyond our walls was rarely considered. This wasn’t even done with malice, we once accidentally scheduled end of term on Easter Sunday, weekends for parents to visit might be changed at the last moment.
That’s before we got into the formal stuff, a visitor had to wait outside the community meeting while we voted on if they could sit in, they were not allowed to speak in our meetings unless they were a former member of the community (even then they couldn’t vote).
It’s pretty harmless when done by 100 kids and their teachers, but a full fledged society could easily cross the line into xenophobia.
Which is absolutely lethal if one's society has to face any kind of large scale threat.
And that’s the flaw that anarchical states have always run into, a state with formal hierarchy coming over and killing them and taking their land.
But is that still as big a risk in the modern era? There exists a global society with a level of rules now, could an anarchical state shelter itself under the protection of something like the EU or UN?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranCalling being suspicious of the government inherently Right is propaganda and a lie. The Right makes use of suspicions of the government while engaging in behavior that makes people rightful to be.
South America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and many other nations than the United States have reason to be suspicious of their governments as well as abuses. Pretending this is an "American" problem or even attitude is an extremely First World view.
You can have both by making the state not have actual authority over people and subservient to its people, not the other way around. Hierarchy is the source of all evil and cannot be engaged in without inevitable corruption as well sliding into dictatorship.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.A state needs power to help everyone. The power to take and give resources, the power to take and give rights (e.g. imprisoning criminals). A state with no authority over its citizens cannot do that. And if citizens engage in this directly then you have no actual state.
Hierarchy is simply a function of specialization. Someone specializes in growing grain, someone in milling flour. As the assembly line grows more complex, some people specialize in decisionmaking. What grain to get from where and when, how much flour, what kinds of bread?
Anarchists aren't necessarily against government - there will always be government of some kind - they are against States however, i.e. an organisation with a monopoly of violence over a certain geographical area. A direct democratic council over a commune (to use an extreme example) is still a kind of government after all, as would be the Anarcho-syndicalist model of democratic Syndicates and mega-Unions that co-operate to make both economic and political decisions for society. It's a government, even if doesn't quite look like what we think of as government today
Anarchists also aren't necessarily for the obliteration of ALL hierarchies, but rather against all unjust or unequal hierarchies, i.e. you can still have workers and a manager "above" them in an anarchist workplace, but the manager wouldn't be in a position of inequal power over the workers.
The difference between lolbertarians and *cough* ahem, REAL libertarians aka libsocs aka anarchists is ... well, Capitalism/Socialism mostly. Libertarians tend to frame stuff through property rights and your right to own stuff and for everything to be basically privately owned, whereas anarchists want much more to be communally owned or communally available and see things through a more Marxist/post-Marxist perspective.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."Given how often this conversation comes to a standstill, I’m curious what your definitions of “authority” and “hierarchy” are, because they don’t seem to be the ones commonly used. For example, I’m sure we can all agree states should have laws and laws should be enforced. That necessarily requires both authority and hierarchy, but it would be ridiculous to say having laws will inevitably lead to dictatorship.
So, how exactly are you defining these things? Are you exclusively referring to unjust hierarchy and authority?
They should have sent a poet.Regarding the Iran santions, I feel that lifting them as the pandemic rages on would be fine, but that idea that the current santions are unreasonable simply don't sounds solid to me
That would be a interesting Alternate Universe but it isn't the one where we are
Edited by KazuyaProta on Apr 27th 2020 at 5:04:59 AM
Watch me destroying my countryTrue, but my overall point stands. The anti-Iran hawks are not interested in anything less than destroying Iran and remaking it in their neoliberal image. The sanctions are not done because Iran deserves it, they are done because of that desire.
This can be seen with their reaction to the Iran deal, here we had an opportunity to make Iran do better through the carrot and the stick, but what did Trump do? He tore it up. Because he doesn't care about making Iran behave better, and his sanctions are not aimed at achieving that.
Is Iran's state "good"? I wouldn't say so, but that doesn't mean that the Republican's sanctions are justified. Especially not now.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 27th 2020 at 3:09:12 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangGuys we do acutely have at least one Iran thread, give me a sec to find it and we can move there.
Edit: We’ve got one for Iran’s nuclear programme. [1]
One for the Middle East generally [2]
and a pretty much never used one for Iran in general [3]
. So take your pick.
Hell I also found a thread about Iran and Saudi Arabia and an old one about Iranian ship movements.
Edited by Silasw on Apr 27th 2020 at 10:24:12 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Fourthspartan 56 What they want is to completely destroy Iran so that it can never recover without outside help, as a way of warning its inhabitants of the price of messing with the United States, and also to avoid making the same mistakes that the United States made with Japan after World War II by allowing that country to rebuild itself at the expense of the Americans, at least in the opinion of the conservative hawks in Washington.
Why USA would want to avoid repeating what is widely considered their best success? The whole American policy in the Middle East is based in trying to replicate Japan reconstruction but being unable to do it because many reasons
Edited by KazuyaProta on Apr 28th 2020 at 9:36:16 AM
Watch me destroying my country

Meanwhile, an alien that isn't so sufficiently advanced but still pretty powerful would domesticate us the same way we domesticated other animals — by taking over our hierarchies.
Something like this: