Message from @Garbage
Discord ID: 594253388858916895
rulers with out care for the ppl
thgis is why many think states are bad
but they are not
per se or by definition
That sounds like an anarchist's idea of government rather than the Marxist idea of the state.
no because narchist dont have government
jees, you have issues keeping communism and anarchy appart man
Anarchism is anti-state, not anti-government, or at least not anti governance.
There is always going to be a collective interest, yes, but it is not set in stone, and it does not have to be imposed by political force and suppression of dissent.
This suppression of dissent is necessary when resources are too scarce and there isn't enough effort focussed upon beating back scarcity.
are you saying that governments dont have their power true force?
>power true force
so you are saying yes
O King of Nuance, what does that mean?
a gorvernment has its power true force
What does 'power true force' mean?
It is a simple yes or no
how hard can it be to awnser
jesus
having power true force
with out theforce no power
pretty basic concept
Without *what* force?
A state needs to suppress dissent through a certain kind of political force in order to keep its political monopoly. This is the Marxist understanding of what a state is.
But a government has laws and pusnishments
they are pretty much the same thing
Anarchist dont want states nor governments
as they are basically the same thing
you dont even know what anacrist are
I do; I know that they want organisation but without the imposing force of the state.
No you said they would liek governments
"they are not anti government"
And you didn't know what I meant by that, did you? Always assuming.
But these have rules and laws with penalties
this is not anarchy
**it's never good when I do it, though, is it?**
Nevertheless...
Let us revise our terms, for we are now referring to different things.
You use two words, 'state' and 'government' to refer to the same thing.
I use them to refer to two different things.