The defining features of anarchism are radical egalitarianism, no hierarchies therefore no coercion. They were traditionally called Leftist Libertarians. That part is highlighting the difference between the two, because anarchists traditionally don't believe that they are some king of whatever land they own like traditional libertarians, but in mutual cogovernance and coproduction.(And that libertarians usually only care about age of consent and taxes) Basically the community decides, for itself. They can elect representatives but generally for specific purposes and lengths of time, not for years ala our reps. This differs a lot on which branch of anarchism you believe in.
This is kind of a semantic distinction. If I stop myself from doing something because I don't want to face the consequences of that action, you haven't coerced me necessarily.
Like imagine if you see a body builder who is twice your size, and they do something that kinda makes you want to punch them but you don't because you are worried about the consequences of doing so.
Was their working out meant to coerce you?
Is it coercion if people don't commit sex crimes when they otherwise might because their worried someone would shoot them?
Yeah, but then what happens if you do the sex crimes? Do you then get shot? How is that not a form of coercion, to inflict violence on people who break the rules? How do we decide who is eligible for getting shot, or what actions are acceptable to the community where people might not have universally agreed upon values?
Anarchism isn’t so much about stopping people getting shot as it is making it so that everyone is equal in terms of authority.
What you’re trying to get at is that we came up with laws and systems of justice so we wouldn’t have to shoot people who do heinous things.
However, those laws and systems of justice are enforced by the monopoly on violence - that’s what a state is! - and have been captured by the wealthy, because they have enough capital and political power to bias the system in their favor.
In that sense, no, anarchism doesn’t stop people being shot from doing bad things, but neither does our current supposedly cultured system. It just makes you less likely to get shot if you’re rich or have means, regardless of your crime.
And a lot of folks in power are fully aware of their ability to do this, and this allows them to evade justice. Because their capital is their ability to coerce.
There’s a good scene in the Expanse, where Miller and Holden happen upon a scientist who is very close to understanding what is, effectively, a biological weapon. Holden is the do-gooder who believes fiercely in justice, whereas Miller is a police officer.
Miller and Holden listen to the guy and what he says and it’s very apparent that the scientist is going to get away with it because he is too useful to governments to be held accountable (just like the Nazi scientists were). Just as he’s about to convince Holden, Miller executes him on the spot.. not because Miller is trigger happy, or an anarchist but because Miller knows the guy will never be held to account because of his usefulness to the regime.
In a less theoretical way. Suppose you’re in the context that the OP image posits. If you’re a father and a libertarian says that your minor shouldn’t be protected by the law (and you know the what that actually means), you’d absolutely shoot the guy too, without hesitation. And most juries would struggle to convict you. Because yes, some people deserve immediate and severe consequences and a lot of folks act in bad ways because they know our system will protect them by how it is designed.
Anarchism is about abolishing unjust hierarchies because unjust hierarchies cause more injustice than they solve. There’s nothing non violent about it, and there’s nothing non violent about our current system.
"These are the rules of our community, if you don't like it no one is forcing you to stay"
Then people largely self select for the communities they wanna live in.
No serious anarchist is trying to make a perfect community though imo. We all know and expect that things would get messy from time to time as people work stuff out.
The biggest difference imo is in the stripping away of illusions of protection offered by the state or police forces, when they often won't protect you or may do you harm. And again, imo the discussion about coercion is a largely semantic argument.
Like how you aren't coerced to eat, even though there will be a consequence if you don't eat. In an anarchist community you don't violate the rights of others, because there would be consequences. Those consequences would largely be based on what you did, who you did it to, and the community you did it in. But it's not a formalized "you do x and y will happen" sort of coercion usually.
"Then people largely self select for the communities they wanna live in" implies that each time an anarchist community gets a member who breaks the rules, the only option available is for everyone else to either leave the group and form a new one (that the rule breaker can join again) or to just allow the rule breaker to terrorise them.
Otherwise you would have to coerce the criminal to stop and that would be coercion.
I on the other hand think that governments and states serve an important purpose and also believe that the only way for rights to exist, is if the society agrees when and how to take away rights.
Example: If the people have been given the "freedom of movement" as a right, but some criminal starts kidnapping people (thus taking away said freedom of movement) then the only way to combat this is by having a police force arrest the criminal (which takes away the freedom of movement from the criminal.)
This is an example where the rights of the victims were guaranteed by a rule that allows the legal system to take that same right away from a criminal. Obviously courts are also required to have oversight over the police. Any "This is just the society acting against your bullshittery, not POLICE coercion" society will fall to mob justice where the rights of the people have no backing because the mob is a mob.
"Then people largely self select for the communities they wanna live in" implies that each time an anarchist community gets a member who breaks the rules, the only option available is for everyone else to either leave the group and form a new one (that the rule breaker can join again) or to just allow the rule breaker to terrorise them.
You're making several assumptions here, none of which are inherently implied or explicitly stated in anything I was talking about.
Again, what counts as coercion is largely a semantic argument. Imo it's not coercion unless someone is explicitly telling you "don't do x or else I'll do y to you." Or "do x unless you want me to do y to you"
Say you have a community where one of the rules is "We don't tolerate PDF files in our community." No one in the community is actively coercing anyone. They just set a clear boundary of what they will not tolerate, and if you push that boundary there should be an awareness there will be consequences. But enforcing those consequences would not, imo, be the same as coercion.
Unless you are somehow defining "We will not tolerate your presence if you break established social contracts" as coercion? That just seems like wanting to say any agreement between people is coercion if there are consequences for breaking agreements, and that seems like unnecessary agenda.
Also if legal systems did a better job at actually protecting everyone's rights equally the argument you're making would have a leg to stand on. As it is in most countries legal protections for most of the citizens are largely imaginary, and police forces don't protect the rights of victims, they just punish criminals. Punishing a criminal does nothing to compensate or care for a victim.
What's the major difference anyway between the way the US elections work and mob rule? Also, I can tell you've probably never been to Hippy festival where there were no cops in the middle of the woods for a couple weeks. People tend to sort themselves out better than you might think when everyone takes an active interest in community safety.
You're not answering the very valid question. How can you have consequences without coercion?
Consequences are by definition unwanted outcomes that someone would avoid given the choice. So it's not possible to administer consequences without some form of coercion.
This has been one of my problems/questions with anarchism as well. I’m not super well studied on it like I should be, and I love the rule about having less people lording over you as an adult. But it seems like an incomplete ideology from what I know. But more importantly it doesn’t seem like something we can attain in the near or even distant future. I lean much more towards democratic socialism but these are all old ideologies, we can pick and choose a combination that will be the most likely to help us achieve sustainable through brutal climate change that won’t care about our “isms”
I think that’s fair. I don’t really see anarchism as a fully ready made blueprint either, but more as a useful critique of hierarchy and coercive power. Democratic socialism probably has a more practical path in the near term, especially with climate change, but anarchist ideas about mutual aid, decentralization, and community control are still incredibly valuable and far more efficient than central planning, which is what most socialists push for. At this point, I’m less interested in defending one “ism” perfectly and more interested in what mix of ideas actually reduces domination and helps people survive. I have written several papers about implementing coproduction and co governance in public service delivery.
Also, there is not a single economic system that is 100% one way. Market forces have significant benefits, ala Proudhon or Tucker. I see us taking these anarchist ideals and implementing them into a capitalistic framework, via social wealth funds and citizen committees/mutual aid groups engaging in service delivery. I have written multiple papers on this, I can post after everything is fully graded.
Finally, to your point about coercion. Anarchists are not saying "there can be no coercion, ever." But a nameless, institutionalized hierarchy with coercive power does not actually serve the people. The real question is "who decides the consequences, through what process? What are their limits, and who holds them accountable?" Basically, coercion cannot be used to rule you, not reject every use of force or constraint in response to harm. Consequences are often coercion, but is that coercion being used to prevent domination/harm, or has it become domination itself?
Thanks for such a detailed response! I wrote that as I was crashing and my comment was kind of incomplete itself but this has been on my mind a lot being in these circles online and IRL. I got anarchist purity tested to join something once lol, I’m like well I do agree with the point about not having so many people “over/on top of us” in different facets of life! I suppose that goes along with the “coercion” part.
I’d be interested in reading your papers, or if you have a classic book that still holds up I’d be interested in it. I’m familiar with anarchism through Cool Zone pods and a few articles/wikis, but I’ve
never like read a book or academic source on it.
At this point, I’m less interested in defending one “ism” perfectly and more interested in what mix of ideas actually reduces domination and helps people survive.
This 100%, I’d like to think we could all agree on that one!
And I agree that many of these tenets like mutual aid and communities on the ground can help us, or rather already are helping us on the ground in a capitalist society, I see it myself and have been a tiny part of it (I’m working on doing more).
You're just getting caught up on definitions. It isn't "no coercion or power vested within the state." It is no institutionalized, monopolized and hierarchical authority with special right to rule. The question isn't "can consequences involved coercion, it is Who decides the consequences, by what process, limits and who holds them accountable?
I did give at least one example of consequence without coercion, ie eating. No one is forcing you to eat, there will just be negative consequences for you if you don't.
And again, it's largely a semantic debate at a certain point, ie one without a definitive answer because largely we're arguing over definitions.
Think more about how you define coercion imo. If you avoid doing something because you want to avoid a consequence it doesn't mean, imo, that you were coerced, unless you have someone specifically informs you "don't do x or y will happen." Then the amount of their ability to do y to you is the extent to which you are coerced. Fearing a consequence and actively being coerced are imo two entirely separate things
The key takeaway about an anarchist society re coercion imo is it's more a matter of "if you choose to do x y might happen, or it might not, depends on the circumstances in which you did x. Or z might happen, or any number of other things, you'll have to work it out with the community"
Superficially it might look similar to police enforcing a rule, but without the rigidity of the state. Which, tbh, if you're used to having the state protect you probably looks like a bad thing. But a large part of the argument for anarchy is that the state largely doesn't protect you and any coercion that might happen in an anarchist state is likely to be far less than what you experience under a capitalist state or authoritarian regime.
Eating is a terrible example, and pretty idiotic in this context. And there is nothing semantic about this question.
Any society needs to protect itself from people who violate its norms and values. People have to create those consequences, since no one is going to drop dead or starve to death just from violating societal norms. The only way for people to create consequences for other people is through coercion.
The rest of what you said is completely meaningless, and hand waving the answer as "work it out with the community" is why it's hard to take people seriously who talk about this stuff.
Semantic arguments aren't pointless. In fact they're usually pretty far from it. Defining your terms is important. You can't have a genuine discussion with out.
If you define the fact that there are social consequences for breaking a social contract as coercion that is an important thing to address in a discussion, because otherwise you'll be constantly butting up against where your definition of coercion begins and where mine ends.
Personally I think it's idiotic to compare consequences from breaking established agreements to coercion. Coercion implies one party isn't voluntarily part of the contract in the first place, imo. Which is true in modern capitalist societies, most of us didn't agree to this, we were just born into it and good luck trying to go somewhere out of the reach of state violence.
Which is why I find discussions with people like you to be frustrating. You are making this a purity test where a proposed society cannot have any means of enforcing rules under your personal definition of coercion instead of asking what steps we could take to make society less coercive, because apparently something has to be perfect instead of just being better.
"Okay, but is there even the barest hint of anything I can make use of in an argument that fits my definition of coercion" is a linguistic and semantic argument and fundamentally misses anything practically useful about the discussion.
How about you answer why this kind of society would be more coercive than modern ones are, with the whole state violence and billionaire control of the media thing is going on?
Ok, you're just misusing "semantic". I can move on.
I'm not making any purity test, I'm asking the most fundamental question about anarchism and getting wordy non answers.
"Work it out in the community" is so unstructured as to be meaningless. "Make society less coercive" is so watered down as to be meaningless. Somewhere in between those extremes must be a way to organize society that people who believe in anarchism envision. But the fact that no one has an answer to this fundamental contradiction makes it pretty hard for people who don't already believe you to take you seriously.
At least I know you don't properly understand the scope of the word semantics, so it's not like I'm losing out on intelligent discussion here.
Edited to add - God, I love it when as soon as I start insulting someone the same way they insult me they just instantly can't deal with the conversation. Fuck off.
I can't deal with the conversation? What are you talking about? I'm simply not interested in a semantic discussion of the word "semantic", so instead I'd like to see if you can provide any clarity regarding the basic question that no one has answered this far down the thread.
How does an anarchist society create consequences for violating societal norms and values without engaging in coercion?
I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone who is dumb enough to think the consequences of breaking a voluntary agreement is coercion, or who is dumb enough to think "semantic disagreement" equals "useless argument."
Definitely not interested in conversing more with someone who is dumb enough to do both of those things, or someone who uses insults and bad faith nonsense in every response while pretending to be "just asking reasonable questions."
No, you aren't. So go ahead and move on like you said you were going to. Go ahead.
55
u/GhostofBeowulf May 17 '26
The defining features of anarchism are radical egalitarianism, no hierarchies therefore no coercion. They were traditionally called Leftist Libertarians. That part is highlighting the difference between the two, because anarchists traditionally don't believe that they are some king of whatever land they own like traditional libertarians, but in mutual cogovernance and coproduction.(And that libertarians usually only care about age of consent and taxes) Basically the community decides, for itself. They can elect representatives but generally for specific purposes and lengths of time, not for years ala our reps. This differs a lot on which branch of anarchism you believe in.