The argument in question doesn’t rely on circular reasoning because it presents two distinct claims that serve different purposes. First, it observes that states have historically outlasted alternative systems, suggesting this dominance may reflect functional advantages. Second, it asserts that states are necessary because they provide stability, order, and large scale governance. These aren’t self reinforcing statements; rather, they work together inductively: one offers historical evidence, the other draws a normative conclusion. Dismissing this framework as circular misunderstands the logic, it’s not assuming what it sets out to prove but reasoning from historical prevalence to present utility.
If I said “states are necessary because they exist” then that would indeed be circular logic because the conclusion is essentially assumed in the premise, and you would be correct in your critique. However, that’s not what I’m doing. I said “The historical dominance of states suggests they serve functional advantages, which is why they are necessary.” That’s not circular, that’s inductive reasoning. I’m using historical evidence to support my claims.
Pride
I think we’re mostly on the same page here, so I think we can just move on. I’m glad we’re on the same page.
Practice and theory
It seems we both agree that theory and practice are connected, but we might be framing that relationship differently. My aim wasn’t to suggest that practice alone answers theory, but that repeated failures in practice can point to deeper issues in the ideology itself, especially when those failures are consistent across different contexts.
You’re right that analyzing practical failure should involve identifying specific problems like disorganization or poor communication. That is exactly where theory becomes relevant. Many of these issues stem from key anarchist principles, such as a rejection of hierarchy or centralized coordination. In this case, I am not shifting between unrelated levels. I am showing how the theoretical framework can produce structural vulnerabilities.
Similarly, in the example involving Islamism, pointing out widespread governance issues can reasonably lead to a closer inspection of the ideological foundations that might contribute to those outcomes.
Strawmanning
It’s interesting because I felt like a lot of your arguments were strawmans of my arguements. For example, when you summarized my positions, you gave me different stances from what I held. I thought it was intentional like I did with your pride arguments, however, I’m understanding now that it’s not intentional. I feel like it’s the same for me. I probably did mischaracterized a few of your arguments, so I am going to concede this point. However, I would like to point out that any misrepresentation comes from a point of misunderstanding rather than malice.
History
Franco - My point with the anarchist getting destroyed isn’t about responsibility, the nationalists were clearly responsible for destroying the anarchist. We’re in agreement on that part. My point is that anarchy lacks the means of self preservation because it fundamentally opposes the mechanisms that provide for common defense like a centralized organization and monopoly of violence. Because of this, anarchy is inherently prone to getting destroyed by external forces compared to other ideologies and systems.
Anarchy related deaths - I’m mostly referring to the Red Terror in Spain. I understand that the Anarchists were not the only groups in the Republican faction, however, they were still a significant part of it like the FAI and CNT for example. I also understand that there was a lot of infighting amongst the Republican faction between Stalinists, republicans, socialists, and anarchists. However, specifically in the the anarchist controlled portions of Spain, there was still a lot of violence caused by mobs and individuals carrying out their own justice, and that led to the deaths of thousands.
Ukraine - I mean what you’re describing to me here sounds like a textbook de facto state. States exist in a spectrum where one extreme end is defined by totalitarian authoritarianism where the states controls every aspect of life and society and the other extreme end is anarchy where there is no state. Most states, operate somewhere between the two extremes. Ukraine at this time was a state that leaned closer to anarchy on the spectrum without actually being anarchy. We both agree that Ukraine at this time had state like attributes like a military, a system of governance, and common law. My point isn’t that Ukraine under the RIAU wasn’t influenced by anarchist principles, it clearly was, but I’m saying that using this an example of anarchy being functional isn’t accurate because it wasn’t actually anarchist and it’s sustained functionality can be directly attributed to its state like apparatus.
Language - I mean that’s a fair point actually, I’ll concede this point because we are essentially arguing the same thing from different ends. I suppose a few years, months, or even weeks is still not nothing, and so I suppose you’re right in this sense. However, I still stand by the notion that previous anarchist attempts in history have not demonstrated enough sustainability to be considered a viable alternative to the state.
It’s probably the last point of disagreement we have, so it’s quite sad to start with it. Anyway, though it was badly presented before, i think i’m still legitimate to maintain my circular reasoning claim, even or especially after your explanation.
I agree that throughout our discussion, you made those two separate points.
D->S : Domination of states implies Stability of states.
S->N : Stability of states implies Necessity of states. (or, as you put it, necessity of states because of advantages of states).
What’s missing here, and that i have confused with Necessity of states (N) previously, is the People desire for stability (P), alognside with the assumption that what what people desire is necessary. Effectively, Stability does not imply necessity, it needs something else that says “X is necessary” and “X needs stability”. I assume this X to be what the people desires, from the part We live in a world where people want stability and order. This is the proposition that makes the thing circular : People desire for stability (P) both needs to imply Domination (D) (as in We live in a world where people want stability and order.), and to be implied by D (as in stability [...] is what humanity favors givenour history). D->P gives the strength of D to P, but for that it needs P->S->D to show the Domination is linked with people desires and not just another variable.
It is legitimate to make such a move, since there is a need to put a cause for domination of states, because if it was a bad one (like states are a predatory and self-perpetuating form of organization), then the consequences of it would inherit this bad foundation. My point is that the cause for domination that you can give are also deduced from this domination.
Pride
Not sure we actually are on the exact same page, but anyway we would be close enough. Thanks for expressing your content, it is shared.
Practice/Theory
To be fair, my point on practice/theory has been dismissed by your further comments, and only applies to what you said before. I should have pointed it out, my bad on this point too. Though i disagree with your linking of anarchists problems of coordination/communication and anarchist theory, i admit it is not unfounded and is a proper example of linking theory and practice properly. It was missing before, i think you’ll convene of this. Therefore, i think we can also say we’re on the same page now on this point too !
Strawmanning
I agree with most of your paragraph, especially on the misunderstanding rather than malice. The bad faith accusation i have made were pointing out a (alleged) lack of will to understand properly rather than a will to misrepresent. I have made similar errors, like my summarization, though if i recall correctly, it was not that wrong (some errors were minor, bigger errors like “current states” instead of “states in general” were a formulation error that didn’t matter much for argumentation). I apologize for this one along others : if it’s something you’d like to do, i’d be glad to have a list of the points i strawmaned. I’ll try to refrain myself for discussing if they are strwman or not, i’d just like to see what i misunderstood.
History
This is an excellent summary of your point. I think it kinda misses mine, which was the cause/consequences rather than the responsability. When confronted about fascists destroying anarchists, the causation is for you that anarchists lack the mechanisms to resist, and is for me that states structures are dangerous. Both can be (and probably are) true at the same time, the question is on which to put the emphasis., and that’s where we differ.
I also disagree on the association of actual problems in Spain with necessary flaws in theory, reporting them on the practical difficulties that were to face (urgency of the situation, lack of international support, chaos inherited from the failed coup d’état, etc.). That said, i concede that your deduction from the Spanish case of anarchist flaws remains legitimate and well-founded.
On the Red Terror, i thank you for bringing this to my knowledge, i did not know the detail of it. Your summary is very good, and i would just add that from what i just learned, it seems that those violences existed on the Nationalist side too, directed at reds, and that the Red Terror on the Republican side ultimately was turned against anarchist and non-stalinist themselves. We both agree that anarchists committed and failed to prevent atrocities.
I think we both agree that if Revolutionary Ukraine was a state, it would be the form of state closest to anarchy, and if it was anarchy, it would be the form of anarchy closest to state. The nitpicking would be about whether or not it crossed the line. I support that it did, and my arguments are that i do not have example of organizations defined as state with a military based on volunteering, election of officers and autodiscipline, and with a decision system based on federalism and immediate recall of mandatees. But in the end it really is nitpicking, and if we agree on the first part, it’s more than okay i think.
Thanks for expressing the concession. I note and accept your stance that the low level of stability of anarchists experiments is not enough for you.
The argument in question doesn’t rely on circular reasoning because it presents two distinct claims that serve different purposes. First, it observes that states have historically outlasted alternative systems, suggesting this dominance may reflect functional advantages. Second, it asserts that states are necessary because they provide stability, order, and large scale governance. These aren’t self reinforcing statements; rather, they work together inductively: one offers historical evidence, the other draws a normative conclusion. Dismissing this framework as circular misunderstands the logic, it’s not assuming what it sets out to prove but reasoning from historical prevalence to present utility.
If I said “states are necessary because they exist” then that would indeed be circular logic because the conclusion is essentially assumed in the premise, and you would be correct in your critique. However, that’s not what I’m doing. I said “The historical dominance of states suggests they serve functional advantages, which is why they are necessary.” That’s not circular, that’s inductive reasoning. I’m using historical evidence to support my claims.
I think we’re mostly on the same page here, so I think we can just move on. I’m glad we’re on the same page.
It seems we both agree that theory and practice are connected, but we might be framing that relationship differently. My aim wasn’t to suggest that practice alone answers theory, but that repeated failures in practice can point to deeper issues in the ideology itself, especially when those failures are consistent across different contexts. You’re right that analyzing practical failure should involve identifying specific problems like disorganization or poor communication. That is exactly where theory becomes relevant. Many of these issues stem from key anarchist principles, such as a rejection of hierarchy or centralized coordination. In this case, I am not shifting between unrelated levels. I am showing how the theoretical framework can produce structural vulnerabilities. Similarly, in the example involving Islamism, pointing out widespread governance issues can reasonably lead to a closer inspection of the ideological foundations that might contribute to those outcomes.
It’s interesting because I felt like a lot of your arguments were strawmans of my arguements. For example, when you summarized my positions, you gave me different stances from what I held. I thought it was intentional like I did with your pride arguments, however, I’m understanding now that it’s not intentional. I feel like it’s the same for me. I probably did mischaracterized a few of your arguments, so I am going to concede this point. However, I would like to point out that any misrepresentation comes from a point of misunderstanding rather than malice.
Franco - My point with the anarchist getting destroyed isn’t about responsibility, the nationalists were clearly responsible for destroying the anarchist. We’re in agreement on that part. My point is that anarchy lacks the means of self preservation because it fundamentally opposes the mechanisms that provide for common defense like a centralized organization and monopoly of violence. Because of this, anarchy is inherently prone to getting destroyed by external forces compared to other ideologies and systems.
Anarchy related deaths - I’m mostly referring to the Red Terror in Spain. I understand that the Anarchists were not the only groups in the Republican faction, however, they were still a significant part of it like the FAI and CNT for example. I also understand that there was a lot of infighting amongst the Republican faction between Stalinists, republicans, socialists, and anarchists. However, specifically in the the anarchist controlled portions of Spain, there was still a lot of violence caused by mobs and individuals carrying out their own justice, and that led to the deaths of thousands.
Ukraine - I mean what you’re describing to me here sounds like a textbook de facto state. States exist in a spectrum where one extreme end is defined by totalitarian authoritarianism where the states controls every aspect of life and society and the other extreme end is anarchy where there is no state. Most states, operate somewhere between the two extremes. Ukraine at this time was a state that leaned closer to anarchy on the spectrum without actually being anarchy. We both agree that Ukraine at this time had state like attributes like a military, a system of governance, and common law. My point isn’t that Ukraine under the RIAU wasn’t influenced by anarchist principles, it clearly was, but I’m saying that using this an example of anarchy being functional isn’t accurate because it wasn’t actually anarchist and it’s sustained functionality can be directly attributed to its state like apparatus.
Language - I mean that’s a fair point actually, I’ll concede this point because we are essentially arguing the same thing from different ends. I suppose a few years, months, or even weeks is still not nothing, and so I suppose you’re right in this sense. However, I still stand by the notion that previous anarchist attempts in history have not demonstrated enough sustainability to be considered a viable alternative to the state.
It’s probably the last point of disagreement we have, so it’s quite sad to start with it. Anyway, though it was badly presented before, i think i’m still legitimate to maintain my circular reasoning claim, even or especially after your explanation.
I agree that throughout our discussion, you made those two separate points.
What’s missing here, and that i have confused with Necessity of states (N) previously, is the People desire for stability (P), alognside with the assumption that what what people desire is necessary. Effectively, Stability does not imply necessity, it needs something else that says “X is necessary” and “X needs stability”. I assume this X to be what the people desires, from the part
We live in a world where people want stability and order. This is the proposition that makes the thing circular : People desire for stability (P) both needs to imply Domination (D) (as inWe live in a world where people want stability and order.), and to be implied by D (as instability [...] is what humanity favors given our history). D->P gives the strength of D to P, but for that it needs P->S->D to show the Domination is linked with people desires and not just another variable.It is legitimate to make such a move, since there is a need to put a cause for domination of states, because if it was a bad one (like states are a predatory and self-perpetuating form of organization), then the consequences of it would inherit this bad foundation. My point is that the cause for domination that you can give are also deduced from this domination.
Not sure we actually are on the exact same page, but anyway we would be close enough. Thanks for expressing your content, it is shared.
To be fair, my point on practice/theory has been dismissed by your further comments, and only applies to what you said before. I should have pointed it out, my bad on this point too. Though i disagree with your linking of anarchists problems of coordination/communication and anarchist theory, i admit it is not unfounded and is a proper example of linking theory and practice properly. It was missing before, i think you’ll convene of this. Therefore, i think we can also say we’re on the same page now on this point too !
I agree with most of your paragraph, especially on the misunderstanding rather than malice. The bad faith accusation i have made were pointing out a (alleged) lack of will to understand properly rather than a will to misrepresent. I have made similar errors, like my summarization, though if i recall correctly, it was not that wrong (some errors were minor, bigger errors like “current states” instead of “states in general” were a formulation error that didn’t matter much for argumentation). I apologize for this one along others : if it’s something you’d like to do, i’d be glad to have a list of the points i strawmaned. I’ll try to refrain myself for discussing if they are strwman or not, i’d just like to see what i misunderstood.
I also disagree on the association of actual problems in Spain with necessary flaws in theory, reporting them on the practical difficulties that were to face (urgency of the situation, lack of international support, chaos inherited from the failed coup d’état, etc.). That said, i concede that your deduction from the Spanish case of anarchist flaws remains legitimate and well-founded.
On the Red Terror, i thank you for bringing this to my knowledge, i did not know the detail of it. Your summary is very good, and i would just add that from what i just learned, it seems that those violences existed on the Nationalist side too, directed at reds, and that the Red Terror on the Republican side ultimately was turned against anarchist and non-stalinist themselves. We both agree that anarchists committed and failed to prevent atrocities.
I think we both agree that if Revolutionary Ukraine was a state, it would be the form of state closest to anarchy, and if it was anarchy, it would be the form of anarchy closest to state. The nitpicking would be about whether or not it crossed the line. I support that it did, and my arguments are that i do not have example of organizations defined as state with a military based on volunteering, election of officers and autodiscipline, and with a decision system based on federalism and immediate recall of mandatees. But in the end it really is nitpicking, and if we agree on the first part, it’s more than okay i think.
Thanks for expressing the concession. I note and accept your stance that the low level of stability of anarchists experiments is not enough for you.