6d ago

A thought experiment.

Imagine you are a person fighting in an anarchist revolt. You have captured a sizeable chunk of land but the front line has grown too large and you can't progress further. The state that you have been fighting approaches you with an offer: They recognise you as a sovereign (however that would look like) entity but you have to give away most of the land you've captured. They will leave you with the primary city and enough surrounding land to feed everyone.

What would be your position? Would you be willing to make a deal with the state?

34 comments

The offer like this should either have guaranties implied or is not worth considering. What would those be?
Also, by offering this, they already recognize you as sovereign; it's time to loudly make this public and get support from some other countries/rally more people for your cause!
Thus, I find this scenario either extremely unprobable, either the state is losing so badly you are about to win, or it's a clear trap.
- guarantees
  How the fuck do you trust those?
  
  Exactly; they make an offer, they need to come up with something they honestly do not want to lose. I have no idea what they could reasonably offer in modern world. In older times people had firstborns and such, now everyone is just a cynical asshole who could sell their soul for 0.01% profit margin. But maybe they want the peace for real, and get creative... at least something to consider and give a laugh.
  Remember: the peace is always made with an enemy.
- Ok, let's expand upon this.
  The fighting has been going on for a while now. thousands of people have been killed, every day new causalities are ticking up on both sides due to small raids, but there is no end in sight. Nighter side has enough resources to push forward but, if you decline the deal the people of the state will start considering you unreasonable, push up support for the war and allow for more extreme actions to be taken against you.
  No one from the outside is coming to help and due to the fighting the people who support you cannot get to you. This is presented as your only way out, it's either this or fighting to the last man.
  The deal would stop the hostilities between you and allow for others sympathetic to your cause to join. There might even be a chance to negotiate for more territory down the line.
  
  You've missed the most important part.
  The deal claims to provide it, but what will stop the state from not doing their part? I wouldn't be fighting someone capable of honesty, no state has that luxury today. What kind of guaranties could they provide? They are clearly lying.
  It's an offer trying to objectivize my anarchland. I'll objectivise them instead, with a counter-offer! For example, let free passage of sympathizers and give me your firstborn to foster and grow up as an anarch! Something silly, they'll reject it and lose initiative, at least some part of it. I'll win time and be unpredictable. They are bargaining, they must be almost done.
  Without guaranties - no deal.
They will leave you with the primary city and enough surrounding land to feed everyone.
Now that is what those in the business of war scientifically refer to as "one obvious fucking trap."
I ain't giving them shit. I already know they be lying.
Thry can't be trusted. No deal
- I think they can be trusted to act in their best self-interest and this deal is that.
  It allows them to:
  Stop the trickle of casualties.
  Gain back most of the lost territory.
  Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)
  Win public support.
  Have a sink for the more radical people in the populous. (Wanna live in anarchy? Go over there!)
  
  Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)
  Wrong. The logistics is on the side of the capitalists - they will absolutely be able to take your city at a later date. If logistics is on your side it means you are winning the war, and have no reason to accept such a silly deal.
  
  Why would they care about casualties?
  Yeah but they want all of it, and will not be satisfied.
  Yeah. Of course they would. Theyre authoritarians.
  Would it? Do they care
  They don't want that, though. They want to punish, make examples, and have slaves.
  
  Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)
  I would not take any risk
Well in the best case the participants of the revolt already have a clear framework of actions for these kind of situations. So we would just follow those. Examples might be things like "never make deals with the state" or "prefer peaceful solutions" etc.
If not, this would be a really good point to start doing this as a community via meetings and discussions. And from the sounds of it, the opponent is willing to give us that time via a ceasefire etc.
Personally, looking at the stae of the world right now, I would think a ceasefire would be benificial to to our side because we could rally global solidarity and invite folks to live on our land and in this way raising our collective power.
- Make a deal with the state. Have a secret society blend in with them. For decades, plant enough traitors everywhere to destroy the state. Perform psyops so they all attack each other and then be the savior with your promise of anti-establishment freedom. Enable the traitors to destroy everything in the state so you can take power. If you're truly evil, you can even make scapegoats out of those you find undesirable or easy to ignore to create a sense of furious unity and finaticism. Oh wait...
- Weird that yours is the only comment willing to take the deal, justifying it with the same point as I.
  Obviously this would be something decided by a collective meeting. I like to imagine that this post is that.
  
  Weird that yours is the only comment willing to take the deal,
  Maybe I could have been more clear, but I would be willing to negotiate. Of course you dont take the first offer and especially not when other alternatives (limited or unlimited) ceasefires are possible. I think a state recognizing an insurgent force and also granting it land is something that shows how good the conditions for negotiations actually are. State usually do everything to not have to do that.
  Obviously this would be something decided by a collective meeting.
  For sure, I just wanted to point that out because not everyone reading this post will have that in the back of their head / have much experience with anarchist thinking and decisionmaking
This questions seems semi related to the plot of the book A Country of Ghosts by Margaret Killjoy. I think the book an interesting interpretation of how anarchist communities would maybe act in the case of a war against a state.
Sovereign states can die

34 comments