What, in your view, deligitimizes a nation-state, and how exactly would an anarcho-syndicalist council, court, or law be more legitimate relative to those of a nation-state?
First; let’s define the Nation-State.
Max Weber defined the state as the body which holds a monopoly on violence in a given territory. He wasn’t wrong, however, there are additional criteria. The fundamental characteristics of a Nation-State are as follows;
Ultimate authority rests in a centralized, bureaucratic structure.
Clearly defined borders.
It’s own economy, although, Nation-States typically, regularly, engage in trade with other economic actors.
A sense of common cultural identity, including national myths, and the quasi-religious fetishization of objects and institutions.
That’s essentially the definition of the modern Nation-State, which can vary from police states like Nazi Germany the USSR, or North Korea, to the Scandinavian Social Democracies.
What’s wrong with Nation-States? A number of things. First of all; the ideas they are based on. It is inherently divisive. It transforms arbitrary borders into magical boundries, those on the other side are, at best, naughty children who simply can‘t comprehend ‘our‘ benevolence, or, at worst, vermin to be annihilated. This sets up an adversarial relationship with the rest of the world. Nation states pursue the ‘National Interest’ (Which is usually the interest of moneyed elites, and is often actually detrimental to the majority of the populace.) which, supposedly, is at odds with the interests of the other tribes. Etc., etc.
The Anarchist objection to how states function is that they are insufficiently democratic. There are degrees, of course. The United States is more democratic than, say, North Korea, but, still, citizens play a very marginal role in governance. (There is also a concerted effort to ensure that this is so.) The only role the public has is to ratify decision that have already been made, to pick which wing of the business party will rule. Take Universal Healthcare. According to Sen. John Kerry it’s ‘Not politically possible.’, which is probably right, yet a clear majority of the public supports it, and has for years. That doesn’t matter. In a truly democratic society, it would matter.
An Anarcho-Sydicalist Federation would be more legitimate because it would allow people substantially more participation and control than in the present system where their only role is to ratify and consume. Our present political and social structure largely exists to serve the needs of the elites, to the detriment of the majority of the population.
