Anarchism

[Zottistan]

Going by the actual definitions that anarchists themselves use, anarchy has government.

And everybody is in a position to enforce their rules on others. Anybody who disagrees with the collective opinion on law will have views forced on him. What you're talking about is direct democracy, and it's a form of government.


Has a state =/= anarchist.


Nope. Instead a large group of people enforce the rules onto a smaller group of people.

Well I give up , an anarchist might explain it better than me though.

Edit: I still think it's an achievable society for some reasons.

It's achievable, it's just not anarchist.

Or desirable, in my opinion, but that's another matter.

[Casita]

'actually the biggest difference is we don't exterminate our enemies including women and children anymore.' - Biology

Not sure where you have gotten this idea, but it is false. Women and children are not exempt from the horrors of war.

[Kuzestan]

Yes, but with a much more smaller chance, since the bonds between people in a small but solid society tends to be much more stronger.

They could talk some sense to the dissenters, and it it's still doesn't working, the dissenters could just stay and carry out the decision unwillingly, or move to another commune. It's pretty much like your average dissenters in organizations and political parties.

So love it or leave it basically? How is this different from a state?

Community membership rules doesn't always have to be different from the state.

[Zottistan]

So love it or leave it basically? How is this different from a state?

Community membership rules doesn't always have to be different from the state.

It kind of does, to be an anarchy.

[Genivaria]

So love it or leave it basically? How is this different from a state?

Community membership rules doesn't always have to be different from the state.

I've yet to hear anything that is actually different from the state when you get past the fluffy language.

[Sociobiology]

What are you defining "government" as?

I define it as a governing body of a state/community. Of course, we could all just consider that an anarchist society still has government. We can think that everyone in the community is the government, but that's where the line is drawn. In such a society, since everyone becomes the rulers of their own, no people are in the position to enforce their rules to another.

thus there are no effective rules, is it OK to kill someone who sleeps with your spouse? and how do you decide this. If it is not OK how is it enforced? by whatever any thinks they should do? I may think it is perfectly fine while someone else may try to execute me for it.

Everyone in the community plays with the set of rules agreed by every of its members

so you severely limit the size of your community, because every rule must be unanimous and enforcement relies on intimate knowledge of everyone by everyone.
Why is this desirable?

The society as a whole is a governing institution.

And since everyone's the governing institution, no small amount of people are going to enforce the rules onto a larger group of people.

instead you have factions forming because people believe in different rules, so you anocracy or straight up tribalism.

[Sociobiology]

'actually the biggest difference is we don't exterminate our enemies including women and children anymore.' - Biology

Not sure where you have gotten this idea, but it is false. Women and children are not exempt from the horrors of war.

current states go to a great deal of effort to avoid killing civilians, band societies search out and exterminate non-combatants to reduce the chance of retaliation from later generations.
Women and children are far more exempt than they are in non-state societies.

[Genivaria]

32 pages later I've yet hear any good example of how a stateless society is supposed to work without just adopting the same functions of a state and calling it something else.

[Sociobiology]

And you think the same won't happen in a small direct democracy?

Yes, but with a much more smaller chance, since the bonds between people in a small but solid society tends to be much more stronger.

I never got a sufficient answer to my question from earlier.
Without coercion how do you make dissenters fall in line with the group's decision?

They could talk some sense to the dissenters, and it it's still doesn't working, the dissenters could just stay and carry out the decision unwillingly, or move to another commune. It's pretty much like your average dissenters in organizations and political parties.

so your answer is you don't in which case your society has a shelf life of a few year, basically how long it takes for cycles of revenge to form, X sleeps with Y's wife, Y kills him, X's family kills Y, Y's family reciprocates.
Dissenters in the organizations you listed are A not reliant on the organization to live and B can be forced to leave if they become disruptive or ignore the rules but refuse to leave. Or do you not realize that happens all the time.
in current states your options are follow the rules, break the rules and be rehabilitated, leave and find a place with different rules.
How is your system different? And how are those differences beneficial?
If it is not what benefits does it offer that a state does not?

[Genivaria]

Yes, but with a much more smaller chance, since the bonds between people in a small but solid society tends to be much more stronger.

They could talk some sense to the dissenters, and it it's still doesn't working, the dissenters could just stay and carry out the decision unwillingly, or move to another commune. It's pretty much like your average dissenters in organizations and political parties.

so your answer is you don't in which case your society has a shelf life of a few year, basically how long it takes for cycles of revenge to form, X sleeps with Y's wife, Y kills him, X's family kills Y, Y's family reciprocates.
Dissenters in the organizations you listed are A not reliant on the organization to live and B can be forced to leave if they become disruptive or ignore the rules but refuse to leave. Or do you not realize that happens all the time.
in current states your options are follow the rules, break the rules and be rehabilitated, leave and find a place with different rules.
How is your system different? And how are those differences beneficial?
If it is not what benefits does it offer that a state does not?

Exactly my point.

[Maqo]

so your answer is you don't in which case your society has a shelf life of a few year, basically how long it takes for cycles of revenge to form, X sleeps with Y's wife, Y kills him, X's family kills Y, Y's family reciprocates.
Dissenters in the organizations you listed are A not reliant on the organization to live and B can be forced to leave if they become disruptive or ignore the rules but refuse to leave. Or do you not realize that happens all the time.
in current states your options are follow the rules, break the rules and be rehabilitated, leave and find a place with different rules.
How is your system different? And how are those differences beneficial?
If it is not what benefits does it offer that a state does not?

Exactly my point.

I find this extremely funny about anarchists.
They are railing against the state doing all kinds of things they consider 'coercion', and claim it is too difficult or impractical to leave, and you have no option but to live in state of some variety. Yet they don't accept that the same applies to employment - they consider it a 'voluntary' relationship even though you (essentially) must be employed and leaving is difficult or impractical. And then they propose a society where exactly the same things will go on (just in smaller communities of hundreds rather than thousands) and if you don't like a particular community you can just move to a different one.

[Casita]

Exactly my point.

I find this extremely funny about anarchists.
They are railing against the state doing all kinds of things they consider 'coercion', and claim it is too difficult or impractical to leave, and you have no option but to live in state of some variety. Yet they don't accept that the same applies to employment - they consider it a 'voluntary' relationship even though you (essentially) must be employed and leaving is difficult or impractical. And then they propose a society where exactly the same things will go on (just in smaller communities of hundreds rather than thousands) and if you don't like a particular community you can just move to a different one.

There's also more than, 'if you don't like then leave it', which is a logical fallacy, by the way, and impractical. People can chose to stay and struggle, complain and fight, if that's what they chose. To change things: to try to stop the rampant exploitation of the poor and a life of debt and wage slavery, to try to stop endemic state violence, to try to stop needless imprisonment and to try to stop the destruction of our natural environment. All these things are good things to fight against.

What I find funny is none of this matters to people that don't have see or live in the filth.

Working is awesome as long as one has an equal part, and one doesn't have to live in a slum while working 60+ hrs a week, which happens all over the world.

[Kuzestan]

Community membership rules doesn't always have to be different from the state.

I've yet to hear anything that is actually different from the state when you get past the fluffy language.

The difference is, everyone becomes the government. They play by rules agreed by each other. In a statist society, it's definitely not like this.

[Kuzestan]

thus there are no effective rules, is it OK to kill someone who sleeps with your spouse? and how do you decide this. If it is not OK how is it enforced? by whatever any thinks they should do? I may think it is perfectly fine while someone else may try to execute me for it.

What makes you think there are no effective rules? There are rules, agreed by the members of each community. And it's enforced by the community themselves as a whole, not just a small bunch of people in today's government.

so you severely limit the size of your community, because every rule must be unanimous and enforcement relies on intimate knowledge of everyone by everyone.

Like I said in some posts before, it doesn't have to be anonymous, they can previously agree on how many votes needed for a decision to be passed.

Why is this desirable?

I dunno, not an anarchist.

instead you have factions forming because people believe in different rules, so you anocracy or straight up tribalism.

That faction would then sit in different communes, or try to compromise with each other if they happen to live in the same commune.

[Kuzestan]

so your answer is you don't in which case your society has a shelf life of a few year, basically how long it takes for cycles of revenge to form, X sleeps with Y's wife, Y kills him, X's family kills Y, Y's family reciprocates.

I dunno where you get this part from. You know I said in the previous posts that the community will agree on some set of rules. And those rules will of course, include some punishment for criminal activities.

Dissenters in the organizations you listed are A not reliant on the organization to live

Not always the case. The dissenters might only be able to survive in that community only, and leaving it would be death for them. For them, compromise is the only solution.

and B can be forced to leave if they become disruptive or ignore the rules but refuse to leave. Or do you not realize that happens all the time.

Yes, and this doesn't have anything to do with the presence or a lack of state.

in current states your options are follow the rules, break the rules and be rehabilitated, leave and find a place with different rules.
How is your system different?

It may or may not be different, but it doesn't have anything to do with the lack or a presence of a state.

And how are those differences beneficial?

People are free to go and join as they please, perhaps. It's not as hard as the membership of a country

[Genivaria]

I've yet to hear anything that is actually different from the state when you get past the fluffy language.

The difference is, everyone becomes the government. They play by rules agreed by each other. In a statist society, it's definitely not like this.

Oh you mean like a representative democracy?
It's exactly like a statist society.

[Sociobiology]

so your answer is you don't in which case your society has a shelf life of a few year, basically how long it takes for cycles of revenge to form, X sleeps with Y's wife, Y kills him, X's family kills Y, Y's family reciprocates.

I dunno where you get this part from. You know I said in the previous posts that the community will agree on some set of rules. And those rules will of course, include some punishment for criminal activities.

and if someone does not agree to it say by being born in said community, or simply does not agree to a rule but refuses to leave?

Dissenters in the organizations you listed are A not reliant on the organization to live

Not always the case. The dissenters might only be able to survive in that community only, and leaving it would be death for them. For them, compromise is the only solution.

so you ARE forcing them to comply with the majority whether they wish too or not.
so what is the advantage of this system over a state?

and B can be forced to leave if they become disruptive or ignore the rules but refuse to leave. Or do you not realize that happens all the time.

Yes, and this doesn't have anything to do with the presence or a lack of state.

It does have to do with what you don't like about states, you haven't left yourself many positive things you do differently.

And how are those differences beneficial?

People are free to go and join as they please, perhaps. It's not as hard as the membership of a country[/quote]
membership in a country is very easy to change, most countries require nothing to leave other than some minor paperwork, joining can be more difficult but you can hardly expect a commune to be any different.

[Sociobiology]

thus there are no effective rules, is it OK to kill someone who sleeps with your spouse? and how do you decide this. If it is not OK how is it enforced? by whatever any thinks they should do? I may think it is perfectly fine while someone else may try to execute me for it.

What makes you think there are no effective rules? There are rules, agreed by the members of each community. And it's enforced by the community themselves as a whole, not just a small bunch of people in today's government.

which drastically limits the size of your society, without specialized enforcers many conflicts will turn into cycles of revenge because many people will not be willing to risk their life for strangers all the time. what you are suggesting has been tried more times than anyone can count and the results are always the same, people form factions for protection and trust. If you want a large population you need a specialized group for enforcement, if you want modern nation sizes you need specialized policy makers.

so you severely limit the size of your community, because every rule must be unanimous and enforcement relies on intimate knowledge of everyone by everyone.

Like I said in some posts before, it doesn't have to be anonymous, they can previously agree on how many votes needed for a decision to be passed.

do you mean unanimous?
and why would I enforce a rule I don't agree with?

still drastically limits your size, because enforcement is reliant on intimate knowledge, and rule are based on near complete consensus.
you can have just small intimate communities, basically tribes or bands, or you can have modern technology not both.

instead you have factions forming because people believe in different rules, so you anocracy or straight up tribalism.

That faction would then sit in different communes, or try to compromise with each other if they happen to live in the same commune.

So then you are just describing tribalism

[The New Sea Territory]

32 pages later I've yet hear any good example of how a stateless society is supposed to work without just adopting the same functions of a state and calling it something else.

Because you declare any policy or stance on anything as inherently "equal to the state".

Voluntary association achieving, for example, workplace democracy is different from state-imposed workplace democracy.

[The New Sea Territory]

So then you are just describing tribalism

By that logic, all states, political parties and organizations in the world are tribal.

[Sociobiology]

So then you are just describing tribalism

By that logic, all states, political parties and organizations in the world are tribal.

all states are, most modern nation states are a tiered series of states. , political parties and organizations are not societies and do not set societal rules, they rely on rules created by states.

[Sociobiology]

32 pages later I've yet hear any good example of how a stateless society is supposed to work without just adopting the same functions of a state and calling it something else.

Because you declare any policy or stance on anything as inherently "equal to the state".

Voluntary association achieving, for example, workplace democracy is different from state-imposed workplace democracy.

but voluntary association achieving workplace democracy by throwing out everyone who disagrees or forcing everyone to comply is pretty much the same as state-imposed.

[The New Sea Territory]

Because you declare any policy or stance on anything as inherently "equal to the state".

Voluntary association achieving, for example, workplace democracy is different from state-imposed workplace democracy.

but voluntary association achieving workplace democracy by throwing out everyone who disagrees or forcing everyone to comply is pretty much the same as state-imposed.

\
Well congratufuckinglations. That's not what is advocated for, bar violent anarchists.

[The New Sea Territory]

By that logic, all states, political parties and organizations in the world are tribal.

all states are, most modern nation states are a tiered series of states. , political parties and organizations are not societies and do not set societal rules, they rely on rules created by states.

Ah, so nations are little alliances of tribes? And yes, all political movements and organizations set rules that apply within their community, so they are equally tribalistic. Basically, any time people coexist with one another, it's a tribe, by that definition.

[The New Sea Territory]

By that logic, all states, political parties and organizations in the world are tribal.

all states are, most modern nation states are a tiered series of states. , political parties and organizations are not societies and do not set societal rules, they rely on rules created by states.

Ah, so nations are little alliances of tribes? And yes, all political movements and organizations set rules that apply within their community, so they are equally tribalistic. Basically, any time people coexist with one another, it's a tribe, by that definition.