Anarchism

[Sociobiology]

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.

but it is what is being described whenever people have to explain how the system will work.

[Sociobiology]

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?

no thats my bad, it should read "all states are states", not "all states are",
States have specialized policy makers and/or enforcers, tribes do not.

[Kuzestan]

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.

Nope, not a representative democracy. Because, in the latter, a large group of people is represented by a much, much smaller group of people. Instead in a stateless community, everyone is representing themselves in person, and they have same amount of say as their neighbors, something called direct democracy.

And, if you think that it's no different than the Greek city states, it is also incorrect, because, there's no ruling city council or the likes in such community. Everyone rules themselves.

[Kuzestan]

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?

That person better do some good convincing to his neighbors then if he wanted to get anywhere with his demands. But, such community, small in member sizes, would most likely make a compromise the top priority if they wanted to survive and prosper.

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?

I wouldn't call them forcing. The people with different demands can choose to stay and convince the others that his demands are better, or compromise, or leave the place if they have no interests in staying in that community. Like I said in the above, compromise and solidarity would be top priority.

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

Excuse me, have I said anything related to not liking a state? And what are these things that I do differently?

joining can be more difficult but you can hardly expect a commune to be any different.

And, such differences would even hardly matters. Even though so, communities banded together in an anarchist federation would open their arms much wider to the people in the same federation, I think.

[Kuzestan]

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.

Specialized people in security will still exists, and they would have the same level of monopoly on violence just like very member in the community, like I said in some previous pages. What does cycles of revenge have anything to do with people not wanting to risk their lives for strangers?

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.

And that's why we still have communities after the dissolution of the state.

If you want a large population you need a specialized group for enforcement, if you want modern nation sizes you need specialized policy makers.

Because it's a stateless community, it does not have to be huge in population. What you're describing is a modern state, something not advocated in this thread.

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

Yeah, i mean unanimous, my bad.
Because you have an agreement with the rest of the community. Or, avoid this problem with a general compromise on the matter.

still drastically limits your size, because enforcement is reliant on intimate knowledge, and rule are based on near complete consensus.

Not exactly a thing to worry about in a small-sized community.

you can have just small intimate communities, basically tribes or bands, or you can have modern technology not both.

We can have both, remember I mentioned stuffs about an anarchist federation a few posts ago? Yeah, they could maintain modern technology usages, still making scientific breakthroughs, etc.

So then you are just describing tribalism

Maybe so, maybe not. Still, an achievable society nonetheless.

[The New Sea Territory]

I cite this, This, This, definitely this aaaaaaaaand This as some serious reasons why the state will never be abolished.

The first three deal with the fact that anarchists infight WAY too much. Get over yourselves and stop forcing fucking economic theories onto one another you fucking hypocrites!* This goes for capitalists and left-wing anarchists.

The last two are the reason anarchism is demonized as being either terrorism or edgy punk kids rebelling against their parents.

*Why is this hypocritical? Forcing [insert system here] onto everyone is highly statist in nature. Anarchists are for free association...so why is it bad if people live how they want to and NOT force economics onto one another? It's called voluntaryism.

[The New Sea Territory]

Fuck this guy!

If he wasn't a dumbass and didn't assassinate the president, we might actually have had larger anarchist movements in America rise besides the Punk Subculture!

[Maqo]

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.

Specialized people in security will still exists, and they would have the same level of monopoly on violence just like very member in the community, like I said in some previous pages. What does cycles of revenge have anything to do with people not wanting to risk their lives for strangers?

You have one person who thinks they have been wronged by another person.
In current society, the wronged person can consult the book of laws, and if they find they have been wronged, can contact the police and invoke the help of judiciary to resolve the issue.
Without laws and police and judiciary, the person who thinks they have been wronged has but one recourse: Convince people to help him out, and bring his own version of justice to the 'perpetrator'. So while person A thinks that they are now 'even', person B thinks that person A is initiating force. And so on.
This relates to not sticking your neck out for strangers, because why would you want to get involved in someone else's fight? Once population gets above a certain level, most of the population is strangers.

Because it's a stateless community, it does not have to be huge in population. What you're describing is a modern state, something not advocated in this thread.

?? Please make it clear if you are talking about anarcho-primitivism, or attempting to maintain the current level of technology with a voluntarist/libertarian society. I was under the impression that we were talking about, or should be talking about, the latter*. Current level of technology requires enormous populations working together to sustain. Do you have any idea how many hundred people it requires to get tomatoes to you at all times of the year? How many thousand people go in to designing, building and using a MRI machine?
(* this is what makes talking to anarchists/libertarians very difficult... you get in to talking about how they conceive intellectual property laws working with the internet and they say 'what makes you think we have any more technology than fire?')

Yeah, i mean unanimous, my bad.
Because you have an agreement with the rest of the community. Or, avoid this problem with a general compromise on the matter.

What happens if I don't compromise? What happens to the next person who enters the community and isn't ok with the compromise? What is the difference between your 'general compromise' and the existing 'social contract'?

We can have both, remember I mentioned stuffs about an anarchist federation a few posts ago? Yeah, they could maintain modern technology usages, still making scientific breakthroughs, etc.

Which anarchist federations have existed in history ever? They all fell for precisely the reasons that non-anarchists predict they will. So how can you say that they could maintain current technology when none existed using current technology?

So then you are just describing tribalism

Maybe so, maybe not. Still, an achievable society nonetheless.

Anything is achievable if we don't particularly care how many hundred years backwards we go in technology or population. A better question is 'is it desirable' or 'is it better'; the answers to both I believe are 'no'.

[Kuzestan]

You have one person who thinks they have been wronged by another person.
In current society, the wronged person can consult the book of laws, and if they find they have been wronged, can contact the police and invoke the help of judiciary to resolve the issue.
Without laws and police and judiciary, the person who thinks they have been wronged has but one recourse: Convince people to help him out, and bring his own version of justice to the 'perpetrator'. So while person A thinks that they are now 'even', person B thinks that person A is initiating force. And so on.

I stopped reading after the emphasized part. The community will still have laws agreed by all its members. They will still have people specialized in security, and these people, along with all members of the said community, will contribute on the community's security on an equal standing.

This relates to not sticking your neck out for strangers, because why would you want to get involved in someone else's fight? Once population gets above a certain level, most of the population is strangers.

Because it's your community? I really doubt that people want to see crimes running rampant in their group.

?? Please make it clear if you are talking about anarcho-primitivism, or attempting to maintain the current level of technology with a voluntarist/libertarian society. I was under the impression that we were talking about, or should be talking about, the latter*.

Then your impressions are wrong. I'm talking about a stateless community in general, which have no obligation whatsoever to be huge in population.

Current level of technology requires enormous populations working together to sustain. Do you have any idea how many hundred people it requires to get tomatoes to you at all times of the year? How many thousand people go in to designing, building and using a MRI machine?

Then you can have those communities working together with each other in a some sort of a cooperation pact. That way, they will still be able to complement each others lack of resource.

(* this is what makes talking to anarchists/libertarians very difficult... you get in to talking about how they conceive intellectual property laws working with the internet and they say 'what makes you think we have any more technology than fire?')

Well, good luck with your difficulties then. Since I'm not an anarchist, I can't really sympathize with you.

What happens if I don't compromise? What happens to the next person who enters the community and isn't ok with the compromise? What is the difference between your 'general compromise' and the existing 'social contract'?

Those people could do any other things then, as long as they didn't provide obstruction for the community's decision.

In social contract, you surrender some of your freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of your remaining rights. In general compromise, not exactly the case. It's pretty much voluntary, you don't have to deal with the accepted decision.

Which anarchist federations have existed in history ever? They all fell for precisely the reasons that non-anarchists predict they will. So how can you say that they could maintain current technology when none existed using current technology?

Your question pretty much backfired on you here. How can you know that these anarchist federation fell for some reasons if none have existed in history ever? And what are these predictions that predict they will fall?

On the other hand, I believe they could maintain the level of current technology if at some point in history later, an anarchist federation has been formed. What makes you think they can't do that?

Anything is achievable if we don't particularly care how many hundred years backwards we go in technology or population. A better question is 'is it desirable' or 'is it better'; the answers to both I believe are 'no'.

So, you have answered these 'better questions' on your own then. I'm not an advocator for such system, so I don't really care if it's desirable or not.

[Primordial Sardaukus]

Anarchism and Capitalism are both similar in some aspects but are different in other aspects. For one, they both advocate freedom from government regulation.

[Zottistan]

Anarchism and Capitalism are both similar in some aspects but are different in other aspects. For one, they both advocate freedom from government regulation.

Capitalism encourages, if not mandates, the existence of a state or states. Anarchism is based around opposing the state.

[Primordial Sardaukus]

Anarchism and Capitalism are both similar in some aspects but are different in other aspects. For one, they both advocate freedom from government regulation.

Capitalism encourages, if not mandates, the existence of a state or states. Anarchism is based around opposing the state.

Of course. But there is also Anarcho-Capitalism, people who support this ideology believe that the elimination of government improves the society through the free market.

[Zottistan]

Capitalism encourages, if not mandates, the existence of a state or states. Anarchism is based around opposing the state.

Of course. But there is also Anarcho-Capitalism, people who support this ideology believe that the elimination of government improves the society through the free market.

Anarchocapitalism inevitably results in the formation of primitive states through people buying large plots of land and enforcing their rules within those plots.

[Primordial Sardaukus]

Of course. But there is also Anarcho-Capitalism, people who support this ideology believe that the elimination of government improves the society through the free market.

Anarchocapitalism inevitably results in the formation of primitive states through people buying large plots of land and enforcing their rules within those plots.

Makes sense. Agreed.

[Deamonopolis]

What's the average shelf life of an anarchist society? 3 months? 3 years? I honestly don't know.

[Sociobiology]

Specialized people in security will still exists, and they would have the same level of monopoly on violence just like very member in the community, like I said in some previous pages. What does cycles of revenge have anything to do with people not wanting to risk their lives for strangers?

You have one person who thinks they have been wronged by another person.
In current society, the wronged person can consult the book of laws, and if they find they have been wronged, can contact the police and invoke the help of judiciary to resolve the issue.
Without laws and police and judiciary, the person who thinks they have been wronged has but one recourse: Convince people to help him out, and bring his own version of justice to the 'perpetrator'. So while person A thinks that they are now 'even', person B thinks that person A is initiating force. And so on.
This relates to not sticking your neck out for strangers, because why would you want to get involved in someone else's fight? Once population gets above a certain level, most of the population is strangers.

there is something more to the cycles of revenge, most violence in society due to people who believed they have been wronged and react, then their victims or the relatives of their victims react to this and so on, no state interrupt this by stopping violence regardless of whether you have been wronged, first the violence stops then you can can take your case to court, in in very small communities everyone is related so too many "relatives" are shared to sustain the cycle (however they sustain it quite well between bands", without a state that can deny ALL other violence you cannot have a large state because it will have cycles of revenge but no way to interrupt them.
now this is just one reason forms of societies get limited by size.

[MERIZoC]

What's the average shelf life of an anarchist society? 3 months? 3 years? I honestly don't know.

It really depends. Some (like the Paris Commune) were destroyed by outside forces, which is probably the most likely way for an anarchist society to die. However, anarchist circumstances can last indefinitely, as seen by the time period between humans' beginnings in Africa, to the agricultural revolution.

[Sociobiology]

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.

Specialized people in security will still exists, and they would have the same level of monopoly on violence just like very member in the community.

they will be treated as random strangers siding with the other guy by people in conflict.
also do you know what specialist means? the small communities you advocate cannot support many, if any, specialists.
oh and they don't have a monopoly on violence if they do they are the state, if they can commit violence to stop perceived violence bot hothers cannot then they have a monopoly on violence, if everyone can do this than they do not have a monopoly on violence you have a culture of honor which breeds cycles of revenge AND high violence because most violence becomes "preventative" that is violence to establish a reputation that will dissuade actions against that person. This is also exactly how gang violence functions. there is no effective law because everyone simply relies on their own perception, this is exactly why i brought up the sleeping with someone's spouse example.

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.

And that's why we still have communities after the dissolution of the state.

thats not dissolution of the state that is the creation of many smaller states, Europe as opposed to America.

If you want a large population you need a specialized group for enforcement, if you want modern nation sizes you need specialized policy makers.

Because it's a stateless community, it does not have to be huge in population. What you're describing is a modern state, something not advocated in this thread.

but a society with modern technology DOES

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

Yeah, i mean unanimous, my bad.
Because you have an agreement with the rest of the community. Or, avoid this problem with a general compromise on the matter.

except that is not how people behave all the time, when people believe they are in the right they are often unwilling to compromise with strangers, that is the inherent problem. you either have to have formal law and enforcement which means a monopoly on violence, or not have strangers which severely limits your size.

still drastically limits your size, because enforcement is reliant on intimate knowledge, and rule are based on near complete consensus.

Not exactly a thing to worry about in a small-sized community.

but small sized communities cannot sustain modern technology.

you can have just small intimate communities, basically tribes or bands, or you can have modern technology not both.

We can have both, remember I mentioned stuffs about an anarchist federation a few posts ago? Yeah, they could maintain modern technology usages, still making scientific breakthroughs, etc.

yes those federations are states, in every meaningful way they are identical to states. just very ineffective ones. So most of the downsides of states without most of the benefits.
hence the discussion of recreating the state and somehow claiming it is not a state.

So then you are just describing tribalism

Maybe so, maybe not. Still, an achievable society nonetheless.

but not a desirable one.
I never claimed it was impossible to have an tribal society, quite the opposite, I just said it was not desirable.

[Sociobiology]

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?

That person better do some good convincing to his neighbors then if he wanted to get anywhere with his demands. But, such community, small in member sizes, would most likely make a compromise the top priority if they wanted to survive and prosper.

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?

I wouldn't call them forcing. The people with different demands can choose to stay and convince the others that his demands are better, or compromise, or leave the place if they have no interests in staying in that community.

You skip around the question, CAN you force him to leave? if so how is that any different than a state?
he doesn't have to convince anyone of anything, all he has to do is ignore people.

And what are these things that I do differently?

not have a monopoly on violence for a start, having very small communities for a second.

Like I said in the above, compromise and solidarity would be top priority.

enforced how? this is called a policy, and if you don't have policy makers and enforcers then you will never achieve this.
they only way you can do that is to have a state enforcing this.
this is why states can function because it does not matter if a few people disagree, and some people will always disagree, any society that relies on everyone thinking exactly the same is fatally flawed from the get go.

joining can be more difficult but you can hardly expect a commune to be any different.

And, such differences would even hardly matters. Even though so, communities banded together in an anarchist federation would open their arms much wider to the people in the same federation, I think.

ah this entire thing hinges on your guess, well I suggest you look into history things like this have been tried before and they always fail for the same reason, internal fighting, faction formation, and lack of trust.

[Sociobiology]

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

Nope, not a representative democracy. Because, in the latter, a large group of people is represented by a much, much smaller group of people. Instead in a stateless community, everyone is representing themselves in person, and they have same amount of say as their neighbors, something called direct democracy.

And, if you think that it's no different than the Greek city states, it is also incorrect, because, there's no ruling city council or the likes in such community. Everyone rules themselves.

direct democracy is just a type of state, and a rather limited one, because you do not have specialists*, and limits your size based on logistics of decision making.
* (having people completely unfamiliar with farming make decisions about farming never ends well, its what destroyed the soviet union after all.)

[Casita]

Nope, not a representative democracy. Because, in the latter, a large group of people is represented by a much, much smaller group of people. Instead in a stateless community, everyone is representing themselves in person, and they have same amount of say as their neighbors, something called direct democracy.

And, if you think that it's no different than the Greek city states, it is also incorrect, because, there's no ruling city council or the likes in such community. Everyone rules themselves.

direct democracy is just a type of state, and a rather limited one, because you do not have specialists*, and limits your size based on logistics of decision making.
* (having people completely unfamiliar with farming make decisions about farming never ends well, its what destroyed the soviet union after all.)

Soviet Union wasn't a direct democracy.

Might want to use a different comparison.

[The New Sea Territory]

I cite this, This, This, definitely this aaaaaaaaand This as some serious reasons why the state will never be abolished.

The first three deal with the fact that anarchists infight WAY too much. Get over yourselves and stop forcing fucking economic theories onto one another you fucking hypocrites!* This goes for capitalists and left-wing anarchists.

The last two are the reason anarchism is demonized as being either terrorism or edgy punk kids rebelling against their parents.

*Why is this hypocritical? Forcing [insert system here] onto everyone is highly statist in nature. Anarchists are for free association...so why is it bad if people live how they want to and NOT force economics onto one another? It's called voluntaryism.

[Marcunia]

Anarchism is bollocks.

Indeed. Anarchism is not only completely undesirable, it doesn't work at all. Most humans have the desire for some sort of structure to lead, which is a state.

Pretty much.

[Wind in the Willows]

We are against Anarchism, because without a law, people will act crazy.

Anarchism and Communism have at least one thing in common; they're both stateless, so what you said is extremely stupid.

[Ucropi]

Anarchy is like being gluten-free. It sounds good but if you really think about it, it makes no sense.