Anarchism

[The New Sea Territory]

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

Quite the opposite, actually.

Most people think it sounds bad, but then they read about it and like the ideas. Whether they find them feasible or not is not part of this.

[Ucropi]

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

Quite the opposite, actually.

Most people think it sounds bad, but then they read about it and like the ideas. Whether they find them feasible or not is not part of this.

Again
Day one of Anarchy: Dissolved government use military force(good thing you got rid of war crimes) to destroy anarchy
Day two of Anarchy: Democracy resumes.

[Liberaxia]

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.

Some of those videos were just hilaribad. That one by "anarchopac" strikes me just like "The Philosophy of Liberty" does: a poorly made video created by cultists.

[The New Sea Territory]

Quite the opposite, actually.

Most people think it sounds bad, but then they read about it and like the ideas. Whether they find them feasible or not is not part of this.

Again
Day one of Anarchy: Dissolved government use military force(good thing you got rid of war crimes) to destroy anarchy
Day two of Anarchy: Democracy resumes.

Except that's fucking wrong since the three major examples of anarchism (Catalonia, Ukraine and Korea) lasted roughly three years on average.

[Kuzestan]

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.

Not the Specialist in academic sense of course, but people who have the appropriate skills for certain jobs . And no, you will still have people specializing on different tasks, even in a small community.

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.

You are completely missing the point in the emphasized parts. The community as a WHOLE, maintains the security of their group. Whether you are a former police, a former teacher, or anyone, you still have the same right to contribute in community security. They agreed upon a common set of rules, and that includes laws on criminal activities. As for the rest of the quotes, I don't know what the hell are you ranting about.

thats not the dissolution of the state that is the creation of many smaller states free, independent, and stateless communities, Europe as opposed to America

.
Fix'd, as for that italicized text, I assume it's not relevant at all.

but a society with modern technology DOES

Then consider an anarchist federation, which is basically a society with huge populations living in different communes, can do just that.

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.

In those communities, friendly neighbors and strangers alike agree on the same set of rules of the community. And the fact that these 'strangers' is also a member of your community, sooner or later you will get to know their presence, and by that, you will interact with them on that set of rules.

but small sized communities cannot sustain modern technology.

That's why those small-sized communities will make a cooperation pact with other communities, to make up for their size.

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.

Except that these 'federation' is more like a pact of cooperation and partnership, with no central governing bodies or anything related to a small group of people governing a bigger group of people.

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.

Good to know then.

[Kuzestan]

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.

Depends on the community, then may force the to move out, or they could just ignore him, as long as he didn't do anything stupid.

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.

You don't need a state or a policy maker to have a set of rules, it's so obvious on so many levels . And it is a rule agreed by the community, which means that the community themselves are the one 'enforcing' these rules.

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.

And your thinking that such society will think exactly the same is also fatally flawed. On the other news, have you ever heard of collective consciousness?, that is one of the deciding factors that compromise will become top priority in a small-sized anarchist community.

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.

And I don't suppose that it will always continue to fail. Especially that such efforts were previously made during a state of war, which significantly reduced the chances of their successes.

[Kuzestan]

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.

You mean type of government? Well yeah it is, and it can (and will) also be used in an anarchist society so a community's decision will be made by all its members. And 'specialists' aren't necessary in order to have such system.

(having people completely unfamiliar with farming make decisions about farming never ends well, its what destroyed the soviet union after all.)

It's because a corrupt, bureaucratic state that made such decisions in the Soviet Union. After all, the people working as a farmer didn't even have a say in those matters, not an anarchist community would do.

[Sibirsky]

Anarchism is bollocks.

Wow, what a brilliant post. Some much thought and effort put into it.

Statism is a mental disorder.

[Liberaxia]

Anarchism is bollocks.

Wow, what a brilliant post. Some much thought and effort put into it.

Statism is a mental disorder.

[Kuzestan]

Wow, what a brilliant post. Some much thought and effort put into it.

Statism is a mental disorder.

Well, they don't need the government stopping them

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Then consider an anarchist federation, which is basically a society with huge populations living in different communes, can do just that.

So a modern nation, but with less cooperation.

[Kuzestan]

Then consider an anarchist federation, which is basically a society with huge populations living in different communes, can do just that.

So a modern nation, but with less cooperation.

I wouldn't call it a nation. Such federation may consists of communities from different nations who doesn't share a common cultural background like language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So a modern nation, but with less cooperation.

I wouldn't call it a nation. Such federation may consists of communities from different nations who doesn't share a common cultural background like language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.

So an anarchistic confederation? How would it not have a state for such a large area and population? How would modern devices such as vehicles and computers be produced?

[The New Sea Territory]

Wow, what a brilliant post. Some much thought and effort put into it.

Statism is a mental disorder.

Hey, guess what? NOT EVERY FUCKING ANARCHIST SUPPORTS VIOLENCE SUCH AS VANDALISM!

I support agorism, direct action, general strike, workplace democracy and civil disobedience. Nonviolent ways of confronting the state.

[The New Sea Territory]

I wouldn't call it a nation. Such federation may consists of communities from different nations who doesn't share a common cultural background like language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.

So an anarchistic confederation? How would it not have a state for such a large area and population? How would modern devices such as vehicles and computers be produced?

Yes, Anarchist Federations basically are a territory that is considered "anarchist". So, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War was a federation of anarchists.

How would it not have a state? um...It just wouldn't. I don't know what you mean by this. How would a state be stopped from arising? Voluntary militias.

These devices are produced by people, not the system we call the state. Companies can exist (for ancapism) or workers would produce them in self-managed syndicates.

[Zottistan]

So an anarchistic confederation? How would it not have a state for such a large area and population? How would modern devices such as vehicles and computers be produced?

Yes, Anarchist Federations basically are a territory that is considered "anarchist". So, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War was a federation of anarchists.

How would it not have a state? um...It just wouldn't. I don't know what you mean by this. How would a state be stopped from arising? Voluntary militias.

These devices are produced by people, not the system we call the state. Companies can exist (for ancapism) or workers would produce them in self-managed syndicates.

Are you defining a state in the usual way: a monopoly on violence over a given territory?

[Ucropi]

Hey, guess what? NOT EVERY FUCKING ANARCHIST SUPPORTS VIOLENCE SUCH AS VANDALISM!

I support agorism, direct action, general strike, workplace democracy and civil disobedience. Nonviolent ways of confronting the state.

You kind of do support violence and vandalism as you believe they should be able to do what they want.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes, Anarchist Federations basically are a territory that is considered "anarchist". So, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War was a federation of anarchists.

How would it not have a state? um...It just wouldn't. I don't know what you mean by this. How would a state be stopped from arising? Voluntary militias.

These devices are produced by people, not the system we call the state. Companies can exist (for ancapism) or workers would produce them in self-managed syndicates.

Are you defining a state in the usual way: a monopoly on violence over a given territory?

Yes.

To stop a topic before it starts: Voluntary Anarchist Militias do not have monopolies of violence over territory, because they have no actual say in the governance of the territory. They are purely defensive. Modern militaries are attached to states, so they do have monopolies of violence over territory because they are the militant wing of the organization that governs.

[The New Sea Territory]

Hey, guess what? NOT EVERY FUCKING ANARCHIST SUPPORTS VIOLENCE SUCH AS VANDALISM!

I support agorism, direct action, general strike, workplace democracy and civil disobedience. Nonviolent ways of confronting the state.

You kind of do support violence and vandalism as you believe they should be able to do what they want.

Ignorance.

No...no we don't. I'm a Voluntaryist. I believe all human interaction should be free of coercion, and voluntary. Thus, vandalism is violent, coercive and hence, NOT voluntary.

[Ucropi]

You kind of do support violence and vandalism as you believe they should be able to do what they want.

Ignorance.

No...no we don't. I'm a Voluntaryist. I believe all human interaction should be free of coercion, and voluntary. Thus, vandalism is violent, coercive and hence, NOT voluntary.

You do know people volunteer for violent things all the time? Not every single thing is coercion either.

[Merconitonitopia]

(Image)

You don't understand what anarchism is, do you?

[Sociobiology]

You kind of do support violence and vandalism as you believe they should be able to do what they want.

Ignorance.

No...no we don't. I'm a Voluntaryist. I believe all human interaction should be free of coercion, and voluntary. Thus, vandalism is violent, coercive and hence, NOT voluntary.

I believe people should not get cancer or die of disease, the question is whether or not the goal is achievable.

[Merconitonitopia]

You kind of do support violence and vandalism as you believe they should be able to do what they want.

Anarchists don't want people to do whatever they wanted. If that were the case, they wouldn't be against the state as that would be restricting the freedom of statists.

[Zottistan]

Are you defining a state in the usual way: a monopoly on violence over a given territory?

Yes.

To stop a topic before it starts: Voluntary Anarchist Militias do not have monopolies of violence over territory, because they have no actual say in the governance of the territory. They are purely defensive. Modern militaries are attached to states, so they do have monopolies of violence over territory because they are the militant wing of the organization that governs.

So there would be no laws enforced within this territory? Only self-defense?

If there are laws, somebody has to assign them. Whether they're elected democratically or whether they're chosen by individuals, if there are laws and people enforcing them, there is a monopoly on violence. And yes, non-aggression laws are still laws, and enforcing non-aggression principles on people who might not accept them is implementing a monopoly on violence (provided the people who enforced the laws aren't the people directly wronged by them). That's minarchy, not anarchy.

[Sociobiology]

Are you defining a state in the usual way: a monopoly on violence over a given territory?

Yes.

To stop a topic before it starts: Voluntary Anarchist Militias do not have monopolies of violence over territory,

can they or can they not commit approved violence without repercussion.

because they have no actual say in the governance of the territory.

neither do most modern militaries.

They are purely defensive.

as are most modern militaries

Modern militaries are attached to states, so they do have monopolies of violence over territory because they are the militant wing of the organization that governs.

as would the militia you described.