Anarcho-Tribalism?

[Saranidia]

Allegedly anarchism is the political philosophy which rejects (and supports the elimination of) compulsory government or compulsory rule, and holds that society can (and should) be organized without a coercive state (https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_anarchism.html).

Tribalism in this context means an extended kinship group known as a tribe being the basis of organisation.


"But they are contradictory!" I forsee people saying.

However notice, "COMPULSORY rule", suppose all the members of a tribe(except those that leave it and live as hermits or get adopted or marry into another) accept the legitimacy of it's chief, would that make sense Anarchically?
And what if the tribes 'territory' was simple where it's members live and work according to the
Lockean proviso?


Would this be a good system or a bad system in your opinion? share your thoughts in the comments.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

It would, quite literally, lead to the collapse of human society, so no, this is not a good idea.

[Kragholm Free States]

But they are contradictory. An archos with the support of his subjects is still an archos, and where there is an archos there is not anarchism.

I'm sure there are many countries in the world today where the majority of the citizens accept the legitimacy of their government. If all the ones who didn't accept that left, would the countries in question be anarchist? Of course not. There would still be a leader and a socio-political hierarchy. Making the overall society smaller doesn't erase that.

[Saranidia]

It would, quite literally, lead to the collapse of human society, so no, this is not a good idea.

How would it lead to the collapse of human society?
It could be negative for society but
A tribe is a form of social interaction.

Besides when focused on the needs of the tribe rather than the individual it would lead to a lack of chaos because chaos would not benefit the whole tribe including multiple generations, occupations and temperaments as well as containing scale and a structure for negotiation.

[Saranidia]

But they are contradictory. An archos with the support of his subjects is still an archos, and where there is an archos there is not anarchism.

I'm sure there are many countries in the world today where the majority of the citizens accept the legitimacy of their government. If all the ones who didn't accept that left, would the countries in question be anarchist? Of course not. There would still be a leader and a socio-political hierarchy. Making the overall society smaller doesn't erase that.

please define archos for these purposes.
Anarchy tends to mean the abolition of a government not influential or impressionable(In the sense of family group dynamics ) personality traits.
(would a society stop being anarchic the minute some members of it followed an organised or even Charismatically lead religion?)

Also it's not about "making the overall society smaller".

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

It would, quite literally, lead to the collapse of human society, so no, this is not a good idea.

How would it lead to the collapse of human society?
It could be negative for society but
A tribe is a form of social interaction.

Besides when focused on the needs of the tribe rather than the individual it would lead to a lack of chaos because chaos would not benefit the whole tribe including multiple generations, occupations and temperaments as well as containing scale and a structure for negotiation.

Social interaction =/= society. Societies are large, organized groups of people, tribes are largely defined as being neither of these things.

[Saranidia]

How would it lead to the collapse of human society?
It could be negative for society but
A tribe is a form of social interaction.

Besides when focused on the needs of the tribe rather than the individual it would lead to a lack of chaos because chaos would not benefit the whole tribe including multiple generations, occupations and temperaments as well as containing scale and a structure for negotiation.

Social interaction =/= society. Societies are large, organized groups of people, tribes are largely defined as being neither of these things.

I disagree with anarcho-tribalism myself(I consider a caliphate the ideal form of society)
large, centralised organisations can create a lack of affection between leader and lead though.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Social interaction =/= society. Societies are large, organized groups of people, tribes are largely defined as being neither of these things.

I disagree with anarcho-tribalism myself(I consider a caliphate the ideal form of society)
large, centralised organisations can create a lack of affection between leader and lead though.

Theocratic military dictatorships aren't the ideal standard by anyone who idealizes a century other than the 15th.
And large, centralized organizations do create rifts between leader and led, they're still miles better than tribes.

[Erythrean Thebes]

It's generally peace, a willingness to collaborate for social engineering, and furthermore effective and structured communication, which are the circumstances enabling of prosperity. No particular ideology revolves around these necessities, exactly why I think ideology is a distraction from what is really the core of political negotiation: morality.

[Pope Joan]

I find the idea very appealing. We already see something like it in the communities of interest which arise online

All we need to do is to translate this into geography

and work out logistics and compacts for roadways, coinage, and broadcasting

[Saranidia]

I disagree with anarcho-tribalism myself(I consider a caliphate the ideal form of society)
large, centralised organisations can create a lack of affection between leader and lead though.

"Theocratic military dictatorships aren't the ideal standard by anyone who idealizes a century other than the 15th."
how were
Caliphates military dictatorships? theocratic yes, elevating religious law over the will of the people yes, dictatorships? at a stretch, military dictatorships? How so?.
Also I think the Ayyubid rule(after Saladin captured Jerusalem and before his son) in the Egypt and Syria Sultanate of the Abbasids and the Rashidun caliphate were better than the 15th century.


"And large, centralized organizations do create rifts between leader and led, they're still miles better than tribes."
On what grounds? don't you feel a closer sense of loyalty to your cousin than to another compatriot

[Badb Catha]

The concept is not only contradictory, but also regressive and primitive. It is, therefor, not ideal.

[Alvecia]

Society tends towards order. Any form of anarchic society would just inevitably end up back where we started.

Or ended?

Now. What we have now.

[The Holy Therns]

We have so many silly ideas and yet people fight to come up with even more silly ideas.

[Auristania]

Anarchy is the Cry of the Oppressed.

Peasants overthrow the Evil Empire, Glory Hallelujah! Peasants elect Soviet of workers' Deputies, Glory Hallelujah!

Hipsters say Anarchism cannot possibly work. Look at me, I am a special Snow flake. Anarchy is the Prophecy Beware lest the Peasant comite become a new Aristocracy.

[Munkchester]

We should try it and see how it goes.

[Flaireis]

Speaking as an anarchist, no. This is a contradiction particularly in that there is one leader. It doesn't matter if they're elected, giving one person power over many is not anarchist at all.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Please be ironic.

[Garwood Island]

It'd work with a bunch of people with the same mindset, however if you were to say, switch from an oligachal capitalist society, it would fall apart.

Now if you took a mind eraser to the entire world and told them tats how people live -yeah, it would probably be utopia.

[Orange-Transvaal]

anarcho-tribalism is pretty much:
-ooga booga land
-basic human infrastructure is for losers
-education=useless

[The Holy Therns]

-ooga booga land

That does sound kinda hot.

-basic human infrastructure is for losers
-education=useless

But that sounds kinda not.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm all for an agrarian anarchist commune, but I think for a chief or monarch, the power needs to be entirely based on loyalty and not coercion.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

I might be a communist (I try, but I need more study). But I do not support differing rights between locales. No state does not mean no coercion, and we should use force to protect rights, on a legal/constitutional/institutional basis. Barring, say, vaccination (for which we should be reasonable, it is not effective for the flu), we should swear an oath to uphold things like bodily autonomy and project power to ensure it’s fulfillment.

[Senkaku]

no more of this "no state" thing any more, mkay? she's worn out and was frankly always shitty

[Saranidia]

anarcho-tribalism is pretty much:
-ooga booga land
-basic human infrastructure is for losers
-education=useless

It's unsuprising you picked a dutch South African
nation

"Ooga booga land"- What does that even mean?

"-education=useless" How so?