Imperial Confederalism - Possible?

[Temple State]

If a new, global version of the Hellenistic Empire was revived where each ideological and ethnoreligious camp that today exist, each get allotted one or more City States, and some type of imperial version of the pan-anarchist "NAP" was worked out, would you support it?
Basically like a political quarantine, anyone that agitated against the policies of the current City State they live in or was born in, would have to shut up or move to a City State where their preferred system was already practiced, unless the City State has some type of democratic system where agitation was allowed within a multi-party system. This irrespective of previous national borders or dominant language in any territory.

Some related ideas:
People who can't form organized City States would have to be sent to something akin to a wilderness preservation I presume, where they can do whatever they want, as long as they don't breed and don't come back to civilization.
The need for some imperial infrastructure (like highways between City States) and an imperial central bank to collect taxes in, taxes would only be used for a common defense and maintaining said infrastructure, apart from that City States raise funds for everything else locally.
The possible need for an imperial capital and official imperial language to issue imperial documents in.

The reason I ask is because I see this as the only somewhat peaceful solution to the Western political crisis, to avoid civil wars and such.

[Heloin]

This sounds less like the constantly fighting Greek city states of the classical period and more like the constantly fighting German city states of the HRE.

Ignoring the weird political and also likely racial and religious apartheid created in your scenario.

[Temple State]

This sounds less like the constantly fighting Greek city states of the classical period and more like the constantly fighting German city states of the HRE.

Ignoring the weird political and also likely racial and religious apartheid created in your scenario.

Whatever. Keep believing forced integration of everyone works then. Titoism FTW of socialism?

And no. In my scenario an imperial peace would be forced upon them, that's the whole idea of such a project. Also that imperial armed forces would have monopoly on WMD:s and that conscription would have to be 2:1 imperial vs local.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I question how much autonomy these city states would have. Also, I don't like the idea of living in a big city either.

[Heloin]

This sounds less like the constantly fighting Greek city states of the classical period and more like the constantly fighting German city states of the HRE.

Ignoring the weird political and also likely racial and religious apartheid created in your scenario.

Whatever. Keep believing forced integration of everyone works then. Titoism FTW of socialism?

Well that answers my assumption that this is all massively racist I guess.

And no. In my scenario an imperial peace would be forced upon them, that's the whole idea of such a project. Also that imperial armed forces would have monopoly on WMD:s and that conscription would have to be 2:1 imperial vs local.

It's not the worst fictional utopia I've read but it's up there.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I honestly think all attempts at a utopia will end up as a dystopia.

[Genivaria]

This sounds less like the constantly fighting Greek city states of the classical period and more like the constantly fighting German city states of the HRE.

Ignoring the weird political and also likely racial and religious apartheid created in your scenario.

Whatever. Keep believing forced integration of everyone works then. Titoism FTW of socialism?

And no. In my scenario an imperial peace would be forced upon them, that's the whole idea of such a project. Also that imperial armed forces would have monopoly on WMD:s and that conscription would have to be 2:1 imperial vs local.

Whoo boy that was a quick fucking reveal.
Next you'll be talking about 'racial realism' and The Great Replacement.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Whatever. Keep believing forced integration of everyone works then. Titoism FTW of socialism?

And no. In my scenario an imperial peace would be forced upon them, that's the whole idea of such a project. Also that imperial armed forces would have monopoly on WMD:s and that conscription would have to be 2:1 imperial vs local.

Whoo boy that was a quick fucking reveal.
Next you'll be talking about 'racial realism' and The Great Replacement.

I mean, check out his region. It's clear what he stands for.

[Temple State]

Whoo boy that was a quick fucking reveal.
Next you'll be talking about 'racial realism' and The Great Replacement.

I mean, check out his region. It's clear what he stands for.

Yeah. And it's clear people on the left will misconstrue this, as they misconstrue the region.

The HRE comparison is massively faulty, not even Hellas gives it a fair representation. But at least Hellas City States had different enough political philosophies. During the era of the HRE basically all chartered territories of it were governed almost the same way. But just like Hellas, some were more mercantile, some were more warlike.

Here I am, saying "go ahead, try to build your communist utopia over there in that corner, I will be over here and watch you fail" but y'all just got to have your liberal democracies or socialist dictatorships be globalist and totalitarian, is that it? No corners for any traditional people to be by themselves? At least if we are Christian that is. That just gives you away way more than me.

[Heloin]

I mean, check out his region. It's clear what he stands for.

Yeah. And it's clear people on the left will misconstrue this, as they misconstrue the region.

It's pretty hard to misconstrue something by pointing out exactly what it is.

The HRE comparison is massively faulty, not even Hellas gives it a fair representation. But at least Hellas City States had different enough political philosophies. During the era of the HRE basically all chartered territories of it were governed almost the same way. But just like Hellas, some were more mercantile, some were more warlike.

I'm uncertain you know anything about Classical Greece if you think your dystopic fantasy world is comparable to it..

Here I am, saying "go ahead, try to build your communist utopia over there in that corner, I will be over here and watch you fail" but y'all just got to have your liberal democracies or socialist dictatorships be globalist and totalitarian, is that it? No corners for any traditional people to be by themselves? At least if we are Christian that is.

Screaming I'm the victim isn't the best way to defend an idea.

That just gives you away way more than me.

Doubtful since your opening move to my point about how the idea seems a bit segregationists was to complain about "forced integration".

[Adamede]

Sounds like a good way to piss off boh groups of people you want to support this.

[La Chicania]

All this in the name of 'peace'? Tell me, why do you think a false sense of peace is so valuable as to sacrifice everything because of it?

[Whitemore]

Sounds like a great idea that totally won't end up with the collapse of this state and a deadly civil war occurring.

[Andaboy]

This sounds less like the constantly fighting Greek city states of the classical period and more like the constantly fighting German city states of the HRE.

Ignoring the weird political and also likely racial and religious apartheid created in your scenario.

In other words, as evidenced by the reference to the HRE: possible.

[Whitemore]

This sounds less like the constantly fighting Greek city states of the classical period and more like the constantly fighting German city states of the HRE.

Ignoring the weird political and also likely racial and religious apartheid created in your scenario.

In other words, as evidenced by the reference to the HRE: possible.

I would not give the HRE credit here, it was constantly at war within itself. We can't forget the religious wars that happened inside it's borders that killed half of the population.

[Lady Victory]

If a new, global version of the Hellenistic Empire was revived where each ideological and ethnoreligious camp that today exist, each get allotted one or more City States, and some type of imperial version of the pan-anarchist "NAP" was worked out, would you support it?
Basically like a political quarantine, anyone that agitated against the policies of the current City State they live in or was born in, would have to shut up or move to a City State where their preferred system was already practiced, unless the City State has some type of democratic system where agitation was allowed within a multi-party system. This irrespective of previous national borders or dominant language in any territory.

Some related ideas:
People who can't form organized City States would have to be sent to something akin to a wilderness preservation I presume, where they can do whatever they want, as long as they don't breed and don't come back to civilization.
The need for some imperial infrastructure (like highways between City States) and an imperial central bank to collect taxes in, taxes would only be used for a common defense and maintaining said infrastructure, apart from that City State raise funds for everything else locally.
The possible need for an imperial capital and official imperial language to issue imperial documents in.

The reason I ask is because I see this as the only somewhat peaceful solution to the Western political crisis, to avoid civil wars and such.

This sounds like the HRE but on a global scale, like some kind of bad YA dystopian novel.

Fuck that shit.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I think the pan-anarchist strategy represents one of the most logical conclusions of anarchism, in terms of minimising the need to use force to impose the will of one group with particular principles onto other groups within the community who will always fundamentally disagree with those principles. I'm sure a decentralised militia boot feels much like a state boot. The idea of a wilderness for groups incapable of forming states for some reason is a bit weird because I can't think why that would be, and it doesn't seem essential so I will ignore it. I have to wonder though how realistic it is that all these ideological groups who fundamentally disagree with each other on basic principles to ever agree to or respect a mutual non-intervention principle rather than trying to "save" the other communities by invading them, or that some of them would even freely let people who don't fit their communities leave to join another one rather than simply killing them.

[Temple State]

This sounds less like the constantly fighting Greek city states of the classical period and more like the constantly fighting German city states of the HRE.

Ignoring the weird political and also likely racial and religious apartheid created in your scenario.

In other words, as evidenced by the reference to the HRE: possible.

I was going to write that I took note of HRE actually having existed. Unlike any paper constructed modernist ideology that "wasn't true capitalism" or "wasn't true communism".
Still, this is not HRE, as all that was feudal.

It's pretty hard to misconstrue something by pointing out exactly what it is.

What do you think it is?

I'm uncertain you know anything about Classical Greece if you think your dystopic fantasy world is comparable to it..

With one line you think you are saying something clever or what? It had City States, they had different political philosophies, they cooperated in wartime. That's what this idea is suggesting, but allowing even more diverse ideologies and more diverse cultures to inhabit each City State. It's more feasible than the NAP anarchists dream about, which would devolve without any central cohesive unit, like a council representing each camp e.g.

Screaming I'm the victim isn't the best way to defend an idea.

The literal first answer to my post was hostility against the possibility that a particular ideology of theirs was not going to be global or totalitarian. My answer was on point.

Doubtful since your opening move to my point about how the idea seems a bit segregationists was to complain about "forced integration".

Ofc it is about segregation. What is a state if not segregating a group based on differing views or sense of shared interests and destiny?
The idea here is to let people find a peaceful escape from a globalizing force that wants to dictate the form of political institutions to everyone else. Namely Western liberal democracy.

I question how much autonomy these city states would have. Also, I don't like the idea of living in a big city either.

Total autonomy apart from stuff I mentioned basically. City State is just a term, it doesn't even have to be urban settlements. Just a plot of land governed according to a certain vision. If you have a better name, go with that.

I honestly think all attempts at a utopia will end up as a dystopia.

It is not a utopia. As pointed out similar systems have existed, albeit not to the extent of willfully letting every ideology have their own social experiments so to speak, since those previous ones were more organically developed.
Think of this more as the social darwinism of ideologies and citizens will vote with their feet which system is superior. The inferior systems will whither away and you will have the systems left standing that people find the best.

All this in the name of 'peace'? Tell me, why do you think a false sense of peace is so valuable as to sacrifice everything because of it?

Why do I prefer peace over war? Because I've seen war up close and what happens in war. Let's just say I like civilization then. Electricity. Running water. Food on the table.

Sounds like a good way to piss off boh groups of people you want to support this.

Because totalitarian globalism is a must for everyone?

Sounds like a great idea that totally won't end up with the collapse of this state and a deadly civil war occurring.

Not if an impartial monopoly on the maximum use of force is set up. Like an imperial conscription of 2:1 vs local armed forces e.g. Or monopoly on WMD:s.

I think the pan-anarchist strategy represents one of the most logical conclusions of anarchism, in terms of minimising the need to use force to impose the will of one group with particular principles onto other groups within the community who will always fundamentally disagree with those principles. I'm sure a decentralised militia boot feels much like a state boot. The idea of a wilderness for groups incapable of forming states for some reason is a bit weird because I can't think why that would be, and it doesn't seem essential so I will ignore it. I have to wonder though how realistic it is that all these ideological groups who fundamentally disagree with each other on basic principles to ever agree to or respect a mutual non-intervention principle rather than trying to "save" the other communities by invading them, or that some of them would even freely let people who don't fit their communities leave to join another one rather than simply killing them.

The NAP is utopian and can't happen just because of reasons you listed. Certain rules about the movement of people across these territories would have to be universally established, but most of all enforced.

[Heloin]

It's pretty hard to misconstrue something by pointing out exactly what it is.

What do you think it is?

A fascistic fever dream.

I'm uncertain you know anything about Classical Greece if you think your dystopic fantasy world is comparable to it..

With one line you think you are saying something clever or what?

No, I think you don't know much about history.

It had City States, they had different political philosophies, they cooperated in wartime.

So did the Soviets and the Americans in WW2, the enemy of my enemy isn't exclusive to one period of time.

That's what this idea is suggesting, but allowing even more diverse ideologies and more diverse cultures to inhabit each City State.

Diverse doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

It's more feasible than the NAP anarchists dream about, which would devolve without any central cohesive unit, like a council representing each camp e.g.

That you're confusing Liberation ideas with Anarchistic ideas makes me doubt you know what Anarchists want.

Screaming I'm the victim isn't the best way to defend an idea.

The literal first answer to my post was hostility against the possibility that a particular ideology of theirs was not going to be global or totalitarian. My answer was on point.

Seeing that I wrote the first response and their is no hostility written in aside from two observations I'm inclined to say you're projecting. You asked if you're idea seemed like a good one. I answered truthfully. That's not hostility, that's me saying that an idea seems bad.

Doubtful since your opening move to my point about how the idea seems a bit segregationists was to complain about "forced integration".

Ofc it is about segregation. What is a state if not segregating a group based on differing views or sense of shared interests and destiny?
The idea here is to let people find a peaceful escape from a globalizing force that wants to dictate the form of political institutions to everyone else. Namely Western liberal democracy.

Doubling down that it's a racist idea for racists isn't going to make me think any higher of your idea. I'm not a fan of racists being happy.

[Adamede]

In other words, as evidenced by the reference to the HRE: possible.

I was going to write that I took note of HRE actually having existed. Unlike any paper constructed modernist ideology that "wasn't true capitalism" or "wasn't true communism".
Still, this is not HRE, as all that was feudal.

It's pretty hard to misconstrue something by pointing out exactly what it is.

What do you think it is?

I'm uncertain you know anything about Classical Greece if you think your dystopic fantasy world is comparable to it..

With one line you think you are saying something clever or what? It had City States, they had different political philosophies, they cooperated in wartime. That's what this idea is suggesting, but allowing even more diverse ideologies and more diverse cultures to inhabit each City State. It's more feasible than the NAP anarchists dream about, which would devolve without any central cohesive unit, like a council representing each camp e.g.

Screaming I'm the victim isn't the best way to defend an idea.

The literal first answer to my post was hostility against the possibility that a particular ideology of theirs was not going to be global or totalitarian. My answer was on point.

Doubtful since your opening move to my point about how the idea seems a bit segregationists was to complain about "forced integration".

Ofc it is about segregation. What is a state if not segregating a group based on differing views or sense of shared interests and destiny?
The idea here is to let people find a peaceful escape from a globalizing force that wants to dictate the form of political institutions to everyone else. Namely Western liberal democracy.

I question how much autonomy these city states would have. Also, I don't like the idea of living in a big city either.

Total autonomy apart from stuff I mentioned basically. City State is just a term, it doesn't even have to be urban settlements. Just a plot of land governed according to a certain vision. If you have a better name, go with that.

I honestly think all attempts at a utopia will end up as a dystopia.

It is not a utopia. As pointed out similar systems have existed, albeit not to the extent of willfully letting every ideology have their own social experiments so to speak, since those previous ones were more organically developed.
Think of this more as the social darwinism of ideologies and citizens will vote with their feet which system is superior. The inferior systems will whither away and you will have the systems left standing that people find the best.

All this in the name of 'peace'? Tell me, why do you think a false sense of peace is so valuable as to sacrifice everything because of it?

Why do I prefer peace over war? Because I've seen war up close and what happens in war. Let's just say I like civilization then. Electricity. Running water. Food on the table.

Sounds like a good way to piss off boh groups of people you want to support this.

Because totalitarian globalism is a must for everyone?

Sounds like a great idea that totally won't end up with the collapse of this state and a deadly civil war occurring.

Not if an impartial monopoly on the maximum use of force is set up. Like an imperial conscription of 2:1 vs local armed forces e.g. Or monopoly on WMD:s.

I think the pan-anarchist strategy represents one of the most logical conclusions of anarchism, in terms of minimising the need to use force to impose the will of one group with particular principles onto other groups within the community who will always fundamentally disagree with those principles. I'm sure a decentralised militia boot feels much like a state boot. The idea of a wilderness for groups incapable of forming states for some reason is a bit weird because I can't think why that would be, and it doesn't seem essential so I will ignore it. I have to wonder though how realistic it is that all these ideological groups who fundamentally disagree with each other on basic principles to ever agree to or respect a mutual non-intervention principle rather than trying to "save" the other communities by invading them, or that some of them would even freely let people who don't fit their communities leave to join another one rather than simply killing them.

The NAP is utopian and can't happen just because of reasons you listed. Certain rules about the movement of people across these territories would have to be universally established, but most of all enforced.

As opposed to ineffectual totalitarian regionalism?

[Temple State]

A fascistic fever dream.

Genetic arguments, even when you are so blinded by one-sided propaganda to think you are on the right side of making them, are still no less than simplistic genetic arguments.

No, I think you don't know much about history.

Thanks for the simplistic single line that offers so much more clarity on how much better you know history.
I am truly enlightened now. I think I will vote lib soon just because you said that.

So did the Soviets and the Americans in WW2, the enemy of my enemy isn't exclusive to one period of time.

The point here is to dissolve enmity, except towards other global, totalitarian ambitions.
But if you think the current Western system of government, some 18th century or 19th century general political ideas invented by European minds, is the mold to shape the entire world with, go ahead and call me the racist for opposing that. At least come up with a better idea for the so beloved world peace the left loves but can never come up with a practical solution for.

Diverse doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Once again, love this edgy clarity.

That you're confusing Liberation ideas with Anarchistic ideas makes me doubt you know what Anarchists want.

I could draw many parallels. Minarchism is close, structured panarchism, etc. The thing is that this imperial idea with city state has been tried, but never to the extent I'm suggesting. But it has been tried in general and proven to be very stable for long periods of time, and is thus worth improving upon instead of dreaming up the impossible. Or setting cities aflame like anarchists. Or sitting around parliaments or Internet forums moaning or complaining that a very particular sectarian way of molding the entire world according to a single vision is all that is lacking before people can have what they want or need in life.

Seeing that I wrote the first response and their is no hostility written in aside from two observations I'm inclined to say you're projecting. You asked if you're idea seemed like a good one. I answered truthfully. That's not hostility, that's me saying that an idea seems bad.

Yeah... No, sorry. Your first response was along the lines that you can't accept this idea because your preferred political version of how people should relate to each other must be universal and totalitarian, and that you can't accept any other mode of society than that.

Doubling down that it's a racist idea for racists isn't going to make me think any higher of your idea. I'm not a fan of racists being happy.

You do understand the full extent of the word 'segregation', yes?
I don't expect to go to a leftist collective of hippies and demand I have the right to move in with them. Not just for the total lack of wanting to move there, but because they wouldn't want me there.
Segregation is at the very heart of politics, in every sense of the word. That is why City States and political quarantine only makes perfect sense to organize human societies around, because all humans inevitably seek their own in all regards. They want a taste of the different sometimes to broaden their horizons or reach out about something important, so we frequent boards like this from time to time or do similar activities elsewhere, or just disregard politics completely from time to time to focus on other hobbies that can put us in contact with the different. But most people find it insufferable to have to share too close of a living space with those who are too unlike us in values or manners. We have chaos in the world at the moment partially because we deny that's how humans operate on a social level.

Humans seek their own and the only way to have peace is to acknowledge it and let people go their own ways while still retaining a modicum of civilization, respect, boundaries and rule of law. A unity around diversity, that's what I am proposing here.

[Temple State]

As opposed to ineffectual totalitarian regionalism?

Elaborate. It can't be totalitarian when a universal approach to ethics and law is not imposed unilaterally, apart from not wanting total war and annihilation of civilization, which I would say is pretty universally human to want.
And make no mistake, the ongoing political crisis poses no less than such a threat to current civilization.

[Heloin]

I'm not going to waste my time going point to point with the fascistic fever dream. The idea is a bad one at best, poorly thought out assuming all opposition to it must be leftist hostility towards the an idea that is good actually. I do find it funny the first thing the OP could think of as a response was to call me a Titoist.

[Temple State]

I'm not going to waste my time going point to point with the fascistic fever dream. The idea is a bad one at best, poorly thought out assuming all opposition to it must be leftist hostility towards the an idea that is good actually. I do find it funny the first thing the OP could think of as a response was to call me a Titoist.

Not (seemingly) wanting to allow ethnoreligious diversity and separation of any kind to express itself at all territorially? Yes, that is quite defining of Titoism.

Why is it a kneejerk reaction to focus on not wanting the opposition to express itself somewhere (else!) when one can instead focus on what one wants for oneself in a territory?

If Nazis or democratic/ethnocratic segregationists like Spencer and his followers want an ethnostate alongside with some Nation of Islam fans, diaspora ethnies of any kind, etc, what do I care? Let them have it then and I will focus on the kind of City State I would want for myself.

Since all ideologies and political people with a complete metaphysical worldview (basically, all of them except the worst opportunists and total pragmatists) seem to aim for expressing their view as purely as possible and claim that the reason everything is a mess is because their view still haven't been fully expressed, the only logical conclusion is that nobody can be persuaded they are possibly deluded until they see these ideas fully practiced and know them not to work even in their pure form. On the other hand, seeing the endless revisionism of all extremists, maybe I am wrong there as well. Still, liberal democracy is a farce and a compromise nobody is happy with. And war to establish the most dominant ideology through sheer force and massive bloodshed is not any better.

So why not this solution?
You think liberal democracy will just work itself out? That your preferred vision will just win by general election and establish its order exactly as promised?

[New Jacobland]

I honestly think all attempts at a utopia will end up as a dystopia.

Communism in a nutshell.