A completely stateless society is something of a long lost tradition, but with the creation of the “civilized” people’s and their governing bodies, it is nothing more than downgrade to those who grew up in such sheltered conditions.
What solutions do we have for a completly MODERN stateless society?
Will we organize as a group of people in hopes to establish a territory for ourselves? Or do we simply live and let live regardless of what government we currently live under, making do with what we we have? If by organizing in the current world, wouldn’t we involuntarily create a border by itself (If we are allowed to exist)? How will we interact with other states and their societies?
These are some questions i ask myself when looking at the current state of the world, and if the idea of a stateless society should exist in practice, how can we replicate the idea in the most pure form?
Do we become pirates? Underground black market criminals? Wreckless revolutionaries?
In a place without the state, how can we ensure the state remains without governance? After all, we can see that even without government, hiearchy can still exist and take a foothold within certain communities which leads to disruption, how do we ensure ourselves that we won’t let this happen?
Even with power, can one be truly responsible to hold it? Even if collectively? Is government innevitable? By definition, yes, but i mean truly… is there no way around it? Is Anarchy nothing more than a lifestyle as they say?
What is the ideal Anarchist stance on life and how it could be lived (not should)? Is it true to the definition of Anarchy? Every person for themselves, or each person for one another?
(please let this be an opportunity to roughdraft in ways we could create a vast and large mutual aid system with a cross continental community in mind, this is something that is often ignored -at least in my perspective- in the anarchist community, what would the mid game of revolution look like? and how can we ensure our people have what they need in times of persecution? Is all i’m asking.)
maybe i’m missing something too, if anyone is willing to provide any material that may answer my questions, all i need is a title, but a link would suffice too.
and for the potential Anprim advocates out there, what are you doing on a computer? 😑
This is the kind of comment i've been looking for, thank you for participating.
Though now i have another question when it comes to assembly, if organizing as a group is authoritarian, does that mean protest is a contradicting act? If organizing is authoritarian in practice, does that mean anarchists will have to accept authoritarian tactics to fight the state?
During the act of political persecution, at what point does anarchism have to change it's behaviour to meet the expectations of our surrounding environment? I know it's a self answering question as you've said "We must treat everyone with the equality they deserve." So in theory it would be when our environment starts to be hostile towards us. So there's the other question, at what point do we consider the environemnt hostile enough? Until there are 9 of us left? Until the ideas of anarchism are wiped out by book burning?
My final question being, how do you know if we have enough time to be peaceful? Is the idea of resistance not also to ensure there is something to resist in the first place? IF the ideas of anarchism are so pure and easily agreeable, why haven't we tried global revolution already? I know in the anarchist sphere, there is some backlash against militancy, but we live in a world where we are surrounded by it, how can we ensure a non-lethal victory when we are surrounded by literal mercenaries?
Organizing as a group isnt necessarily authoritarian in and of itself - setting out to organize is.
If some number of people all choose the same course of action, then come together to accomplish it, it's only authoritarian if one or some of them take it upon themselves to take charge.
But if one or some set out to organize others, then they've already effectively taken charge.
Protest though is inherently authoritarian, since it's an explicit attempt to force or coerce others into submitting to ones demands. It's an attempt to counter the imposition of the wills of others by forcing or coercing them into submitting to ones own.
The anarchistic response to authoritarianism is resistance. One can't, without violating anarchistic principles, attempt to force another to act as one prefers, but one certainly can refuse to willingly submit.
The basic distinction to always keep in mind regarding anarchism is whether one is controlling ones own actions or attempting to control the actions of others. The former is not only acceptable but necessary, while the latter is in fact the exact foundation on which authoritarianism is built.
No - it means that anarchists cannot fight the state. All anarchists can do is resist the state.
To fight the state is to adopt the state's philosophy and tactics and will destroy anarchism before it even gets off the ground.
At no point.
If it changes its behaviour to meet the expectations of an authoritarian system, it ceases to be anarchism.
Not even then.
Not to put too fine a point on it, if you must die in order to uphold your anarchistic principles, then you either must die or must abandon your principles. There is no third way - you cannot both retain your anarchistic principles and fight authority by its rules.
Now that said, I wouldn't begrudge anyone choosing to abandon their principles rather than to die, but make no mistake about it - it is necessarily an abandonment, and it won't, and in fact can't, serve the cause of anarchism.
Anarchism will come, if it does (if humanity can survive long enough) when the idea of forcing another to submit to ones own will is as repugnant as rape or murder - when it's seen, rightly, as an innately unjustifiable violation of the rights of another.
As individuals, we almost certainly don't. There's virtually no chance that anarchism will arise in any of our lifetimes. Humanity has a long, long way to go first.
All we can do is add to the foundation and help spread the ideas When the ideas have spread widely enough, anarchism will be inevitable, but until then, it will only be speculative.
Because they're not - they are, to most people, foreign and difficult, and even inconceivable.
Authoritarianism doesn't exist because some few power-hungry people impose it - it exists because the vast majority just take it for granted that they have the right to decide what others may, may not, must or must not do, say, think or believe, and they don't have the power to impose their decisions, so they say "Somebody oughta do something about those ______s!"
Which creates a situation in which the power-hungry few just have to volunteer to be that "somebody."
Anarchism will require people essentially universally rejecting that presumption, and instead sincerely holding to the view that each and every human has a full and equal right to make their own decisions regarding their own lives and nobody can possibly have the right to usurp that self-determination.
And as a bit of an aside, that last isn't a conclusion I arrived at as part of anarchistic theory but through simple and direct logic and it's much of the reason I identify as an anarchist.
If one presumes that humans necessarily possess equal rights, every argument for authority is self-defeating. Any argument by which one might attempt to claim the right to impose ones will on another is necessarily also an argument for that other's right to impose their will on oneself, and any argument by which one might claim oneself rightfully free from the imposition of the will of another is also an argument by which the other can claim themselves rightfully free from the imposition of ones own will. So institutionalized authority is logically unjustifiable unless one presumes that those who possess authority are somehow inherently superior, such that they possess rights that others do not.
Small wonder then that that's exactly how they act.
And more broadly, since I reject the idea that some can possess greater rights than others, I reject institutionalized authority.