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? 😑
I strongly disagree with your comment because it states some assumptions of how you imagine anarchism as facts about anarchism even when some of your points are simply just a subsection of anarchist ideas. I will discuss what I mean by that.
I would say that this first point you make is one of the ones where I think it has just a little to do with anarchism and strait-up ignores social anarchism and only argues for a individualist school of thought. "organizing as a group", is not inherently authoritarian it is more about how the group is organized and if the form of organization allows the accumulation of permanent power or creation of a hierarchy. That is the point where literally all bigger anarchist movements come to play, in difference to the status quo where one can accumulate power through the state and accumulation of capital they want to establish a form of society were this is not possible and where society is governed on a egalitarian line by the people for the people. This is done through the “organizing as a group” thing, that's for example the whole idea of anarcho syndicalism in short: organize a big federation of unions -> over through state and capitalism -> govern the industry through bottom up, decentralized, democratic structures which are already prepared and build in the syndicalist unions(very short summary). What I want to say in this point is that organizing is very important and one should not think of "personal freedom" and "organizing in a group" inherently as two opposite things. An other good read on that is "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow, in that book they also show how other societys organized as groups without compromising the freedom of the individuals in that society.
What this implies is that people just have to get into the right mindset for anarchism and just have to realize they should oppose arbitrary authority. I think that this is to short of an answer. Even when more people would realize arbitrary authority is bad they would still be in the material conditions that forces them to do their jobs and live their lives as they currently do it, thinking that it just needs a shift in the state of mind(even when it is also somewhat important) is to simple, it is also important to develop communal support systems and organize groups to make the existing conditions redundant and over-through the current conditions that force you into compliance. That is also done through organizing, the changing of the "psychological and philosophical state" can also be done through organized study groups
That is just not true, when you organize some system that changes the material conditions, so people no longer have to obey to arbitrary authority, especially when it is a dual power situation does not mean that they are forced to a new way of life, its more a creation of an alternative that people can choose or even construct. Your whole argument assumes that the people currently participating in the society participate because they want to and ignores the material conditions that forces them to obey to the boss and state. Organizing can create a alternative which can change the material conditions and enable people to decide by themself how they want to live.
Your other points build on these arguments, so I will not go into detail about them.
Here are also some books or topics worth looking into:
Books:
Declaration of the Principles of Syndicalism - Rudolf Rocker
What Is Communist Anarchism? - Alexander Berkman
Topics:
Rojava, and Democratic Confederalism is interesting because their ideology is strongly inspired by Murray Bookchin and aims to create a stateless society.
Zapatista Uprising because they also have strong anarchist ideas they try to put in practice.
I hope this does not come as rude, I don't hate you personally I just disagree with some of your points on a stronger level but i truly hope you have a great day :]
No - what my points are are things I believe to be true.
What else would you expect?
And not coincidentally, since I broadly reject the precepts of social anarchism.
I clarify in my second response that if a group of individuals all freely choose a particular couse of action, then all freely choose to cooperate in its pursuit, that's not authoritarian.
But that's not what social anarchism advocates. Social anarchism starts with the blithe presumption that it's possible for some to declare a colorable need for some particular organization dedicated to some particulat goal and as long as they don't stipulate a specific hierarchy, it somehow counts as anarchism, and I simply disagree. I think that the moment that anyone takes it upon themselves to declare that "we" need to ____, the philosophical basis for anarchism has already been cast aside, and replaced by the philosophical basis for authoritarianism.
I think it's plainly obvious that society cannot be "governed" at all in anarchism - that the very idea is inherently authoritarian, since it can only mean to establish some set of norms as the nominally desirous ones, then to arrange things such that those who might choose otherwise are prevented from doing so.
I reject all subdivisions of anarchism, and honestly find anarcho-syndicalism to be one of the most ludicrous of them all.
All subdivisions of anarchism necessarily ignore the terribly simple fact that they do not and will not have universal support. What that means is one of two things - either they will not come to be, or they will come to be through the exercise of claimed authority - either the authority to declare the norms and ideals and mechanisms of the subdivision in question as the ones to be universally followed, or the authority to designate a border within which those norms, ideals and mechanisms will be followed.
There is simply no way that any group of people are going to each and all freely choose any specific subdivision of anarchism, so they are, each and all, either pointlessly speculative or inherently authoritarian.
My view is that the only possible way for anarchism to work without sinking back into authoritarianism is for each and all to be entirely free to choose as they please, constrained only by the fact that each and all will be entirely free to choose, to count on the ability of individuals to compromise (because without that ability anarchism will fail), then to just see what we end up with when everyone's done choosing and compromising.
Whatever we end up with then can't help but be the best possible system for all involved, simply because nobody will have the power to force anybody else to settle for anything less.
And I believe that any "anarchism" that instead proposes some specific set of norms and requirements and prohibitions will and can only devolve into authoritarianism.
No it doesn't.
Sorry, but if that's all you got out of:
then that's very much your problem and not mine.
Yes - they're "free" to decide whether to live under the existing system or under your alternative.
You don't create the freedom to choose by taking it upon yourself to establish a specific alternative, then saying "Pick one." You create the freedom to choose by butting out.
Frankly I find the whole idea of "hate" even being treated as a possibility in such a context deeply unsettling.
So you literally reject the ideas of any remotely successful anarchist movement or society that has ever existed. Wild thing calling yourself an anarchist then.
yes.
When some participants of society freely choose to create something like a syndicate for administering for example a water system it is something that does not pressure anybody into anything and does not necessarily create the basis for authority. It is the same with the organizing of a union, that union can also be used to fight for the interests of the working class, it has not the authority to pressure anyone into join or obeying the union but it helps with organizing the fight against authority.
I agree that I choose the wrong word with "governed" what I wanted to say is "administered" and I do not think that it is inherently authoritarian because people can disobey and create alternative structures if they want to.
You believe in a subdivisions of anarchism, there is no "pure" form of anarchism.
The difference between your subdivision and the ones you reject it that the ones you reject try to construct ideas of how we get to the point that everyone is entirely free to choose as they please. They do not set specific set of norms and requirements and prohibitions but pitch ideas of how we can overcome the current authority. You say "Any attempts to organize to speed up the process will necessarily involve forcing individuals to submit to stateless ideals" I would say everyone who does not organize is forcing individuals to submit to the state and capital. When you don't organize against the status quo you reinforce it.
No they can decide whether to live under the existing system or under a alternative where they can collectively decide how to live in their society and as a individual. What you say is that every alternative to the existing system has to work the same as the existing system. The whole point is that the alternative is not my alternative where I say how things have to be but that everyone can cooperate freely.
True but i never said one should take it upon yourself to establish a specific alternative but to organize and overthrough the material conditions that constrict people to freely decide how to live their lives.
I am not sure how you want to archive this without organizing.
I get it but I just tried to sound less rude because I had the fear it could come of as to rude.