Is any type of anarcho society possible?
Have there been any anarcho societies in history we can look at?
>>500568
you can look at modern day somalia
anarchist spain and the ukrainian free territory
this >>500571
and the kibbutz movement in israel
>>500570
Thats more modern feudalism than anarchism
>>500568
West Sahara is currently without any real goverment. Also some scientists think that it could be possible that mankind lived in in anerchy during the stone age.
>>500570
nice meme. for another anarchist society, check out the warlord period in republican china. "i love liberating proletarians and federating power upward from organic free association"--guy in my pic probably
>>500568
Yes, the world.
>>500766
Is that a fellow IR fuckhead I spy?
>>500822
IR?
>>500568
Zomia
>>500839
Not that guy but IR is International Relations.
One of the premises of Realist theory in IR is an anarchic international system.
Yes, The Spanish Revolution of the 30s.
They were conquered by a foreign power, the fascist regime of Franco, but that's a problem of their military capabilities, not their society. The cooperatives and communal economy and democratic assemblies all worked just fine until they were invaded.
Rovava. Democratic confederalism is anarchist. And the system is thriving against all odds in the Syrian clusterfuck.
>>500822
Sure, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply before we can even consider IR a thing
>>500568
It's called prehistory. The first states didn't form until agriculture and the first cities. For the vast majority of our species', and humanity's in general, history there were no states.
What's funny is that these pre-state societies were even more violent and possibly even oppressive than state societies anarchists bitch and moan about. Large percentage of children died to infanticide, decent chunk of males died to violence, and pre-state societies still enslaved and fought each other.
>>500568
Anarchist Spain in the 30s, Anarchist Ukraine. These are two of the best examples. When looking at the latter, try to wade through the gigantic pile of shit left by the Bolsheviks, they really did a number on that place.
Here's a good place to read about Makhno, the central figure in Anarchist Ukraine: http://www.nestormakhno.info/index.htm
As always, remember that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron that doesn't make sense, regardless of how big the temper tantrums thrown by its ignorant adherents.
Daily reminder that all anarcho-capitalists will be culled when the time comes.
>>500967
It's pretty telling how every example of "successful anarchism" has been co-opted or conquered by states.
>>500975
This.
I love the idea of anarchism, but in practice it seems like a transitory state at best. Nowadays even democracy looks self-defeating, how is anarcho-anything to hold its own? An ideal that can't survive reality does little good.
>>500975
It isn't really, though. Catalonia was "conquered" along with the rest of Republican Spain and the Free Territory was one of many, MANY fledgling polities that were subsumed back into the USSR during WWI/The Russian Revolution. Both of these had their military successes and failures.
>>500991
>Nowadays even democracy looks self-defeating
Haha, what.
>>500996
You're also forgetting the Paris Commune
>>500975
I agree that that is a problem, but you can't ignore the effects of mere military momentum.
>>500996
Refer to >>500945
Catalonia and the Free Ukraine are just two modern examples, but the exact same thing happened all throughout history. Over the course of only a few thousand years (pretty much the blink of an eye in the big scheme) all pre-states either developed into states, or were conquered by states. There were very, very few if any exceptions outside of isolated tribes.
>>501003
Wasn't a political project, just something that happened as an effect of the Franco-Prussian war. It's an interesting thing to study, but nobody is confused as to why it didn't pull an army out of its ass and liberate France.
>>501015
Well, yeah. States are very powerful, usually self-sustaining constructs. There are reasons why they exist, but also reasons why their form and function have changed dramatically over history. I don't believe anarchism just to be an ethical ideal, but a point along the trajectory of our modern social organization. The anarchist experiments were just that-- experiments. Maybe they would survive, maybe they would mutate into something on par with the USSR, maybe they would spread across the entire world. Nobody knew at the time, and nobody will know until it happens or until the idea is erased from our collective memory.
Then again, maybe we're the modern Mohists. Anybody want to buy some fortifications and/or eternal peace and prosperity under Heaven?
>>500991
This is why a critical mass is need for a social revolution to "become complete", so to say. Otherwise, it will get crushed by outside forces, if not by internal tensions that remain unresolved. This is why you can't just "make revolution" happen. The time before a revolution should be spent increasing the working class' self-awareness and building up the foundation on which a future society can be constructed on.
>>501037
>States are very powerful, usually self-sustaining constructs. There are reasons why they exist, but also reasons why their form and function have changed dramatically over history.
Completely agreed. The formation of states is a massive paradigm shift for the species, just like the development of agriculture or written language. And just like the other two, I can't see it ever disappearing or reversing for some reason.
> The anarchist experiments were just that-- experiments
They were very small and very brief bucks against the trend that lead nowhere. Humans have lived in anarchy for 190,000 years, and closer to 2 million years if you count other species of human. Anarchism has never been a brief experiment for us, but it does seem to have quickly changed us and become one of our tools that's here to stay.
>>500975
Catalonia had serious problems in the war because the CNT wasn't a military organisation and they literally had to start militias overnight to defend a massive social movement from a conventional army, but Makhno's insurgent army only lost the war by sheer weight of numbers. It got to the point where Trotsky was literally just killing random people because he couldn't deal with the insurgents. He had to send in soldiers who couldn't speak russian and never let them out of sight of their political commissars so they wouldn't defect. Red Army soldiers often flat out refused to fight the anarchists and just let them through.
>>501054
Obviously we make a distinction between primitive existence and stateless societies which still have things like "surpluses" and "settlements". That said, civilization was not immediately superior to nomadic gathering societies and there is plenty of evidence for this. States were never adopted by stateless people as a natural social improvement, they've spread themselves by the sword and people have actively ran away from their yoke because it meant literal enslavement. Even agriculture, a way of feeding people so shitty that we passed it up for probably hundreds of thousands of years, saw wider adoption by stateless people.
>>501071
>Even agriculture, a way of feeding people so shitty that we passed it up for probably hundreds of thousands of years
The end of the last glacial period creating more stable climate has more to do with this. Regions started developing agriculture as soon as it was possible, which is why it developed independently in a lot of places like Mesopotamia, Andes, China, etc around the same time.
>civilization was not immediately superior to nomadic gathering societies and there is plenty of evidence for this.
No one is arguing one being superior or inferior to the other, but the simple fact that one is more powerful and has much greater staying power. I would argue modern states now have it better than the original HG societies but that is entirely relative.
It is true that it took thousand of years to transition to a global state-dominated world, but keep in mind the time scales involved. From the first city-state in Sumeria to today is a very small period compared to the age of the species.
The past ten thousand years can be seen as a transitional period from pre-state to state organization and ways of living, and really our modern world could still be seen as being a part of that transitional period. There is still a global anarchy amongst individual states... maybe in another ten thousand years we'll be past this point and look back to today as the tail-end to the transition period.
>>500975
2 examples is hardly a large sample size, especially when they were both started during civil war
>>500614
how so?
If I remember correctly, anarchist Catalonia lasted like 3 years before being taken over. A non-hierarchical society has so many disadvantages for a function like warfare where a chain of command is essential, and even if it established one temporarily it'd be vulnerable to the elected military authorities taking over. Everyday voting on issues could erupt into chaos with no central authority to oversee and calm it down. That's why a monopoly on force is important because it can quickly resolve disputes. The scale it'd have to operate on would also be an issue without dedicated administrators and representatives, any kind of direct democracy spanning millions of people would either be very costly referendums or some kind of digital mass voting that could easily be manipulated. Lack of money would also necessitate a complex replacement unless they want to go back to a barter economy which would make it so much harder to get desired goods and services, or a "gift economy" which is a pipedream.
Something similar to left anarchism could exist on a small scale, but it would probably lack any technology depended on large scale infrastructure. Anarcho-capitalism would be a complete disaster, if you need an explanation on why privatizing the police is a bad idea you're beyond hope.
>>500991
How is democracy any less self defeating than monarchism, socialism or fascism?
>>501169
18 months
>>501169
>muh Catalonia
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
Read this OP
>>501169
>That's why a monopoly on force is important because it can quickly resolve disputes.
the question is rather why you think of what you call disputes, as disputes, which means a situation which must be resolved, which then begs for some authority which then begs for your state.
same thing for welfare, or, rather, what you call welfare.
=>you are biased from the very beginning and you thus state that ''a state is good because a state is good''. you want all the advantages of a state, without the state, and then complain that you cannot get the advantages, brought by a state, without a state.
>>501169
>A non-hierarchical society has so many disadvantages for a function like warfare where a chain of command is essential
Nice meme, but no.
>and even if it established one temporarily it'd be vulnerable to the elected military authorities taking over
Why's that, specifically? I mean any more so than literally any society in history which has had a military. Why am I not living under a military junta right now?
>>501226
>Hayekfags unironically calling anybody statist
>>501169
Literally the statist mindset in a single post
If you think a monopoly on force is important in resolving disputes you're so locked into a violent way of thinking you don't even see it
Disputes can be resolved simply with arbitrators.
I'm not even full ancap but jeez louise
>>501239
Checks and balances. This is elementary school social studies anon.
>>501280
Yes, and why would an anarchist society not have these features?
>>500975
>It's pretty telling how only semi-organized polities get crushed by organized armies
>>501250
No offense m8, but a monopoly of force really is an efficient way of resolving disputes else it wouldn't be so ubiquitous.
States do not only have the power of violence, they also have the power to capture people's imagination, and unfortunately for people like us, if you stoke the imagination of millions of people, you will have hoards of zombies doing your bidding.
>>501001
>>501192
Self-defeating in that democracy as of late has been undermining itself through bureaucracy and legislation, making itself ineffectual and perpetuating an ever-growing mess of problems that require stronger and stronger central authority to manage.
In the case of monarchism, fascism, and centrally governed socialism when they self-defeat you tend get a reinstatement of pretty much the same thing.
But that remark was more of a lament that if democracy is faltering it is hard to hold out hope for an anarcho style society, not a segue to authoritarian governments.
>>501333
>Self-defeating in that democracy as of late has been undermining itself through bureaucracy and legislation, making itself ineffectual and perpetuating an ever-growing mess of problems that require stronger and stronger central authority to manage.
This is a problem of statism in general, not specifically representative democracy.
If you can show me an example of any political system in an actual country which has regressed in power since it's establishment, I'd be pleased to hear it.
>>501351
>If you can show me an example of any political system in an actual country which has regressed in power since it's establishment
Holy Roman Empire
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
>>501355
Touche, but I'm pretty sure losing influence over other nations is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about states regressing in the level of commitment they have to creating new laws, regulation and control over their citizens.
I mean, I agree with you, I can point to several states which have been destroyed, and have never regained their power or influence again, but that wasn't what I was talking about really.
>>501351
>If you can show me an example of any political system in an actual country which has regressed in power since it's establishment, I'd be pleased to hear it.
Rome and its transformation from a Republic to an Empire. That would be the clearest example, if I understand you correctly.
Of course Rome itself did not regress in power, but the nature of power certainly changed and it was stripped from the hands of citizens (hastened along by the appointed senators, no less).
>>501371
HRE still applies. Its central power degraded and weakened gradually over time ever since the 30 Years' War.
PLC also became more and more decentralized, but not to the same extent.
>>501398
I'm pretty sure Rome didn't create fewer laws after the Empire was established do you?
It's like saying the Federal Laws of the U.S should be fewer today than they were in 1840, which would be ridiculous, hence my original point. States always grow in power, they don't regress in power, because for every single event that happens in a country, some bureaucrat will invariably find a reason to make a new law relating to the event that occurred.
>>501412
Ah, okay. I get what you're on about now.
But how does that problem of statism in general not pose a problem for anarcho style "governance"? It seems almost natural then, that any anarchistic society would eventually transform into an increasingly unwieldy state apparatus that undermines the very ideal of anarchism?
>>501431
>It seems almost natural then, that any anarchistic society would eventually transform into an increasingly unwieldy state apparatus that undermines the very ideal of anarchism?
Which is actually one of the main arguments of libertarian Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia.
I don't think any anarchistic polity would last long either, for the specific reason that some one with a gun, or some group of people with a gun will eventually demand the right to enforce their opinions upon everyone else, and will even successfully convince everyone that too, because it will seem necessary to have some kind of policing, even though there is no de facto "government".
However, I still use the adjective "anarchist" about myself, because I see it as a political principle to be extremely suspicious of the State, but not as a utopian real world possibility.
>>501441
Fair enough.
>However, I still use the adjective "anarchist" about myself, because I see it as a political principle to be extremely suspicious of the State, but not as a utopian real world possibility.
I'm not particularly well versed in anarchism, but that's the direction I've been leaning as well. Seems that anarchism is less suited as a form of "governance" than it is as an attitude that should be cultivated. An understanding of why we have the governments we do, what they provide, upon what grounds they ought to be resisted, and an inclination towards no governance whenever possible.
>>501462
Indeed.
As my friend remarked, how many times a day, presuming you live in a Western country, do you even think about the State?
Most people live their lives free of the coercive nature of it, and they become so used to the idea that they are free, which can be both a blessing and a curse, given the political climate these days.
People might fall into the trap of "okay, just sign whatever law, as long as you leave me alone" type thing.
>>501071
>States were never adopted by stateless people as a natural social improvement
>citation needed
>>501169
We recognize that direct democracy only works if you have a small number of people in the voting pool.
So, in my view, anarchist communities would have around 200 people each. It could be more or less than that, it doesn't really matter too much.
You would just divide up a city like New York of 8 million people into tons of independent communities, each with their own "laws" voted on by the community.
We're not talking about having some kind of system where all 250 million Americans vote on anything at all. Every community will be 100 percent independent.
>>500996
This isn't a reason that mitigates their failure to show that anarchism is still possible though, because it reveals one of the main theoretical failiures: that an anarchist society is easy as fuck for outside forces to conquer compared to stated societies, so eventually someone's gonna come in and do it. Even if you somehow miraculously bring a fully anarchist world into being, all it takes is one guy to start a state and proceed to place the world under his totalitarian control with little to no resistance.
>>500568
Does that French shit count when socialists or commies or whoever took over Paris for a couple of days? Or was that more of a structured thing?
>>500574
Kibbutz was/is still subject to the Israeli government ultimately though wasn't it?
>>502080
Paris Commune, like the other guy mentioned
>>501169
>the question is rather why you think of what you call disputes, as disputes, which means a situation which must be resolved, which then begs for some authority which then begs for your state.
Yes, there was a reason the Athenian people welcomed the brutality of Draco over the blood feuds between families that had prevailed before him. There is no security in an imbalance of power.
>same thing for welfare, or, rather, what you call welfare.
I never said I was a welfare statist.
>you want all the advantages of a state, without the state, and then complain that you cannot get the advantages, brought by a state, without a state.
Are you schizophrenic? Way to just make shit up.
>>501239
>Nice meme, but no.
If you say so, faggot. Disorganized armies are a recipe for failure.
>Why's that, specifically? I mean any more so than literally any society in history which has had a military. Why am I not living under a military junta right now?
Because the state you're living in is presumably old enough to have formed a separation of powers between executive and legislative branches of government. This, along with many other human rights, would probably be scrapped off the table by a revolution. New states are generally less stable than older ones and thus must resort to illiberal and violent measures to keep order. The failure of anarchy would probably revert it to statism, but not like the states of today, it would likely necessitate something much more violent to re-establish order from step one.
>>501250
>Disputes can be resolved simply with arbitrators.
Bullets are cheaper than lawyers. Do you think Cletus and Jamal would really give a shit? They'd think "Great, no police, now it's gonna be like the purge and I'll come out a badass".
At least under today's system the state can subpoena anyone to face court, in polycentric law what the fuck happens if two people just can't agree on an arbitrator? It'd devolve to violence quickly.
Anything is possible. Whether they can persist is a different querstion. At this point, I'm not really sure "stability" is possible for any ideology or system, they all fall, eventually. Capitalism gave us everything we could ever ask for, and now that's being dismantled by cultural marxists, Communism happened, that lost support in the 90's, even Islam is being destroyed because of Western intervention in the Middle East. Nothing seems last forever, but everything is possible.
>Have there been any anarcho societies in history we can look at?
How about everything before the invention of agriculture?
Early Medievil Ireland.
Somalia, which contrary to the image it has, is actually one of the safer and developed African countries.
>>502954
O brave new world
>>502975
>in the end
OP's question was about types of possible anarchic societies. Kibbutzim, in the beginning, were about as close as we're gonna get. How things turned out in the end is a very good demonstration of why it's impossible for it to happen on a large scale.
>>503008
Well, I mean...
They had laws, and the british was in control.
They were just communal, kinda like a tribe where everyone knew eachother and they raised everyone's kids together, worked together and ate together.
Some tribes in Africa and New guinea could be described like that today.
>there are people over the age of 16 who haven't outgrown anarchy
Amazing.
>>502982
>Somalia, which contrary to the image it has, is actually one of the safer and developed African countries.
So developed and safe that they are fleeing en masse TO Ethiopia and Kenya. How fucked up does the area have to be for you to decide "you know what? I'm going to go find a better life in Ethiopia"
>>500967
>anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron that doesn't make sense
And anarcho-syndicalism isn't?
>>500568
Brazil, 1890 through 1894, the Cecilia Colony.
It was a colony made on the region of Paraná to avoid contact with the portuguese monarchy at the time that, on simple terms, was fucking people over.
Many attempts by the crown to anihilate the colony turned out fruitless and survived well for 4 whole years.
Nowadays I think we'd be better off with that colony, and I'm not even anarchist.
>>500945
this. to be fair, I doubt anarchy would work in a group larger than maybe 100 people. States and "civilization" only happened after group sizes grew far greater than traditional prehistorical societies. As group sizes grew, people began living alongside others who they didn't know or associate with, which makes it harder to empathize with and treat each other justly
>>503676
Who said we need to have large populations?
We could make little villages of a 100+ people, like you said, and so forth.
No. Humans naturally group into societies. Large societies prosper better than smaller ones in good environments. Governments are the most efficient way of managing these.
Anarchists are idealists living in a realistic world.
>>502020
I like the idea, but wouldn't it be extremely complicated in practice? Like, how do I figure out which laws are in effect in the different communities?
>>501351
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization#Government_decentralization
I mean, you're definitely on to something, but it's not quite an iron law.
>>500576
What a fucking retard.
Anarchos are mocked on /pol/.
>>504615
This is a pretty obvious political science thread.
Fuck off to the board you belong on.
I don't care about that board's quality, fuck off to it.
>>500883
If they cannot effectively defend themselves, they don't have a right to fucking exist.
>>505259
>>502060
The point is that it doesn't say anything descriptive about anarchism if other, non-anarchist polities were militarily subdued, in the same conflict no less, which applies to both Spain and Ukraine. You're misrepresenting history to basically make a meme.
>>501586
There are literally no documented cases of it happening spontaneously with a people in contact with another state. Even if you stretch it to what might be called proto-states, these are typically military confederations that engage in violent conquest. Obviously states don't arise ex nihilo, but they aren't viewed as a force for good when you're outside of them.
>>502644
>Disorganized armies are a recipe for failure.
Of course, But a lack of hierarchy doesn't mean they're disorganized. Have you read about almost any armed conflict in the last 50 years?
>Because the state you're living in is presumably old enough to have formed a separation of powers between executive and legislative branches of government.
The executive isn't the military, it just exercises "ultimate civilian authority" over the military, which is to say we pretend our heads of governments are commanders-in-chief. But we know that isn't true. The tools states use to keep their militaries in line are typically non-coercive, because they have to be, you aren't going to stop coups from happening with just a federal police force. They're kept divided on multiple axes (multiple branches within branches), paid exceptionally well, provided with experts and comforts in their duties, gracefully retired from positions of power, and aren't expected to deal with civilian problems. These tools are available to anarchist polities.
>>500945
Please give source or fuck off liar
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2015/07/PATOU_MATHIS/53204
>>500574
Kibbutz is a manifestation of Communist ideals, it have nothing to do with anarchism
source:I live in Israel
>>502971
This makes the Zerzan smile.
>>507266
>Kibbutz is a manifestation of Communist ideals, it have nothing to do with anarchism
Are you fucking retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Israel#Early_Kibbutz_movement
>source:I live in Israel
Time to start learning something about the country you live in no?
Anarchy is impossible, which is exactly why we must fight for it every day.
>>503070
Most anarchist theorists were old men.
>>500690
Wouldn't the stone age just be tribalism?
>>504615
Everyone is mocked on /pol/. That's the ideology right there if you haven't noticed, you can never be right.
>>500568
An anarchic society is not a society, it's just unclaimed land.
>>509812
You are why we can't have nice things.
>>509910
You know it's a shit ideology when one guy's reasoning is why it can't be nice
>>500975
Rebellions and revolutions are crushed all the time, even those that end up conquering the globe. Don't be a dick.
You're in one m8
>>500568
Yes
Tribalism > Statism fight me
>>505259
Well, the Franco Fascists had a lot of support from Germany and Italy.
And every type of society that one can imagine has been defeated by foreign invaders at one point or another. I think military prowess is somewhat independent of the way a society is ordered.
>>500568
The Scandinavian settlers in Iceland had no king, but instead had regular meetings where all free men could make issues known, and they would discuss and create laws and settle disputes.
Individual villages were still lead by Chieftans, though. At the scale of the entire island, though, it's pretty much a democratic Republic- people said that the Icelandic people had no king but the law.
>>509992
Wrong m8
The internet is managed and organized by ICANN and The US Department of Commerce.
>>510313
And ISoc and IETF and IAB and IESG and IRTF, IGF...
ICANN also has a mandate to proceed according to democratic consensus, although there's plenty of legitimate criticism that they do not. Will be happier when they follow through on NetMundial.
>>510098
>The Scandinavian settlers in Iceland had no king, but instead had regular meetings where all free men could make issues known, and they would discuss and create laws and settle disputes.
Bondi were obliged to pledge themselves to a Godi, although they could switch in Spring.
>>500568
>Have there been any anarcho societies in history we can look at?
Yes, they all end the same way, they either become States or get Conquered by them.
>>500568
No.
Once you degenerate to pre feudal systems you are inadvertently going back into a tribal system - tribalism is a result of biological imperatives, it's not a social construct. Animals have tribes/flocks/packs whatever you want to call it and they don't have societies.
As such any form of true anarchism is biologically impossible.
>>500945
>source: my ass
Nice one, kiddo! ;)
>>504615
>Anarchos are mocked on /pol/
that sate ment is just plain wrong.
Everyone mocks anarchos even lolbertairians like to rape anarchos by making slightly more sence.
