how does a stateless society (anarchy, comunism, whatever) protects it's citizens from another state that wants to conquer it?
>>75957948
guns for everyone
Everyone happily volunteers to protect their homeland, of course!
>>75957948
it doesnt
thats why attempts at anarchism failed spetacularly to survive against outside force
>>75957951
What attempts to anarchism?
>>75957948
>>75957949
>>75957950
>>75957951
>>75957952
global revolution you fucking turnips
>>75957952
he must be referring to Somalia
>>75957951
>be anarchist
>get BTFO by first non-anarchist state to show up
>no longer be anarchist
>>75957954
hop off your own dick you historical illiterate
>>75957953
how would this "global" revolution even occur
>>75957955
peregonovka :^)
>>75957948
It can't, because a stateless society can't get bigger weapons than small firearms. The moment groups get tanks or artilery or shit like that civil war breaks out and lears and states get going.
>>75957957
a large scale change in social values and the resulting actions
>>75957956
mad ancap teenager detected
>>75957961
ancaps aren't anarchists and you're still historically illiterate, sorry
>>75957958
>Ukraine
How did that turn out again?
>>75957960
>a large scale change in social values
In all societies?
At once?
And I suppose every revolution is successful, world wide? Simultaneously?
>>75957948
>conquer it
Conquer what? There is nobody to surrender. You can declare yourself king, but nobody will acknowledge you. Try to impose your will and you'll get never-ending rebellion.
>>75957965
>Try to impose your will and you'll get never-ending rebellion.
Not likely.
Execute a few percent of the population and the rest will accept that they have been conquered. Most people just want to live a comfy ordinary life and aren't willing to die fighting for an ideal.
>>75957952
catalunya, ukraine of the top of my mind
>>75957965
>Try to impose your will and you'll get never-ending rebellion
Yeah, because supression of dissent never happened in the history of humanity
>>75957965
>teenage kids actually believe that
In real life you only need make an example out of one villager for the rest of the village to obey your commands.
Primitive societies are anarchist-ish. If anarchism were sustainable we would be anarchists to this day. Instead every complex society is hierarchical because anarchist ones got conquered and submited.
>>75957962
>ancaps aren't anarchists and you're still historically illiterate, sorry
They may be delusional and autistic but they're still anarchists.
>>75957957
>>75957960
>>75957964
automation of labor
Stopped reading at
>stateless society (anarchy, comunism
Neither of those are necessarily stateless, lurk moar
>>75957948
The same way any other state protects its citizens. A military.
>itt communism is refuted yet again
>>75957972
/thread
>>75957972
>>75957975
depends how you define state
>>75957972
>>75957975
>>75957976
Anarchy is necessarily stateless unless you define "state" in such a way that it means "any group of people who make decisions."
>>75957977
Wrong, many Anarchist movements don't advocate the abolition of government, just the curtailment of it.
>>75957978
How spooky.
>>75957948
Global revolution to get rid of all the states, hence why communism needs to have a dictatorship of the proletariat before statelessness.
Also guns for everyone.
>>75957972
I think it's you who needs to lurk more.
In a library.
>>75957971
this
who /techno-communist/ here?
>>75957948
>citizens
since it's not a state there are no citizens, they protect themselves.
>>75957983
And that of course works out wonderfully.
>>75957971
>automation of labor
so basically, it wouldn't ever happen?
just because a society is stateless doesn't mean its without defense. the defense would have to come from a non-state entity, ie the people who populate the society that is stateless. a people's militia would need to be able to be summoned at any period in time in which the society is threatened. that militia would defend the society from any predatory state.
>>75957985
>le black and white thinking
>>75957987
who would support a fully automated labor force? you couldn't automate all jobs at the same time and that means there would be people losing jobs without the benefits of no-one having to work. people don't like being replaced by robots
>>75957986
who would train this militia?
>>75957989
/fit/ and /k/.
>>75957948
A stateless society would have made itself so unappealing to a foreign power, that they wouldn't want to invade. Sort of like how they say if you are going to be raped make yourself as gross as possible by messing yourself and smearing it all over.
>>75957970
>Anarchy
>Hierarchy
yeah nah.
>>75957990
/out/ can contribute too.
>>75957989
people with experience in combat training who are allied with the stateless society and have an interest in training members of the stateless society to be able to defend themselves.
if it turns out no one has combat experience, the stateless society will have no training, which means they'd be exponentially more likely to get fucked by any predatory state.
>>75957994
>dude they'll just volunteer lmao xD
>>75957995
Isn't that what the army already does?
>>75957995
obviously if those with combat experience don't feel like or want to train the rest of the stateless society then yeah it won't get done. it is about volunteer work.
the OP supposes that there's some sort of predatory state though that still exists in the same timeframe as the stateless society. if the stateless society knows this, and still values their organization and would wish to protect it against predatory states, it is really not unreasonable to expect people who do have combat experience to step forward in an attempt to train the stateless society's members.
your use of greentext does nothing productive aside from pointing out how my response is a common one. what's your grievance with the volunteer response? why isn't it reasonable to you? give me arguments, not memes.
>>75957996
they get paid in the army, for some its an easy paycheck because they can't find work
>>75957997
people want to be rewarded for their time. you're asking people to risk their lives for the sake of this stateless society and assuming that people would do it for free. why would anyone risk their lives for nothing?
>>75957998
>why would anyone risk their lives for nothing?
the continued survival of the stateless society's form of organization is not 'nothing' to the people who are involved in the the stateless society. if you're a part of that sort of community it's because you believe in that form of organization. you're telling me that people would just sit in their houses as a predatory state attacks because they wouldn't be paid a wage for it.
does that make any sense?
>>75957999
why are you assuming nationalism exists in a stateless society?
>>75957998
Then just pay the militiamen.
>>75958001
who funds the militiamen?
>>75958002
The workers by democratically deciding to allocate a certain portion of their income to help fund the militia.
Also not that some, if not all, of the workers may well be miltiamen.
>>75958002
Not him, but how similar is a shared ideology in a spatial area to a nation? And if some would be willing to volunteer I'd assume others would be willing to support them.
>>75958000
its not nationalism since the stateless society is not a nation. it would be better called camaraderie than nationalism. the people of the stateless society are presumably organized in a world that has at least one predatory state that wishes for their demise. they are a part of the stateless society because they either partook in the overthrow of the state that they wished to remove or they were born into it as the spawn of those who did partake in the revolution. those who partook in the revolution most CERTAINLY want to see their new society exist for as long as possible- that's why they overthrew the state in the first place, to establish a new type of society that they want to last.
there's absolutely no reason to assume that the people who populate the stateless society would not want to defend their new form of organization against predatory states. considering the fact that most ideologies that believe in a stateless society also would like to do away with wage work, its also true that your statement that 'people risking their lives for free' is most likely meaningless to these stateless society individuals. they don't care about wages. they care about the continued survival of their new revolutionary form of organization.
you said >>75957998 here that people want to be rewarded for their time. the continued existence of this form of society is its own reward for all who have a vested interest in its continuance.
>>75957999
But in a stateless society, surely the senpai next door can make a predatory attack on you?
What sort of allegiance should you have with people who live by their own rules?
>>75958006
He can.
But he can do that right now as well. Doesn't make it a good idea.
>>75957948
it doesn't, the citizens have to protect themselves
>>75958003
but what if i don't want my money to go to the army?
and who handles that money, assuming people want to give away a portion of their income?
>>75958005
>there's absolutely no reason to assume that the people who populate the stateless society would not want to defend their new form of organization against predatory states
and yet there were people who didn't join in any of the world wars, or other wars for that matter. my opinion is that people won't die for a chance that they may remain a stateless society.
>would like to do away with wage work, its also true that your statement that 'people risking their lives for free' is most likely meaningless
>they don't care about wages
this is why i have to resort to memes, without intention. people don't do stuff for free, when they could get paid for it.
>>75958007
>He can.
But he also knows the state frowns on such activities and he may be prosecuted,unlike in a stateless
'state of nature"
>>75958006
>What sort of allegiance should you have with people who live by their own rules?
on what grounds do you assume the people in the stateless society would live by their own rules (i assume here you mean each individual of the society has their own rules)? its a society specifically because the group that populates it agrees to a certain set of ideas and values by which to run a society. if you think that everyone who populates some commune would live by their own set of rules, that seems rather unfounded to me. presumably this stateless society is a group of people who banded together over a shared value system of how humans should organize. there's no reason to assume one of those values wouldn't be 'probably best not to murder one another'.
let's assume your case is true and someone in the commune does murder their neighbor. i have little reason to assume they wouldn't be kicked out of the commune or straight up shot by other commune members once they were found out.
>>75958009
Then vote against it at work.
>and who handles that money, assuming people want to give away a portion of their income?
I imagine in workplaces where they're dealing with sums of money large enough for it to be any kind of hassle to allocate resources they would just hire an accountant to help manage it.
>I sure do hope those pesky statists don't invade us with their ballistic missiles and warships while we're picking corn n shiet
>>75958010
>state of nature
Most anarchists aren't anarcho primitivists.
And even then no anarchists advocate for acting like atomized individuals, there would still be some form of community prosecution probably aided by a militia.
>>75957948
by conquering all other states first
>>75958012
Okay so for me, anarchism just assumes too much to be valid ideology to me. I really don't want to make the whole >human nature xDD argument but i haven't seen enough evidence of such voluntary camaraderie in real life to believe it can work
>>75958016
Alright, I suppose I can't argue against your own experience.
>>75958014
So it is a state, just a very small one
>>75958009
>and yet there were people who didn't join in any of the world wars, or other wars for that matter. my opinion is that people won't die for a chance that they may remain a stateless society.
the people who didn't want to join the world wars are apolitical individuals. they had no real interest in defending their country because they did not care for it. people in a stateless society are likely going to be revolutionaries who have major political interest, so much so that they've decided to act to create a stateless society. no one today wants to do that aside from very politically interested commies and anarchists. your opinion might be that people don't want to die for a chance that their stateless society may live, but i've been on many leftist forums, and the general consensus of revolutionaries there is that they have no issue dying for their revolution, so long as there's a chance that it may remain. myself included. you may view that irrational. i don't really care. it's how i feel. i'll do it for free, too. cue a funny meme here, i suppose.
>this is why i have to resort to memes, without intention. people don't do stuff for free, when they could get paid for it.
yeah, they certainly don't within the current capitalist paradigm. what we're talking about here is a group of people who fundamentally believe in a completely different set of values on how economics should be done and how humans should organize. this means that ideas of how recompense should be performed are thrown out the window in favor of new ones.
of course, there are other types of stateless societies than communism or anarchism. in an ancap society, yeah i'd expect your case to be true. people would certainly expect to be paid to defend their society in an ancap society. commies simply don't think the same way as ancaps though.
>>75958018
Depends how you define a state.
>>75958019
annoying that the thread got moved, see >>75958016
i don't think we're getting anywhere with this
>>75957966
All it takes is one ^.^
>>75958158
yeah, then we can drop it here. if we have some fundamental disagreement there's no point continuing.
i'll give you an example of what might qualify for you though. native americans defended their society against the american military during the period of time in which americans had an interest in wiping out the native american societies to free up land for colonization. and the natives defended their land without any concept of wages. they defended their land because they believed in the perseverance of their way of life.
why isn't this valid for you? why can't you fathom defense of a society without a wage paid? there are cases of this in history all throughout. the french revolution comes to mind as well. the french revolutionaries defended their state against predatory states without any wages being paid for their effort. their belief their society could continue was enough.
What's with th flags?
[COMMENT HIDDEN IN RESPONSE TO THE EUROPEAN HATE SPEECH CENSORSHIP ACT]
>>75958408
This thread was moved from /his/.
>>75958408
the thread was on /his/ until it got moved here recently. that's why there's no flags.
>>75958448
Holy fuck, I thought it was censorship. Fuck me.
>>75958508
nahh they're all ayyliens
>>75957948
>communism
>stateless
pick one.
>>75958596
>He doesn't know communism is inherently stateless
>/pol/
>Reading books
>>75958596
well, communism as marx envisioned it is stateless. states that attempted communism during the 20th century certainly weren't stateless, which i assume is what your impression is based on.
i would call most commie experiments of the 20th century transitionary at best. marx advocated for a transitionary state if necessary during the transition to communism, and people like lenin took that to heart, with some disastrous results for the people of the countries of russia and others.
i would argue that the commie experiments of the 20th century were also not fundamentally commie in nature, because none that i know of allowed for actual worker ownership of the means of production. in many cases of the 20th century, the state that claimed to be representative of the people became its own ruling class. stalin's party is probably the most well known example. no one can look at stalin's reign and say it was representative of the will of the people.
i'm sure you've heard these arguments before. you're likely to dismiss me because of their frequency. however, i'd implore you to at least consider the validity of these arguments. the communism hasn't been tried meme has a strong hold on much of the first world, but it's not as if it isn't true. many of these experiments are fundamentally different from marx's vision. many never even attempted the basics of what communism is supposed to be! how can you call that communist? i do not know.
>>75957948
It doesn't.
It exists in a fleeting state, waiting for a new form of governance.
>>75958686
>molymemeing communism
the shills are real, and they are retarded
>>75959388
Le 1 dollar man is not a communist, but his expressive smug face makes for great memes.
>>75959388
rare dubs
