/lit/ - Literature

rape murder and theft

>>16926313
It would be this >>16926317 until sufficiently strong leaders rallied support and seized control, probably ushering in a highly authoritarian society, or perhaps just some kind of brutal Darwinian society

>>16926317
Fpbp

>>16926326
this. anarchyfags are detached from reality

>>16926330

Jolly Cooperation!

>>16926313
We saw it over the summer in CHAZ

>>16926313
AFRICAN AMERICAN MICROPENIS

unless there was an authoritarian body implementing it and making sure no one broke the law, there'd be chaos, anarchy even

>>16926313
Peace, order, individuality and freedom.
Beyond capitalism and the state lies the possibility of a great world.

>>16926313
Only the strong would survive, anarkiddies literally ask for open season on themselves

>>16926313
A state would naturally form again.

>>16926313
Just by enforcing it you’d end up creating the state

There would be moments of chaos and then an authoritarian power would usurp.

>>16926581
State mandated homosexuality

>>16926587
I don't have a problem with that. It's fair.

>>16926603
I'm not gay

>>16926313
a government would form

you need high connection and high personal responsibility + competency/capability for anarchy to work

Our culture is breeding people so incapable, stressed, and fatigued that communism or any sort of big government becomes attractive


Any system can work, it's really just about the identity and values that it harbors.

>>16926707
so in short, in the current age, it would mostly be a disaster

the Amerindians are a pretty decent representation of "primitive" anarchy.
There were tribe battles, obviously, this is always inevitable, but they tended to have a lot of connection between groups.
It's different when there's mass resource control and huge power distributions with weapons tech

>>16926313
It depends. There are many anarchist thinkers. I don't think much about stateless society, but a democratically governed one organized horizontally with appointed community leaders, sounds alot like a government, but it would be the most representative government of human history if done correctly. People would have a say in how their society is organized and ultimate control over who is elected. To think we couldnt create a secure and convenient method of instituting some form of direct democracy in the modern world is fairly absurd.

Maybe minarchy is a better word for what most Anarchists envision. There is some evidence in Chiappas, and Rojava that such a thing can work at least on that small scale. On a large scale, it would seem that small federations like those would be many and would apply themselves to a central goal or a central ecology of human beings and progress. Cooperation is part of human nature, despite what Social Darwinist's may say, mutual aid and cooperation are present even in animal populations. Now we have to imagine that these animals have access to human innovation and technology, given they did, we can imagine it would only increase the ammount of mutual aid they rendered amongst themselves.

The hardest question is how we would prevent central authority from arising and how we would defend our society in the absence of such authority. There are answers within the Anarchist intellectual traditon, but I've gone on quite long.

Indeed, by the end of most Anarchist thought lies Socialism without a authoritarian state, Socialism by and for the people. I quite like Bookchins utopian ideas, and without utopian thinkers, we would probably never have much progress. Only Liberals and Conservatives seem to think things can't change dramatically, only small reforms, but this leaves in power a large group of elites that have proven to not really care about the common man or the common good. Which seems so powerful this time around that society is in a sense paralyzed by their own liberation. I don't consider myself an Anarchist, but I don't write off their ideas without examining them, because I feel like what we have right now is only leading all of humanity down a path of no-return, not just environmentally, but the very fabric of public consciousness is being toyed with and finds itself in a delicate state.

>>16926734
>but a democratically governed one organized horizontally with appointed community leaders, sounds alot like a government, but it would be the most representative government of human history if done correctly.
This is how the early US used to run. It was fine for a city of a few thousands, but as the population grew so did the complexity layers, in order to improve managment.

>>16926627
This. Immediately this. There is no such thing as anarchy, only edgy little shit teenagers who want to be contrary to something.

>>16926317
Those happen now; are we now living in an anarchist world? More so, yes, those things would happen - so what? Anarchism has meant chaos, might makes right - that changed when communists infected anarchism with democracy & order.
>perhaps just some kind of brutal Darwinian society
So? As if civilization isn't brutal enough now; you have been paying attention? We don't live in peaceful times; and never will.
>>16926734
>. There are many anarchist thinkers. I don't think much about stateless society, but a democratically governed one organized horizontally with appointed community leaders, sounds alot like a government, but it would be the most representative government of human history if done correctly. P
This is just mutualism. Bookchin builds off of Proudhon, as does modern " social anarchism." Co-operatives, communes, the solidarity economy, unions, public ownership etc these things are practical, but they are not discussed as much.

>>16926765
this. anarchy is a transitory state

>>16926765
To be completely honest, anarchism is all around us. There tons of people who simply who do not follow the law such as criminals, bandits, assassines, gang members, vagabonds - there are tons people who live an anarchistic lifestyle. More so, there is no such thing as a human that lives forever, neither is there a government that lasts forever. When people call "anarchism" edgy - its usually because they're overly sensitive about the implications of their mortality. Death scares you; but you can not stop it no matter what ideological bind you hid yourself behind. As long as humans have the courage to do as they please, with the power they possess, they will do the things you fear and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

Same thing that has always happened, it collapses in a few months.

free booba

>>16926789
you are a retard

>>16926857
Stop projecting

>>16926896
no

free pussy for everyone

>>16926313
The anarchists have to form a state to prevent other people from forming a state.

>>16926990
But they don't have time to think out republic due to foreign threats, so they just pick the best guy for the job to run shit.
And then Thomas Hobbes will rise from the grave and save us from our sins

>>16926313
We already live in anarchy. Society is barely real.