• hisao@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Theoretically maybe, but empirically, humanity was completely unstructured at the beginning and currently not a single anarchist society exists. Why do you think everyone transformed into various kinds of nation-states eventually? Because nation-states were exceptionally good at filling that “power vacuum”. To overpower nation-states, something at least comparable is needed. Transnational corporations/syndicates/unions, something like that.

      • jrs100000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Which ones? There are few places on Earth that are not under practical control of a formal government and legal system, and most of those places are either unpopulated or controlled by various local power brokers.

        • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 hours ago

          exarcheia and anabaptist sects come directly to mind, but you’ve just excluded them for some reason. it seems like no-true Scotsman to me.

          • hisao@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            exarcheia and anabaptist

            Do those guys build their own roads, pipes for water and heat, homes, bake bread, make drugs, provide healthcare? Or do they depend on external nation-states and their economy to exist?

          • jrs100000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 hours ago

            It seems like a pretty good reason to exclude them, considering the criticism being discuss was specifically that they would inevitably decay in to a “might makes right” situation. Communities existing in a situation where police and courts would prevent someone from taking over by force disqualifies them from disproving this hypothesis.

            • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              there simply isn’t evidence of some causal mechanism by anarchist societies must decay. their hypothesis can’t be proven. I didn’t even know how it could be tested.

              • hisao@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                15 hours ago

                Why this mechanism has to be casual? Nation-states exist, just imagine existing state like Russia, China or America deciding to take over your anarchist society.

              • jrs100000@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                18 hours ago

                I’m not sure what you want exactly. Its pretty hard to prove a negative, but that does not make the inverse true.

      • hisao@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        In the context of previous message I meant anarchist society comparable to state, at least very small state. Not just a club of shared interests with members living their lives in regular nation-states. Do you have any examples in mind?