• hisao@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 个月前

    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
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 个月前

        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
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 个月前

          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
            5
            ·
            8 个月前

            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
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 个月前

            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
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 个月前

              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.

              • jrs100000@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 个月前

                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
                2
                ·
                8 个月前

                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.

      • hisao@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 个月前

        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?