TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [230]  1
2
 3  4  5  6  7 ... 10

Is a completely stateless society possible?:

 26 Mrs Ratched, Fri, 30th Dec '11 11:31:25 AM from Dorne Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
The guy nobody likes
[up][up] I hope you will understand that suggest a form of organization tha would be reminiscent of the kind of social systems of the earliest form of civilizations such as tribes, comunes or even first christians doesn't apply to the way much complex world of today. If it's unarguable that free trade and exchange is the most perfect and valuable form of human economic interaction, in the social system derived from that way of understanding the peoples relations we need a government. From Greeks who first understood the need of a supreme organ to put order of the resources, thus different interpretations of the concept will differ from polis to polis as for the authoritarian council of Spartha or the Athens democracy, the existence of a government and organization needed a hierarchy as mandatory, so the tasks can be distributed in a clear stablished chain of authority. In History have no existed any society that have not worked in this manner, in a way or another. Usual anarchists put the examples of the Paris commune, but as long as it was a very few people it could worked at the time, and, pityful, french army didn't let us see how long it would have last. In a medium european capital city, as of nowadays, no assembly or commune or anarchist form of organization is possible, for example. Anarchy is just a cute idea, that doesn't apply in Real Life
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Ace of Spades: Again, organization is not the same thing as hierarchy. Yes, leadership and direction of information flow are necessary for high-level organization, but you can remain pretty damn anarchist by divorcing that leadership from borders and authorization of force. Thus my idea about the "millions of borderless nonexclusive nations".

Really, I see the biggest problem being corporate espionage. Big business outside can Zerg Rush our little Anarchia with a bunch of immigrants who are being well paid to join communes and vote in favour of the outside interests that fund them.
Well of course, according to how anarchism works, justice is local. So if you are determined to be actively undermining the local society for payment from a foreign organisation you are liable to punishment. The question is how effective such a measure would be.

 29 Mrs Ratched, Fri, 30th Dec '11 11:40:24 AM from Dorne Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
The guy nobody likes
@Radical Taoist

In fact, that is the usual contradiction of anarchists. Anarchists talk about having leaders without authority, and just defend the existence of militia, or army, or another of the current branches of government without a government. Well, that's just a big mess, there are precedents.
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Mdm Ratchet: There is a lot of variety in anarchist schools of thought. I am only an anarchist in the sense that I find the nation-state model to be innately and critically flawed, and believe that we can do better. I am willing to tolerate government depending on the context of the governing; I'm a big fan of borderless nations, kibbutzim, city-states, and other alternative models. I am a much "softer" anarchist than Savage Heathen or others who find the notion of a state entirely intolerable. My concern is more with concentration of power rather than whatever organization of people you can call a "state".
 31 Flyboy, Fri, 30th Dec '11 2:43:58 PM from the United States
Decemberist
Is a completely stateless society possible?

  • 1) Yes, it is possible.
  • 2) No, it's not practical.
  • 3) Even in your hypothetical, there is a government: the unions, the communes, etc. Any governing body is a government, even if it doesn't call itself that. A country controlled by transnational corporations? They're the government. If anything, it's a centrally-planned authoritarian socialist system at that point, because the government, more than likely, owns everything and runs everything as it will. A corporate-controlled nation is almost exactly the same as the Soviet Union and their authoritarian socialism. To that end, unless you literally have no organizations whatsoever, union, corporation, formal, traditional government, or otherwise, you have a government—it just isn't what we normally think of when we say the word.

And thus, as stateless, government society is totally and utterly impractical, and should not be considered a feasible goal by any stretch of the term.
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."
 32 Lost Anarchist, Fri, 30th Dec '11 3:21:22 PM from Neo Arcadia Itself
Violence Is Necessary!
I approved of the stateless society ONLY in theory/on paper.

In practice, said anarchist society would inevitably become: (1) a monarchy whose leader(s) is the one(s) with the most resources, (2) a police state whose authority is the one(s) with biggest guns, or (3) an authoritarian state where everyone ends up eventually oppressed again, or fighting another revolution as a result of (1) or (2) taking place.

...And that all could happen in a failed state before at its most desperate, anarchy becomes a feasible solution for the people.

Too bad like someone said earlier, it's becoming more and more unfeasible an ideal (despite how oppressive/suppressive everything is becoming worldwide, what with all the pocketed wars erupting and failing economies everywhere in need of control. Just sayin'.)...
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio
Gunpla is amazing!
Lets not forget a state society could just go "Oh look, resources, defended by a poorly organized militia, om nom nom nom"

edited 30th Dec '11 3:23:44 PM by Thorn14

 34 Major Tom, Fri, 30th Dec '11 3:25:32 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
^ Welcome to the last 5000 years of human history.
Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Wouldn't sabotage and harassment by the militiamen make foreign resource exploitation unprofitable?

edited 30th Dec '11 4:00:08 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 36 Major Tom, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:12:29 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
Nope. Such methods of "defense" usually result in full scale invasion and destruction of the militia and state.
Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
 37 Octo, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:15:04 PM from Germany
Prince of Dorne
Vietnam says hi.

(Yes there was a central government, a very rigid one in fact, but the point is 'guerilla tactics to make the entire thing too damn expensive to bother' is something that does work)

edited 30th Dec '11 4:15:50 PM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
 38 Major Tom, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:16:29 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
Vietnam was a conventional invasion post-1968. (The Viet Cong ceased to be an effective fighting force after Tet.)
Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
[up] There's Afghanistan... And every other place with a long-running guerrilla war, which is most places.

A foreign power fighting for ideological reasons might accept a long war, significant casualties and runaway expenses to wipe out the militia... But a foreign power in to exploit a resoruce is likely to fold as soon as their plunder scheme goes in the red without much hope of getting profitable in the foreseeable future.

edited 30th Dec '11 4:19:14 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
 40 Major Tom, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:21:51 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
But a foreign power in to exploit a resoruce is likely to fold as soon as their plunder scheme goes in the red without much hope of getting profitable in the foreseeable future.

History doesn't share that opinion. 95% of the time the nation being harassed will just clamp down and destroy the harassers. The few times it works are exceptions not the rule.
Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
 41 Radical Taoist, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:24:55 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
In practice, said anarchist society would inevitably become:
Many of the societies of the pre-Colombian Americas were stateless tribal democracies for thousands of years before the white men came in and said hi.
Lets not forget a state society could just go "Oh look, resources, defended by a poorly organized militia, om nom nom nom"
This is the most important factor. Like I said, it will come down to logistics, terrain, and manpower. Afghanistan is a better example than Vietnam. Hell, Iraq might be an example depending on how its current government collapses and whether or not we have the sense to stay the fuck out of it.
 42 Octo, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:30:00 PM from Germany
Prince of Dorne
[up][up]Most big empires in history have found a stop to their expansion in exactly that principle - that conquering some areas would just not be worth it. That's why free Germania was mostly left alone by the Romans after the Battle of the Teuteborg Forrest, for example.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
 43 Major Tom, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:41:43 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
That's why free Germania was mostly left alone by the Romans after the Battle of the Teuteborg Forrest, for example.

So being decisively defeated in battle is "not worth it" in the same sense as sabotage? Something is wrong with that logic.

edited 30th Dec '11 4:45:55 PM by MajorTom

Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
 44 Octo, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:51:25 PM from Germany
Prince of Dorne
I said afterwards. There were some expeditions in later centuries, but basically only Augustus really tried to conquer the territory, and we know how that ended. Afterward there weren't even serious attempts anymore, because as was shown it was not worth the effort.

And really, the same principle extended to several Empires. It's the reason China never expanded northwards, or why the Persian Empire never did beyond what's called Turkestan nowaday, either. Those territories were just not worth it.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
 45 Major Tom, Fri, 30th Dec '11 4:55:01 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
And yet you are still equating a decisive military defeat to be the same kind of thing as simple sabotage. Sabotage hasn't stopped empires in their tracks, defeats have.
Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
 46 Flyboy, Fri, 30th Dec '11 5:04:03 PM from the United States
Decemberist
Nobody has addressed my point that these aren't really stateless societies. A tribal set-up is still a government, after all. Just a small one...
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."
 47 Octo, Fri, 30th Dec '11 5:15:57 PM from Germany
Prince of Dorne
[up][up]The Teutoborg Battle did not stop the Romans for hundred of years afterwards. The consideration that this miserable land practically entirely covered by thick forrest and swamps, populated by a people on a lower cultural standing than even the Celts, that is what did.

Not sabotage, no. But that's not the point anyway.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
 48 Mrs Ratched, Fri, 30th Dec '11 5:16:29 PM from Dorne Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
The guy nobody likes
IMAO It isn't possible such thing like a "Stateless society wit3h no hierarchy" that is not "shoot your neighbor for a potato", and even...
@ Flyboy

Well to be fair, the point isn't for no government. The point of anarchism is to have no entrenched authority. That is very difficult to achieve for any long period of time.

@ Tom/Octo

I would say that in the long run, any venture that is not economic will eventually be given up on. The reason why Tom can say that resistance movements have failed a lot of times in history is because those are typically about ventures which were quite economical despite the resistance. So really it's not just that there is resistance, it has to be sufficient resistance.

The history of most empires probably jives with that. Chinese/Roman/Ottoman you name it, expansion of their land only held up when they had the resources to take it and the defenders didn't have the resources to defend it, and once taken provided more than enough income to make up for it. It was a lot easier back then because you just needed to defeat some military. These days, there's no way you can make any venture profitable with the entrenchment of nationalism, religion and other ideals.

US canned Iraq's military in a month. Then bled hundreds of billions a year after the "victory". In today's world, resistance does in fact do in any sort of economic invasion.

 50 Flyboy, Fri, 30th Dec '11 7:31:26 PM from the United States
Decemberist
A government is an entrenched authority, is it not?

Stateless anarchism literally cannot exist for any length of time. Humans naturally tend towards organization. You would have to impose an unmovable force upon society to keep any and all organization from happening, which we could not feasibly do with what we have now.
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."
Total posts: 230
 1
2
 3  4  5  6  7 ... 10


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy