Is a completely stateless society possible?

How would you deal with corrupt unions wherein the bosses further their own interests rather than the interests of their members? Or would you advocate some body other than a union to serve as a communist vanguard?

I mean, I'm not for Marxism or any sort of communism for that matter, so I don't know if I'm grasping the theory correctly, but I'm interested in political philosophy.

He stated that a boss could be demoted on the spot, by popular vote. If I remember this correctly.

But what if he is too Charismatic, is too popular and/or is right and people vote for him to stay?

Isn't a self solving problem? A leader that does what the members want is a leader that is doing what he is supposed to be doing.

The general idea is that it'd be something like current democratic organisations, with more transparency and a full fledged recall system.

@ Savage: The trouble is that, even though there is no Government for the whole of Somalia, there is Government — the areas of Puntland and Somaliland have functional Governments, for example.

Good in principle, but like all systems, it is open to abuse and coercion by both internal and external forces; like someone, otherwise good, being recalled due to the colour of a shirt he wore one day, for example, or someone becoming a Dictator by Popular Approval and then changing the rules (possibly with approval?), for a more serious example...

edited 7th Jan '12 6:22:47 AM by Greenmantle

That's kind of what I saw. Let's say the leader does whatever the people want, or that it's a direct democracy. And now, the fun begins when people associate by their union.

"Hey, we've got a bad harvest this year, eh?"
"Yep!"
"The folks over there had better! They don't need that much!"
"Yeah!"
(everyone draws weapons and goes to "distribute the goods")

I am also reminded of that time when the Athenians sent a war fleet to exterminate some poor island which offended them, and couple of hours later sent a courier to stop them, because they changed their mind. Luckily for the islanders, he was faster than the war fleet.

...and that is how Countries begin.

Can a stateless society exist?

Well, I suppose that depends on how you define "the State." If you ask me the answer to the question is "no" because there will always be some de facto authority that acts as the State. Whether it be a complex heirachy with nationwide infrastructure or one guy who dominates everyone else in the room, it'll be there. It's human nature to work cooperativley and heirachy is a natural extension from that.

That's a very loose definition of the State. Sure, under that definition everyone's statist: If anarchist unions are seen as the government, anarcho-syndicalism is merely liberal Titoism.

But there is meaningful difference between anarchist government and statism: A State has established authorities enjoying special status, where some guys make rules and other dudes enforce them through a monopoly on force. It is possible for the State to persecute consensual activity or to enforce an unequal distribution of property. In fact, that's what States do.

Unlike States, anarchism has no legislators, no police and no court system. They solve such issues differently:

• Instead of a police force, anarchists rely on a militia: The militia ain't a distinct body with authority over the population, it's the population in arms itself. It is impossible to subject the people to any restriction at all, for no rule can be enforced except what the community care to enforce themselves, risking to get their own asses shot in the process. Most of the non-violent stuff currently criminalized wouldn't be, since there'd be no way to even attempt to enforce the ban.
• Rules are informal, ad-hoc, and subject to direct democracy: Only those involved in the particular projects or communities are subject to those rules. It stands to reason that those elected to run the factory will decide how it's run, but their dictates don't apply to the general population, and their fiat can always be revoked by those under it (at a whim): Every rule and every position is always subjected to recall. De facto, only those affected by something get a say in it.
• It's likely that trials of some sort would take place, but there wouldn't be a judicial system that the elites could influence: You can have equity through a people's jury or a mutually agreed arbitration. As for outright aggressions against the People, that's what the militia is for: To root out or weed out those that violate the people's rights (like violent criminals) and those who would abolish the people's liberty.

An anarchist society is perfectly able to coerce a murderer or an armed robber, but coercive institutions are much less developed. A smaller, weaker, informal government has much less potential for abuse than a modern police State.

edited 7th Jan '12 9:17:53 AM by SavageHeathen

I would argue that those elected to run a factory become a government and the methods with which it operates and the means in which its decisions are enacted become a State. The specific details aren't really relevant to the question - ultimatley you still end up with decision makers (government) and the means in which decisions are carried out (the State). It might be on a really, really, really small and localised scale but it's still the same basic principle.

Lemme guess, you're a neo-Realist.

edited 7th Jan '12 9:41:27 AM by SavageHeathen

I brought up the same point a few pages ago, Bat Pencil. I think, ultimately, that the concept of "statelessness" and how it's defined by anarchists in general is an attempt to rationalize the fact that no matter what they do, there will be government, and thus they must accept some relatively miniscule governing body to function as a society...

Even if there is no state, there shall always be some sort of authority. John Stuart Mill, for example, contended that the worst oppression isn't oppression by the state, but the oppression of public opinion.

I'd disagree: Public opinion ain't gonna take away my rights and freedoms. The State can, and if they want, they will.

edited 7th Jan '12 2:46:20 PM by SavageHeathen

Public opinion is more dangerous because the public doesn't need a government to take away your individuality.

And public opinion is the reason why things like institutionalized racism exist in democratic societies so it's not an all-good kind of thing.

Mill's argument was that rights are easier to safeguard against the state; if the state limits your rights, you can go to the courts, appeal to the constitution or, if there's no recourse remaining, rise up against it. Conversely, there's little or no formal defence against being oppressed by your peers because they outnumber you.

For example (let's discount the possibility of violent revolution for the purposes of this example), imagine a law that can be overturned when a forward-thinking government comes into power, then consider deep-rooted social attitudes which encourage, simply by way of example, the objectification of women or suppression of gay people. Which is more oppressive in the long-run?

Of course, I suppose one must take into account the extent to which one sustains the other.

edited 7th Jan '12 4:01:52 PM by TheGloomer

Adding to Tom's statement, institutionalized racism has probably led to a lot of cover ups of hate inspired murders that have never been solved. If the state goes after you, it needs a fucking good reason. If the public goes after you, well, they can find ways to be accountable to no one.

The US state is specifically set up so that wrongs can usually be addressed. It's a matter of the public using those methods and educating themselves in them. In the proposed anarchist society, if someone comes to murder you, you and your relatives have no method to obtain justice. At best, you get a cycle of revenge.

Hmph, going by the title of this, I'd say Savage Heathen discovered that the world does not run according to a fantasy anarchy society.

The facts: Your militia, you act like its gonna be a saintlike thing that is always gonna run the way you want it to. The fact is, it won't. That relies too much on people not falling into a mob morality, and on massive numbers of people all thinking the same exact way. Humans are ambitious things and having such an expectation is kinda laughable. And not everyone will be able to become this "population at arms."

Those people will be trampled on, it will become a purely social darwinist country where the strong devour the weak as their morning meal, as the weak struggle to become the strong before the fork reaches their flesh.

And needless to say, next door neighbor countries will not like a free state like that. Freedom is a dangerous, evil thing if left uninhibited. Thus, in order to stop drug running and other...less than savory...occupations anarchy would technically allow, because the population at arms cannot be everywhere at once and cannot possibly be unstoppable, other states would destroy your anarchy.

I'd estimate that the one to do it would be the United States, or maybe England or Russia, or maybe even China. China HATES druggies, don't you know.

^ Dude, Somalia has enough military power to destroy an anarchist militia state. And they don't have a functioning central government! (Numerous warlord/religious/local governments but no central system as the rest of the world has.)

edited 7th Jan '12 6:34:23 PM by MajorTom

They don't have an organized army the way a country with a central government does, though. Which means they, as a country, don't stand much of a chance against a larger, more centralized force. Those different factions don't exactly look out for each other much.

While China hates all kinds of vice inside their borders, it doesn't hate druggies to the point of foreign military intervention. Pretty much only the US does... To a point. They didn't invade Netherlands for their decrim, for example. And Russia tends not to invade countries that don't border it.

If you consider "people doing stuff you disapprove of" as evil, yeah, you can say freedom is evil. Enjoy your police State, but don't whine later if the thugs in power choose to criminalize your lifestyle. Today, they come for the evil commies/druggies/scapegoat du jour. Who can tell which poor schmucks will be targeted tomorrow? Can you really guarantee that you won't be the next scarecrow du jour?

As for anarchist militias being unreliable... That's inversely proportional to the number of anarchists in them: Most anarchist militias were largely staffed by activists, and they remained loyal for the duration of their careers.

edited 7th Jan '12 7:00:40 PM by SavageHeathen

Question for SH: If I love my country, and have no problem whatsoever with my taxes and government, and the majority of people agree and are happy...

why should I listen to you?

edited 7th Jan '12 6:59:31 PM by Erock

Well the topic of the thread is whether it is possible but I don't think SH is arguing to destroy an existing society if the members of it like it (unless of course he believes they only like it due to brainwashing or whatever).

@ SH:

But wouldn't that lead to someone being (literally) Convicted by Public Opinion, even if the crime in question wasn't perpectuated by the person?

And anyway, if you're unpopular or Convicted by Public Opinion, I can see, for example, busiess co-operatives (for example, farms, their workplace etc.), banning someone from using their goods or services — in other words, depriving them of their rights in doing so. Additionally, it is possible the Milita might decide to hunt someone down based on a malicious rumour alone (especially if the above applies).

It can fall down rather easily. That's why the Legal system exists in the First Place...