Anarchy in theory is great and it is fairly obvious for small societies but it's complicated for me to imagine how a a functional anarchist society would work with more people.
It would need very proactive and trustworthy people. Anyways I want to know how you all think of solving these problems.
The penalty system. I mean like what now is judges, cops, lawyers. I am guessing there will still be laws? I mean who would decide those anyways and if there were no laws ig it would be case specific. I guess people could do that without needing cops and if you get enough people you cpuld also find a system for that instead of laws
Military forces. I mean like an anarchist country could already be a target. So like if you have no defenses you disappear eventually and if that happens what was the point of having an anarchist country. And then like who is keeping all the weapons and stuff. I mean it could technically just once again be a non-for-profit and people who wqnt to fight just fight.
And some person just trying to take the power while getting people join to them. Even if they don't get control a lot of people could die.
Like Idk maybe I am missing something or I'm dumb, well I am but like fkdjmed I was saying like all of these would need proactive, trustworthy, dedicated and good people. But I don't think that's the mayority of people, maybe I may be wrong but idk. Besides from a lot of people being agaonst the whole idea in the first place making it vey hard or almpst impoasible to mantain.
I still wanna hear what you all think of this ans other possible problems that you know of to like clear things up a little more for me, ty!
It takes very little energy to provide mountains of evidence but that doesn't make it bad faith. Just look around at geopolitics to see it at play.
There are no "reasonable alternatives" for those resources; you have them or you don't. Not having them puts you at huge disadvantage against adversaries who use them against you.
What inter-community solidarity will stop endless waves of drones with guns from occupying your critical resources? How will your community plead with the subjugated drone makers on another continent when the subjugator controls all media access?
The plainest fact I can see: the people who control the biggest slices of those pies will have the power to extort and subjugate most people, anarchist or otherwise. And as a corollary, the anarchist society will be at an incredible disadvantage against a state bolstered with subjugated labor.
You're looking right past my question: what preserves a state of anarchy in a sea of state actors? How does a system of voluntary and conditional participation remain cohesive at a scale that can sustain itself in real world conditions, specifically while retaining core anarchist principles?
I'm not opposed to anarchism in general, it makes sense as a personal philosophy and day to day mindset. But I'm baffled by those who believe they can manifest a strong stateless society. I truly don't see how it could be sustained beyond fleeting and niche scenarios. "Go read theory" is a cop out answer for such a basic question.
And unless I missed a section in your reference, none of that touched on my question at all. It's hyper-focused on the internal stabilizing forces of anarchist societies. That's all well and good, but none of it details the specific mechanisms that grant any advantages to preserve anarchism from communists shooting you in the back or colonialists looting your resources.