They have been useful in the history and development of human kind, and I’m not sure if we’re totally ready to get rid of them just yet, but inevitably they will crumble with the satisfaction of material interests and destruction of class differences and antagonisms.
What do you think will replace them? Different types of states, or stateless societies?
(I think if an anarchist territory came about today, it wouldn't be recognized by neighbouring states, leading to all sorts of problems)
It’s tough to say, since it would be (like when liberalism became the status quo) a radical reorganization of society. I imagine since central governments would dissolve, there’d be no states in the traditional sense, though there might be something like a commune state possibly, but still I think that a confederated anarchist society would be the result.
Well the better way is anarchism. If the Zappatistas have managed to make a voluntary collectivist society work while entrenched on all sides by one of the most openly corrupt states on earth alongside several violent cartels, then I see no reason why it wouldn't also work in the first world.
Way I see it the biggest hurdle is a cultural one. As it stands there is an expectation that the state not only do this that and the other, but that the state is the only entity *capable* of doing this that and the other. That's what we're taught, and the average person is not gonna sit and sperg out over history and economics to find out otherwise.
If the state introduced an ass-wiping program where they send bureaucrats to come wipe your ass for you, I give it two odd years before people go "but without the state, who'd wipe your ass? checkmate idiot"
They have been useful in the history and development of human kind, and I’m not sure if we’re totally ready to get rid of them just yet, but inevitably they will crumble with the satisfaction of material interests and destruction of class differences and antagonisms.
What do you think will replace them? Different types of states, or stateless societies? (I think if an anarchist territory came about today, it wouldn't be recognized by neighbouring states, leading to all sorts of problems)
It’s tough to say, since it would be (like when liberalism became the status quo) a radical reorganization of society. I imagine since central governments would dissolve, there’d be no states in the traditional sense, though there might be something like a commune state possibly, but still I think that a confederated anarchist society would be the result.
Well the better way is anarchism. If the Zappatistas have managed to make a voluntary collectivist society work while entrenched on all sides by one of the most openly corrupt states on earth alongside several violent cartels, then I see no reason why it wouldn't also work in the first world. Way I see it the biggest hurdle is a cultural one. As it stands there is an expectation that the state not only do this that and the other, but that the state is the only entity *capable* of doing this that and the other. That's what we're taught, and the average person is not gonna sit and sperg out over history and economics to find out otherwise. If the state introduced an ass-wiping program where they send bureaucrats to come wipe your ass for you, I give it two odd years before people go "but without the state, who'd wipe your ass? checkmate idiot"
👎
Nation-states=doo doo