NationStates Jolt Archive

First, let us not make this an argument as to whether anarchism itself is practical. Let us take that as given.

So in the event of isolated anarchism, be it that society which lies outside of state borders or a society that creates its own borders of liberty, how does it handle interaction with external states?

So, we're arguing that an outside state would recognize the anarchist communities territory, and how would the anarchist community deal with these states?

I'm guessing it would't on a collective level. Perhaps in individual or community levels, unless the entire anarchistic community just happened to agree unanimously on the same decision.

Trade agreements would be with individual or collective enterprises, as opposed to a 'state'. Theoretically, individual communities or organizations could raid or declare war on an outside state, and the outside state would most likely invade the anarchist community in retaliation, regardless of what the rest of the anarchist community thought.

Really, it would be like dealing with a nation full of municipalities, and you make agreements with the municipalities instead of at the national level.

since it would be in the interest of any state to demonstrate that anarchism wouldn't work the society could not persist for long with all the sanctions and other sabotage that would be perpetrated against it.

Trade agreements would be with individual or collective enterprises,Or with anarcho-syndicalist labor federations.

Or with anarcho-syndicalist labor federations.

Yeah, basically what I was getting at with collective enterprises. I'm less fluent in anarchist-ese. :p

Basically, it would be a much different place to do business, since you can't even gaurantee that the same economic standards will prevail. An anarchist community may decide to accept another nation's currency, knowing that they could use that currency for trade elsewhere, all the while not using currency on a local, communal level.

First, let us not make this an argument as to whether anarchism itself is practical. Let us take that as given.

So in the event of isolated anarchism, be it that society which lies outside of state borders or a society that creates its own borders of liberty, how does it handle interaction with external states?

An anarchist state is hardly concievable, unfathomably impratical, and certainly unforseeable (at least in the near future). So, I guess my question is, how can you make the practicality of an anarchist state a given when we are dealing in a theoretical quandary?

It probably doesnt handle its neighbors - its neighbors handle it.

An anarchist community is necessarily pretty small, in real life, since not everyone is willing to commit himself to playing by the rules when the stakes are so high.

Important to remember that 'anarchist communes' used to be how the entire world was set up, but every single society above a certain population range - without exception - abandoned it.

It is impossible to say how long a small, modern-tech anarchist commune would last, because it is impossible to predict how long it would be before someone decided to stop playing by the rules or come in with a bigger army and steamroller the party.

So, we're arguing that an outside state would recognize the anarchist communities territory, and how would the anarchist community deal with these states?

I'm guessing it would't on a collective level. Perhaps in individual or community levels, unless the entire anarchistic community just happened to agree unanimously on the same decision.

Trade agreements would be with individual or collective enterprises, as opposed to a 'state'. Theoretically, individual communities or organizations could raid or declare war on an outside state, and the outside state would most likely invade the anarchist community in retaliation, regardless of what the rest of the anarchist community thought.

Really, it would be like dealing with a nation full of municipalities, and you make agreements with the municipalities instead of at the national level.

The question of war is the central problem in my mind. Adverse relations with external states seems to be the ultimate externality in an anarchic system.

It could be argued that the members of a society would have an ideological aversion to states, and wouldn't associate with them in the first place, but this harkens to that social revolution that I consider a pipe dream.

The problem with anarchism is the same with all markets: What happens when individuals learn that they can allay the costs of their actions through the rest of society?

Trade, on the other hand I would consider to be a method of protection for the anarchist society, and even a way of eroding neighboring states.

It certainly has in my bedroom :rolleyes:

The question of war is the central problem in my mind. Adverse relations with external states seems to be the ultimate externality in an anarchic system.It's a nobrainer.

The ruling class is the state. Without the state, they're just middle class like everyone else.

A functioning anarchy invalidates the justifications given by the ruling class to the middle class, for why they should be ruling class, instead of middle class.

In other words, a functional anarchy will either bring about the end of every state on the planet (eventually), or it'll be destroyed by however many states it takes to do it. Spain is a fine example.