Has a stateless society ever existed? If so, where and when?

Has a stateless society ever existed? If so, where and when?

Other urls found in this thread:


define 'state'


The earliest human societies of hunters and gatherers were all stateless anarcho-primitivist paradises tbh.

the means of institutional rule over a defined or sovereign territory

A majority of humanities existence and nearly everywhere, maybe?

90% of human history

Communes and isolated villages could be thought of as stateless.

David Graeber touches on how some anarchist societies function in his essay "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology":

abahlali.org/files/Graeber.pdf (you can start at page 24)

Yes. Quite a lot. Study anthropology.

Ive always found this question weird, its as if human beings are un-able to imagine a society that is different from their own and any other possibility of society that could function and has. Cant tell if its because of years of propaganda or general human ignorance.

Would the Iroquois Confederacy count as a state?

Its a confederacy.

Its kinda in the name.

I think it has a lot to do with how people define "society". For most people, a society is a modern nation state. That's why their brain fries when trying to imagine an anarchist society.
But yes this is why anthropology has the potential to be such a radical science; it studies ways to organize social relations differently.

Ukrainian Free Territory
Native American tribes

Recommend some anthropology books that deal with it, please.

Also, how would the law function in a stateless society?

IIRC, Engels, Marx and Bookchin based a lot of their works on Anthrapologists's work.
It was Lewis H Morgan for the the first two whereas Bookchin used more recent work but i don't remember who he used as a reference..

Thanks. From what I know Morgan and evolutionary anthropology are considered outdated by now.

why is lenin on a picture with a bunch of anarchist bullshit on the side?

Anarkiddies just have to ruin everything

Lenin used anarchist propaganda in order to gain power when the population were more for anarchist slogans. Only when in a position of power did he really show his true colors of the parasitic politician and power grabber he was.

Marx and Lenin were very much libertarian socialists. Marxism-Leninism couldn't be more detached from them.

Not in any recent memory

that's a good question

remember when lenin wrecked kronstandt and makhno

wrong they were totalitarian assholes

trotsky actually

kill yourself
t. a narcho

there is a lot to learn from lenin and marx, even if the soviet union was a mistake

Pic related and I'm reeeeeally curious about what bullshit you'll dig up to sustain this argument.

The Russian Marxists such Plekhanov and Lenin had been fighting Anarchism since the 19th century, the Second International usually forbade them from joining. If you think he used "anarchist propaganda" because he said something negative about the state then oh boy are you validating every one of those "anarchists don't know theory/history" stereotypes.

I don't know what you mean by that, but you're probably wrong

You forgot about Korea and the Paris Commune

a confederacy isn't necessarily a state.


oh boy you are so wrong

Read the State and revolution. If you know anything about the climate in Russia during the revolution, you'd know that the anarchists were actually in the majority, and produced quite a lot of propoganda. The Bolsheviks and Lenin took these slogans like "all power to the soviets" and various others and co-opted them into the Bolshevik program. This drew the most active and militant of those on the ground during the revolution, and pulled them to the Bolsheviks side, hoping to make good on their promises. However, as we all know, the Bolsheviks (and by contrast Lenin) immediately made the soviets answer to the party, killing any chance at a true workers revolution, followed up by mass killings and imprisonment of former anarchist comrades.

Fuck Lenin, he was nothing more than an opportunistic politician, saying what he needed to say to gain power in hoping of becoming a new Cesar. Im happy he died crippled and delusional.

Your right. i wasnt implying it was a state.

If you read anarchist propaganda in the State and Revolution, you haven't read the State and Revolution. Every time anarchism is mentioned there it's as part of a criticism.

Hahaha no they fucking were not. Again, bring up sources instead of just talking out of your ass.

Their power literally grew out of the Soviets, what would have been of the revolution without support of soviets like the Petrograd one? And they had power of vote, and they chose the Bolsheviks.

This is you trying to push Kronstadt mythology where nothing of the sort happened. Whenever anarchists are too lazy to study the history of a certain revolutionary period, they just assume they did all the work and were betrayed by the evil statists in the end.