How shall anarchism function after an anarchist revoltuion? I've often heard people say "Anarchism means no rulers...

:(

I sincerely hope that this is bait.

bump

You people seem to forget that non anarchist communists also want a stateless society, they should be able to answer as well.

this

I don't think Anarchism can work since without a government it leaves a hole people will try to fill with a new government either from the inside or outside invading forces. You need some sort of constitutionally restricted small government to keep another gov from taking over even if the gov created to prevent this has no ruler.

Anarchism doesn't mean no government, it means no state.

Just read 'Khleb I Volia' or something.

The guy above said no government.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

When he was asked about councils working together to sort things out, or federation per say, he said no that's not anarchism.

Not even remotely the same thing, you're conflating things the way normalfags think socialism=big government. Holy shit, okay I'm going to try and spell it out for you here.

This is a bit more simplified and there may be some people that will disagree with me breaking it down this much, but Anarchism is about participatory politics, rather than representational politics. A "council" is not anarchistic as it would fulfill the same function as a state. In other words, a smaller contingent of a population is given an undue amount of control over the remaining populace, whom have little or no means to manifest their own power except through the cooperation of that smaller group. This relationship is inherently hierarchical and anti-democratic.

This is not the same as having no government. A government=/=a state/council/etc. In an Anarchist society, their is no differentiation among the populace of who is "in" the government, and who is "out" of it. The entire population becomes the governing force, with each individual having equal power with which they can choose to use or not. Hence, participatory. It's similar to how Socialism abolishes the ruling class turns everyone into working class.

So is Rojava a bad example of Anarcho-communism?

So how do things like roads and infrastructure get built?

...

No but seriously,

I understand the concept of the roads being built because the people who build the road will know, if they contribute people will have no issue helping them with their needs.

But what about the people who just sit on their asses all day?

Also, what stops me from coming over to your house and shooting you and taking your land?

But you can't have a state without a government as that is what defines it as a state nor can you have a government without a state because a state would be unlikely to allow a separate gov from their own gov so they go hand in hand really. Sure that has taken place in the past for example the Ottomon Empire had Sharia Law rule the Muslims while Christian and Jew had ruling over their people but still even then they controlled thing to make sure the Jews and Christian did not have as much rights as Muslims. So state and government are hardly separate entities.

if you really care than just read a book

They are entirely separate entities, which is what Anarchism is all about.
What is this even supposed to mean? You can't have a government without a state because the nonexistent state won't let it?

Can you just give me a condensed version, humour me?

You know what, sure.

You're still thinking in terms of a capitalist society here.
We're talking Communism here; people sitting on their asses all day isn't a problem to begin with. People do not labor in the name of compensation for living expenses, those are maintained communally regardless.
The law, same as now. Remember, no rulers=/=no rules. You don't need a state for a populace to enforce its rules.

Okay makes sense.

I have Das Kapital coming in the mail so, I will begin reading soon comrade.

We don't live in an era before the creation of governments and states. An anarchic rule does not have effect on states outside the area where these rules takes effect so it still is a state from how it is contained in a specific geographic area. Its borders are the borders of the outlying states.

Okay I think I get what you're saying, and my answer is that you have no idea what constitutes a state.

There's more communication on the chans than anywhere else in current government, anonymously being heard should be understood as a net positive, for those on here especially…

We've yet to experience majority law, which will continue to be easily corruptible, but infinitely more self correcting, and insuring actual representation of common interests.

My understanding being different from yours does not automatically make me wrong. In all definitions of a state they always include government in their definition as far as I have seen. Every definition of government I have seen describes it as a group of people controlling the state. Any anarchy that has rules and contained within a specific area is not without government and not without state. I do not see how there is a flaw to this deduction.

The government wouldn't have a monopoly on violence.

Your first assessment is correct, a state requires a government in order to function. What I mean by saying "you don't understand what a state is" is that you seem to be taking it to mean a physical area of space cordoned off, ie a country or what have you. This is not the case. A "state" is more or less, the "ruling party". This includes the law makers, the law enforcement, military, etc. Those which enforce those arbitrary boundaries to begin with.

I've already explained Anarchism is not without a government. When I say it is without a state, what I mean is there is no "ruling party". Because all citizens of the society function with equal power within the government, ie the governing of the society, there is no divide into two separate groups, a citizenry and a state. Thus, the "state" is abolished. Borders has nothing to do with it.

Not entirely what I meant but I can see how you would think that. If there is no unified rules there is no state. I am aware of that. I was specifically talking about a form of anarchy with unified rules because if it was lawlessness and individual people I do not think it would last long before a government forms. I just think even if the people rule equally in an organized way they still are the governing body.

How can they truly rule equally though? In a direct democracy the majority is the ruling part over the minority so that can't really be equal. The only way for them to be equal is if they all were responsible only for themselves and there only would be order if they all agreed on the same things which is pretty much impossible to agree on everything. A consensus could not work because unless we are talking small scale they could not all come to agreement and many people might just hide their real thoughts and feelings on a subject at any group size. Perhaps this would help you understand where my confusion stems from.

I'm just going to ignore this part because I've answered it several times already and it's like you aren't even reading my posts. Go back and try again until you get it.

The "equal" part is that each individual has no more or less power over another individual. Of course majority rules, that's how democracy works. It's not infallible, but still infinitely better than minority rules, as it is today.
Better than a small handful of people being "responsible" ie making the decisions for everyone else. Again, like it is today. You don't all have to agree either. These, along with rest of your critiques from here on, aren't critiques of Anarchism but instead of human interaction as a whole. Take a moment to consider that none of the problems you're bringing up are addressed in any meaningful way by politics today, and in fact handle them far, far more poorly. So long as there are at least two people working together, there must be compromise.

Anarchism, Communism, etc are not meant to be utopian. They solve very specific problems, not provide a perfect world scenario.

I am reading it. I am just worn out. From my protective it seems you are misunderstanding me somehow. So perhaps we both are missing something.

Well a majority is only a little more than half of people. That means if more than half of people are idiot you are ruled by idiots. Super majority is better for direct democracy. It has the same flaws but at least it reduces the effects of democracy.

There's no reason a super majority can't be used.

Yes, I did not say it can't. I only said consensus-based social contracts can not be done large scale but you thought I meant democracy when I said consensus. I was arguing only a consensus-based social contract type of ruling is everyone fully equal because the majority rule does not take place like in a democratic system.

Free association would be equal too but if everyone was able to live their own laws breaking away from whatever contract they want it would be like having no law at all .You also could wind up with a segregated situation where only like minded people come together.

Reminder that Anarchism is a right-wing concept.

go fap to your homosuck porn and transhumanism fantasies you autist

Anarchism is not left-wing or right-wing. It is on the axis of authority level not the axis of policy. There is various form of anarchism that promote different ideas, some of which are incompatible with each-other.

No. Go read a book. Anarchism was conceived as left-wing. It's socialist. With no hierarchy, that would make it socialist. Capitalism, feudalism, etc. is incompatible with anarchism.

Yes I would agree anarcho-capitalim is not really the idea of anarchism but that doesn't stop it from existing though.

Yes it exists and it isn't part of the anarchist tradition. It's a misnomer. It's really just anti-state capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism exists, yes, but it is not anarchism. Have you ever heard an ancap claim heritage from Kroptkin and Bakunin?

That's what I'm saying. It isn't anarchism, so don't call it right-wing.

Is it like:

What is 4WD? What is Willy's Jeep? What are tanks?
But seriously, why do we really need maintained roads? How about pic related?

Lol

The game's up, boys

...

AHA! So you damn commies ARE trying to make the government as big as possible!

There is a big difference. Rules of physics and chemistry around you are what you are bound to. You can overcome them and sometimes bend them but not break them. The words and writings of men are flimsy and breakable. Meant to break depending on the kind.

Those aren't anarchists, at best they could be minarchists and remain coherent but it would take much more effort than a more libertarian voluntaryist approach.

Dissenters don't benefit from the community.
You treat them like you would any trespasser when they try to use public goods.

You are not. You are an IDPOL faggot that has stumbled onto the label of anarchy and you do not care for the concepts or the reality - just that others see you as your chosen label.

I used to post on Holla Forums back on 4pol and your post follows a pattern of the disruptors there.
The actions of others who happen to use a particular label has no bearing on the ideas they claim to uphold if they cease to uphold them. This is the second proof that you are only concerned about your image - and not anarchy.

Reading a hundred books and not answering any of the questions important to you will leave you knowledgeable and uneducated.

very good

Sounds fun man. Wanna join forces?

Anarchism as I understand it means no involuntary or non-participatory hierarchy. Everyone is granted a say in how things are run, and everyone must consent to any supervisory body or government that is formed to coordinate political or economic activity.

It is important that anarchist society is kept as decentralized and spread-out as possible, so as to preserve these tenets. Large states with large populations would not allow for total participatory politics in a meaningful way and thus would not form. That's why anarchism is said to be stateless, but on a smaller scale many varieties of governance could be enacted that do follow anarchist principles.

I would clarify your statement further by saying that everyone must consent to any decision by such a group or its costs and its gifts do not apply to them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

KISAMAAAA!!!

Didn't Russia and China already communism?

:^)

So how does this government handle deputes over land?

The land is collectively owned, so there wouldn't be disputes over it like we have today. Community arbitration can settle things like you dog shitting on your neighbor's porch.

There is large difference. When men discipline themselves they become well behaved and achieve goals. When rabble and criminals have rules enforced on them it is a prison.

this