So if in an ancommunist/ansyndicalist society somebody murders someone for no reason will he be punished...

...

Well it's not heirarchical

and it's voluntary

i can't imagine sole individuals as the final determiner of when someone did something violent, and punishment of some kind justified
maybe direct democratic vote? jury?

was meant for

How will the people decide under what circumstances to punish somebody?

There will have to be some kind of court system in any successful society, or otherwise you risk killing the innocent.
A court system will require laws/rules set in place for a community/organization of people.

...

Anarchy isn't "no rules". It means no rulers.

...

It's like you ignore not just everything the left says, but everything right libertarians say as well.

If a community has rules or laws and you break them and they punish you for it you're literally being ruled by everybody in it at that moment.

...

Agreed. That's not anarchism, of course

lul

But most of you guy are for punishing serial killers within the community, to do this you must have a way of determining what is lawful and unlawful behavior. To try and make sure you do not kill somebody by accident for something they may have not done you will need a good court.

Or

We could not do that

in a communist society, no one has any reason to take your food. and if you freak out and kill somebody over some bread, I don't think the community would want you around

yeah, that's why i said "state"
someone needs to determine when someone violates someone else's autonomy or damages the commons and enforce a punishment
what separates this hypothetical 'totally not a state' from existing states is it's non-hierarchical (direct democracy determines rules, officials are randomly selected if the exist at all, let alone have power beyond clerical work) and doesn't have the right to violate anyone's autonomy unless they violate someone else's first (like an idividual can't kill you unless you attack them first)
this is the only thing i see working
posting with a flag now

Which is why the OP is a complete idiot. Glad we're on the same page, comrade

basically, I am not violent if I use violence in self defense
that's what separates anarchist 'totes not a state' communities

Hence why anarkiddies are called such.

op's just curious comrade

anarchists are my comrades, sorry if I am misunderstanding how they envision a stateless society working but this is how i see it working in the future

So in anarchy could I threaten to kill you, buy guns and say I will kill you with them, send death threats to you in the mail, make a vlog of myself in a tent behind your house saying I'm going to kill you the next morning with no consequences?

I'd say it depends what the commune democratically decided. Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, but that the rules are not imposed by some hierarchy but decided by the whole community.
As for the enforcement part i'm not entirely sure because i don't know much about anarchy theory. Probably a militia like system, with maybe some workers "specialized" in crime investigation…

but it can have little or no heriarchies involved

This bullshit is exactly why anarchy is a fucking fantasy that could never survive off of paper or outside of Stirner books. It is HIGHLY likely that the people will get a group to watch the roads, to insure that nobody is driving at 300 mph then they will get a group of people to respond to fires, and some people who will respond if there is a shooting taking place. Next thing what do you know there's cops. There's hierarchy.

We'd probably just kill you back and be done with it. Talk shit get hit.

HEY GUYS HOW WILL PEOPLE KNOW TO WIPE THEMSELVES IF THEIR MOMMIES DON'T TELL THEM TO?! :DDDDDDD

Fucking ebin.

No.
Those are not the same thing.

Hell, the police have only existed for about 200 years or so. Before that almost all law-enforcement amongst normal people was done democratically and non-hierarchically, from the age of the greek democracies untill the pricipate in rome got rid of plebian courts, and then it came back after the fall of the Empire.

Your outlook is about as ahistorical as it gets.

fair enough question
i'd imagine anarchy being a gradual decrease in authority and hierarchy of the state where you may not reach perfect anarchy in the foreseeable future, but the goal is to always strive for it
or I could argue that not viewing private property as essential to autonomy gives the community some leeway to punish people for breaking some rules without them directly violating autonomy
for example, the community voted that if you threaten someone online, the community internet not longer works with your individual user id
try to think of some ways a community can punish someone nonviolently
now is denial of common property violence? forced deportation? problems to think about, but not ultimately insurmountable I think

You're talking out your ass buddy.

Or you know, cooperate with that other community to have the person in question punished. Something states do all the time anyways.

What separates the group that mets out punishment from a state?
Is it because it's a non-hierarchical direct democracy determining laws?
Or because, on principle, it only violates autonomy of a person after it's been determined they violated someone's autonomy first?
Because participation in the Democratic decision process is voluntary?

I'm trying to work with these concepts

Anarchism is shit.

Maoism is pure far leftism. And works wonders.

why can't we have a militia tipe group
to stop crimes?

and why is having firefightes a hirearchy

they only differnence between fire fighters
and mob of people with buckets is
training and equipment

we don't need a state for that

maoism works wonders lol

grain production numbers instead of ccp lackie numbers
furanaces
pig iron but killed all of those people for being dirty intellectuals (fuck people how know how run thing amirite?)

(that is really saying something)

until after he steps down

any idea coming from mao is

mao just sat around and finished him off

finished of the kmt that is

I was just talking about people with this earlier today
>Here, we look at the State. The State is the governing body of lawmakers and judicial systems that enact and enforce laws. Now, the State is a hierarchy over the populace governed. Even if you are allowed to democratically change who fills the positions in the state, the fact remains that the power to enact these laws and determine how they are fulfilled rests entirely with the ''positions' in the state, and is entirely outside the hands of those who are subjected to the laws

So laws are determined via direct democracy, and people in the militia can be removed via vote
But this direct democracy can make laws violating autonomy
So indirect democracy is where "hierarchy" starts and a chain of command goes from there, but in this proposal, authority starts at the popular vote determining policy, and if someone with authority isn't enacting policy correctly they are voted out

I guess we could just argue about what constitutes a state. I feel like what you're describing could be called "demarchy" if you wanted it to

I would totally support the society wants, but the abolition of a hierarchical state doesn't seem the same as not having a state

an-archy
as in antithetical to hierarchy
not antithetical to systems of societal organization

Even if you are living in a commune where you have autonomy denied (eg, law against murder) you still have your own say in it which is something you do not have in other systems.

I guess if you abolish a hierarchical workplace, it's still capitalism. There is absolutely no reason to differentiate between a system that is top down and exploitative and one that is not.

I guess all Marxist want is "totally not capitalism".

If someone murders someone in the present society for no reason, will he be punished? By whom?

anarkiddies everyone

yes.
the state.

leftcom autsists still argue it's gabbidalism because it involves the expansion of capital

Punishing and killing people doesn't solve the problem, he'd mostly likely be sent off to a mental hospital for treatment and rehab
As for the rest of those meme-tier questions, if the local community has decided they don't want this through direct democracy, then they will be prevented from doing so. If people break these rules, they will probably be expelled, warned, or otherwise punished through a mutually agreed upon method.
End this anarchy="people killing everyone because thats totally what people all secretly want to do XDDDDD i get all my knowledge of politics from edgy movies" meme

Yes. And that'd be just as dumb and muddying the waters as saying that all law-enforcement is a state.

who the fuck said that.

so a community in anarchy could govern as total authoritarians if the majority wanted it?
could a group that wanted different rules break away and form their own commune? how big is the minimum commune? can i have my own rules?
mandatory church on sundays
anarcho-facism is possible?

now i sound like i'm shitposting, but these are questions even liberal democracies have difficulty with

Could a community decide to leave anarchism? Sure.
Would that also likely mean dire consequences, being surrounded by other free communes that have no interest in tyranny and recognize it as an existantial threat? Yes. Yes it would.

Yes absolutely, but again there would be consequences for doing this if your rules are too far outside what most consider acceptable.

No minimum. Nothing indicates that all federations will accept all communes, so each federation could and likely would set their own minimums.

If you live alone and have no tangible effect on anyone else, sure.

What incentive would there be for people in a stateless society to tolerate your existence if you behave this way?

If anything, the state actually minimizes the consequences of being a dangerous idiot. It provides a framework for people like that to participate in the economy and governance of a population that would not associate with them otherwise.

How hierarchical does a workplace have to be for it to be considered capitalist? The subjectivity of the required answer makes hierarchy/centralization a meaningless qualifier, but it does serve anarchists well in that it allows you to define capitalism and socialism on a case-by-case basis as you see fit.

A rich claim coming from someone openly parading his ignorance of relations of production.

You people are so cringe-worthy. I remember some days ago I said my ideal state would resemble classical Athenian democracy, and an anarchist called my proposal a federation. As if Athens was a fucking communal federation. To call your centralization=exploitation analysis of what you call capitalism and a state shallow would be the understatement of the century.

ebin

But if somebody attempts to break into my house I can call my local police who can come to protect me, something that has happened many times in the past in my neighborhood. In an Anarchist society no such security would exist.

You really shouldn't have replied, every time you guys try to engage with Marxists you just discredit yourselves further. What I was saying is that going by the typical anarchist definition of a socialist firm, which is nothing more than worker control your distinction between socialism and capitalism becomes subjective as soon as somebody asks how much worker control you're referring to. That is unless even a modest amount of worker control makes a firm socialist. If so, then you must believe USSR was socialist because it had elections.

How would elected officials "representing" the proletariat be the same as giving them control?

Would it be the same if we were allowed to democratically elect the bourgeois who owns the business?

No of course, because Athens was a single commune under a single face-to-face legal assembly. The delian league, of which athens was a member, is a pretty clear example of a non-hierarchal confederation or coalition. If you think this is the same as a unitary state, then your definition of a state is so arbitrary that it's meaningless for any kind of political analysis.

That's pretty easy.
No class antagonism.
Thus full worker-control.

Yeah, you'd have to use violence to defend yourself instead of outsourcing it to other people.

Who says security wouldn't exist?

The lack of police does not mean the lack of law-enforcement. The police have existed for 200 years. You think everyone just went around raping and killing each other with no consequnces before that?

Of course not, that was my point. I wasn't lamenting the lack of police.

just gonna ignore the cancer below the post.

There is no consensus on this. However there is anarchist theory on the subject

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-wild-justice