Statelessness does not equal anarchy, states a relatively recent construction, so people in Europe and Asia lived in stateless societies with that being anywhere near anarchy.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Does Statelessness = Anarchy?
As per title.
I have been wondering about this. Thanks to anyone who may be able to clear it up for me.
Statelessness does not equal anarchy, states a relatively recent construction, so people in Europe and Asia lived in stateless societies with that being anywhere near anarchy.
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
Not always. Anarchism opposes all forms of unfair and/or unnecessary authority, and the state isn't the only source of this. The existence of wage labour and private property also gives some people - the minority of people - huge amounts of unfair and unnecessary authority over everyone else. If a society had no state, but had wage labour and private property, there would be bosses and proprietors exploiting, oppressing and exercising coercive power over everyone else, therefore it wouldn't be anarchist. Only by removing all forms of coercion and replacing them with a totally non-hierarchical form of social organisation would a society deserve this label.
I think so, but anarchy isn't necessarily anarchism, it depends on the context in which the word "anarchy" is used.
Anarchy means chaos or the state of anarchism. The absence of a state, but without chaos, is not anarchy. The absence of a state and individual property is anarchy.
As do all ideologies by the way. This is a meaningless phrase uttered by Chomskytes.
pew pew pew
