Where exactly do I fall?

[killjoy27]

I always self identified as an AnCom but I have been starting to drift away from it. (Never read any of the authors.

I am starting to believe that before we can achieve a stateless society, we must go through a transitional government, let by party of the workers. Ideally they would work quickly to restructure society to as follows.


Economic

The workers will control the means of production. All will have an equal voice, but will still have their rolls to serve within the workplace. (Non-Hierarchical Workplace Democracy)
Basic necessities for life are provided through the commune. (Store houses)
Their is no Private Property per say, but there is Personal Property.
Squatting should be legal in Unused, Foreclosed or Abandoned buildings.

Social:

Decisions should be made on a local or communal level through a general consensus. There can be a higher level, but only to facilitate cooperation between communes.
The state is inherently evil. It does not serve the interests of the common people. It never has. (The Police are just an arm of the state. Same goes for them)
I don't give a fuck what someone does with their body, money and time. It's none of my business.
Pro-LGBT, Pro-Choice
Even if I don't agree with someones choice, it is not my job to fight them on it. I will just accept it and continue on
I see Firearms as a tool of the people to defend their freedom from a tyrannical system.
Privacy is a basic human right, and everyone is entitled to it, no questions asked.
Everyone, regardless of Race, Religion or Creed is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
No Borders. Free movement of people is a natural right
Organized religion is just another artificial division of the people. (People would still be able to believe what ever deity they chose, but no Organized religions.)
People will always have a guarantee to Freedom of Speech, Assembly.
Until the state is toppled, it is the duty of the people to get out and take action. Violent or Otherwise
Crimes should only be those that cause physical harm. Examples would be stuff like Murder, DUI, Rape, Assault etc.
Soft Drugs would be legal. Harder drugs would be prohibited, but it would be treated as a health issue, and not a criminal one.
Intellectual Property is non-existent. IE Open Source everything, No Copyright
Rehabilitation is the optimal way to deal with criminals
Civil Forfeiture is just another name for State Sponsored Theft

More function example of a post-state society, in my eyes

Ideally, the state would be abolished as well, and they basic organizational structure would be a directly democratic commune. The workplaces in the commune, regardless if creative, manufacturing, or service, would all be run as cooperatives. People would decided to do what ever they feel they are best suited in. Some may like being a cab driver, so they do that. Others may like cooking, so they work in a restaurant. Etc.

Cooperation between communes could be facilitated by a inter-communal assembly. Trade, Mutual aid agreements, etc would be discussed here

Also, by this point, we should have such a surplus of production, that we could community store houses where one takes what they need. (Money may or may not exist in its current form by now)



Any recommendations for authors, or other sources? And obviously, what would I actually be seen as?

[(A)]

Some of your ideas are inherently contradictory.

If the state is "evil" and the police are the tools or repression and government tyranny; then who will make and enforce the laws that dictate what drugs may or may not be consumed?
Are you saying Tyranny is justified as long as its only to repress things that YOU disagree with (Drug use)?

Their is a clear line between a stateless society and a society under the authority of a state.
Either the government has a right to use violence to maintain its laws (Social control) based on Private property/territory or it does not. Their really is no middle ground between Freedom and Tyranny.

[Antiochus]

Sounds like some sort of 'anarcho'-liberal. You'll fit right in with some of our resident members.

Many of your "ideas" are straight out of the enlightenment lawl. Why would there be a "freedom of religion" in an epoch where religion is dead? Why would we permit freedom of speech for "anything"? What if I want to hold an anti-semitic rally?

[(A)]

Antilogic I doubt you know what Liberalism even is. Your use of it makes me think you learned about socialism from Alt-right Reddit forums.

Let me address you lack understanding of Anarchism as well tho.

Why would there be a "freedom of religion"

There would not be freedom of Religion. The "freedom of religion" is a Liberty granted by a state.

There would simply be a lack of authority. There is no need for a Liberty if their is no state to make the act of Religion illegal.
The death of religion is not a matter for the state to dictate; it is a result of free thinking individuals.

Why would we permit freedom of speech for "anything"?

Again we would not as "We" would not exist. There would be no state to protect ones "free speech" nor one to hinder it.
Remember the right of expression only protects you from the government. A government that would not exist to take your freedoms.

What if I want to hold an anti-semitic rally?

You would be free to do so as their would be no law governing your actions.

HOWEVER there would also be no law to protect you from the angry mob of Anti-fascists who will hunt you down and curb stomp you.

An Anarchist society is one where the collective is free to act in their best interest without their actions being dictated by the law.
A Self-managed society where each individual is truly responsible for the actions they take.

...

Look if you understood Anarchy you would not use Liberalism to describe it in either the actual meaning or the Reactionary way you understand it.
Fact is you are more of a Liberalist then I as you support a Republic form of government.
Remember it was Liberals who revolted against the feudal system and argued for Republic. You are A socialist Republican (Yes republicans are also Liberalist).

[killjoy27]

Antilogic I doubt you know what Liberalism even is. Your use of it makes me think you learned about socialism from Alt-right Reddit forums.

Let me address you lack understanding of Anarchism as well tho.



There would not be freedom of Religion. The "freedom of religion" is a Liberty granted by a state.

There would simply be a lack of authority. There is no need for a Liberty if their is no state to make the act of Religion illegal.
The death of religion is not a matter for the state to dictate; it is a result of free thinking individuals.



Again we would not as "We" would not exist. There would be no state to protect ones "free speech" nor one to hinder it.
Remember the right of expression only protects you from the government. A government that would not exist to take your freedoms.



You would be free to do so as their would be no law governing your actions.

HOWEVER there would also be no law to protect you from the angry mob of Anti-fascists who will hunt you down and curb stomp you.

An Anarchist society is one where the collective is free to act in their best interest without their actions being dictated by the law.
A Self-managed society where each individual is truly responsible for the actions they take.

...

Look if you understood Anarchy you would not use Liberalism to describe it in either the actual meaning or the Reactionary way you understand it.
Fact is you are more of a Liberalist then I as you support a Republic form of government.
Remember it was Liberals who revolted against the feudal system and argued for Republic. You are A socialist Republican (Yes republicans are also Liberalist).

The "freedom" of religion would more so be that during the transitional "State" would dismantle religious institutions, and push a campaign to discourage their formation. BUT Individual beliefs won't be prohibited. This should carry over to the stateless system. The opposition to organized religion would become one with the people, but not prohibited.

Same goes for the "Freedom" of speech, the transitional "State" will allow all view points to be said, but AntiFa wont be blocked from taking action against Fascists. Again, this should carry over to the Stateless society in the end. As it would be ingrained in the people.

Some of your ideas are inherently contradictory.

If the state is "evil" and the police are the tools or repression and government tyranny; then who will make and enforce the laws that dictate what drugs may or may not be consumed?
Are you saying Tyranny is justified as long as its only to repress things that YOU disagree with (Drug use)?

Their is a clear line between a stateless society and a society under the authority of a state.
Either the government has a right to use violence to maintain its laws (Social control) based on Private property/territory or it does not. Their really is no middle ground between Freedom and Tyranny.

Most of my "legal/illegal" preferences stem more from the societal view of such. Drug use won't be illegal, but heavily discouraged, and those using heroin or other hard drugs would be heavily encouraged to go into rehab for treatment.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

@killjoy27 lets say that in this highly developed society there are still people who feel like they want to worship a deity together. Would this be discouraged in your view? would we expel these people from our communes? Exactly to what extent are you willing to go to "enforce"(or convince, whatever word you find most fitting) your/or the communes ideas.

Also would one be free to exploit an animal for pleasure in your ideal society?

[killjoy27]

@killjoy27 lets say that in this highly developed society there are still people who feel like they want to worship a deity together. Would this be discouraged in your view? would we expel these people from our communes? Exactly to what extent are you willing to go to "enforce"(or convince, whatever word you find most fitting) your/or the communes ideas.

Also would one be free to exploit an animal for pleasure in your ideal society?

If people chose to worship together, there would be no problem, just as long as it does not become hierarchical, or a source of authority I suppose.

To enforce the ideals of my commune, it would mostly rely on what the populace as a whole decides as a fitting action.

Exploiting an animal for pleasure? Strongly discouraged, hopefully, the commune decides to exile them. But again, no real law, just what the commune decides on a case to case basis

[IbelieveInanarchy]

If people chose to worship together, there would be no problem, just as long as it does not become hierarchical, or a source of authority I suppose.

To enforce the ideals of my commune, it would mostly rely on what the populace as a whole decides as a fitting action.

Exploiting an animal for pleasure? Strongly discouraged, hopefully, the commune decides to exile them. But again, no real law, just what the commune decides on a case to case basis

Okay I'm glad you agree with that kind of religious freedom, even though their position to me sounds non-sensical, they may hold it if it doesn't cause harm to others.
So do you think that in your perfect society animal husbandry would be forfeit or do you think there is a place for this?
Also can you more precisely explain why we need a transitional state and when this state would see it fit to stop existing. I know most marxist-leninist feel that the state will become unnecessary and would naturally dissolve, i never quite understood how this would happen though, would appreciate to see your view on it.

[killjoy27]

Okay I'm glad you agree with that kind of religious freedom, even though their position to me sounds non-sensical, they may hold it if it doesn't cause harm to others.
So do you think that in your perfect society animal husbandry would be forfeit or do you think there is a place for this?
Also can you more precisely explain why we need a transitional state and when this state would see it fit to stop existing. I know most marxist-leninist feel that the state will become unnecessary and would naturally dissolve, i never quite understood how this would happen though, would appreciate to see your view on it.

I mostly see the Transitional state as the apparatus that would gradually break down the currently nationalized systems, and and transfer their control to the people. Additionally it would promote the creation of communes, that would be granted self rule upon the creation of the directly democratic assemblies and worker coops for the means of production. Eventually, he Transitional Gov't will devolve into a Federal Assembly that would exist purely to allow for ease of cooperation across communes.

This stuff can't just go from Capitalist to Stateless Socialist overnight. Their needs to be a system in place that would facilitate the transition.

[(A)]

The problem killjoy is that your ideas are just that. Fantasy's that have no basis in reality. Your statements

"The state would"

Is a HUGE assumption. Are you prophetic? DO you possess the ability to see the future? If so give me some lotto numbers for Canada plz!

These assumptions make you sound Utopian. Basically "everything will be perfect in my ideas."

The transitional state WILL respect people!
The transitional state WILL willingly dissolve itself when it is no longer needed!
The transitional state WILL be filled with benevolent administrators who have no interest in power even tho they find themselves in a position to wield it!
The transitional state WILL not need to wield any tyrannical/authoritarian power because everyone will magically agree with it!

States ONLY exists to be Tyrannical. The purpose of a government is to rule over society with an Iron Fist!
The Libertarian socialist (Anarchist) argument, Proven by all of history is that states dont "gradually break down and transfer their control to the people."
It would be Illogical for an individual or a collective of rulers to give up their authority.
The Anarchist Argument is that ALL states are Bourgeois (As they all exist as the ruling classes authority) and must be abolished.

[killjoy27]

The problem killjoy is that your ideas are just that. Fantasy's that have no basis in reality. Your statements

"The state would"

Is a HUGE assumption. Are you prophetic? DO you possess the ability to see the future? If so give me some lotto numbers for Canada plz!

These assumptions make you sound Utopian. Basically "everything will be perfect in my ideas."

The transitional state WILL respect people!
The transitional state WILL willingly dissolve itself when it is no longer needed!
The transitional state WILL be filled with benevolent administrators who have no interest in power even tho they find themselves in a position to wield it!
The transitional state WILL not need to wield any tyrannical/authoritarian power because everyone will magically agree with it!

States ONLY exists to be Tyrannical. The purpose of a government is to rule over society with an Iron Fist!
The Libertarian socialist (Anarchist) argument, Proven by all of history is that states dont "gradually break down and transfer their control to the people."
It would be Illogical for an individual or a collective of rulers to give up their authority.
The Anarchist Argument is that ALL states are Bourgeois (As they all exist as the ruling classes authority) and must be abolished.

Well, couldn't Utopian be said about most things?

What I am saying, ideally that would happen, but I know that it probably won't. And we would be stuck in some sort of State Socialist system. But, that would still be a damn sight better than this capitalist system that currently exists.

Also, my views shifted from an typical ancom idea, to some odd system, that doesn't fall into any real school of thought. That's why I'm bringing this up.

[(A)]

The thing is that Communist Anarchism is built on 100s of years of science and Logic. It is internally consistent.

Your odd idea is not ODD. Its just a incoherent combination of other peoples ideas devoid of any form of reasoning or consistency.

Also

But, that would still be a damn sight better than this capitalist system that currently exists.

This is another HUGE assumption. Name one Socialist state today that is "better" then a functioning social Democracy.
Cuba? North Korea? China?

You are imagining a socialist Utopia that simply has never and most likely will never exist. To make matters worse you are imagining this Utopia to be a Tyrannical socialism and you think somehow that will be Utopian despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Please explain why you abandoned Anarchism for Hierarchy and Statism.

[contracycle]

Any recommendations for authors, or other sources? And obviously, what would I actually be seen as?

Have you read Engels, 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State'?

- - - Updated - - -

States ONLY exists to be Tyrannical. The purpose of a government is to rule over society with an Iron Fist!

How very Libertarian of you. This is a fundamental failure to appreciate the state as a dispute resolution mechanism among the ruling class. Imposing absolute meanings from some idyllic abstract realm is not helpful to anyone.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Have you read Engels, 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State'?

- - - Updated - - -



How very Libertarian of you. This is a fundamental failure to appreciate the state as a dispute resolution mechanism among the ruling class. Imposing absolute meanings from some idyllic abstract realm is not helpful to anyone.

This is the only function of a state, to make the ruling class more united and make sure the ruling class wont be weakened by infighting. This united ruling class can then effectively suppress the working class movements. The state is an apparatus in which a relatively small amount of people can wield vast amounts of power against the disorganized masses. Almost every state has anti-organization laws on the books to counter worker organization. To think that it is somehow good that a "state solve problems within the bourgeoisie" is anti-revolutionary.

[contracycle]

I didn't say it was "good". I said it was a structure created by the ruling class, to achieve certain ends. One of those ends is indeed to maintain class rule. But that's quite different to asserting that the state is definitively coercive and nothing else. This is a simplistic view that, I'm guessing, is drawn from the views of von Mises etc., and does not accord with, at least, that of Marx and Engels.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

I didn't say it was "good". I said it was a structure created by the ruling class, to achieve certain ends. One of those ends is indeed to maintain class rule. But that's quite different to asserting that the state is definitively coercive and nothing else. This is a simplistic view that, I'm guessing, is drawn from the views of von Mises etc., and does not accord with, at least, that of Marx and Engels.

Isn't it inherent in states to have sovereignty over a certain area and all its inhabitants? Does it not dictate what goes and what doesn't go in that area? How else than with coercion does a state maintain itself?

[contracycle]

You're repeating exactly the conflation I'm trying to point out is obscurantist. There must always be SOME system by which force is controlled and directed, for otherwise you're in a universal war of all against all. So yes, controlling force is ONE function of a state, whatever kind of state it is. But it is not abstractly definitive of the state, whatever kind of state it is.

See, this kind of thinking leads you to a particular error: that if you get rid of the state, violence disappears. This is the Libertarian argument against state power. Of course, what the Libertarians conveniently forget is that it is quite possible to exert coercive force without being a state, as the vast majority of violence has been exercised historically.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

You're repeating exactly the conflation I'm trying to point out is obscurantist. There must always be SOME system by which force is controlled and directed, for otherwise you're in a universal war of all against all. So yes, controlling force is ONE function of a state, whatever kind of state it is. But it is not abstractly definitive of the state, whatever kind of state it is.

See, this kind of thinking leads you to a particular error: that if you get rid of the state, violence disappears. This is the Libertarian argument against state power. Of course, what the Libertarians conveniently forget is that it is quite possible to exert coercive force without being a state, as the vast majority of violence has been exercised historically.

I never said that violence disappears when there are no states. I am saying a state is inherently violent towards the working class because it fights against free association, as this free association is a challenge of the state's legitimacy. Of course there will always be need of a system by which force is controlled, but this system should not be a state which has a "monopoly on violence". This monopoly perpetuates violence, abolishing this monopoly won't solve all violence, but it would be a great step forward.

[contracycle]

But you're stating that as an absolute, which is a fact not in evidence.

The bourgeois state oppresses workers, because the bourgeoisie rule as a class and share this interest. And the feudal state oppresses serfs, because the aristocracy rules as a class and share this interest. And the bronze age warlord oppresses slaves, because the warlords and their hangers on rule as a class, and share this interest.

But a proletarian state - as it were - is the negation of class oppression, because classes are abolished. The proletarian state - as it were - therefore still acts in the shared interests of the proletariat, but the proletariat does not oppress another class, because there is no other class for it to oppress.

More historical materialism, less abstract theory.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

But you're stating that as an absolute, which is a fact not in evidence.

The bourgeois state oppresses workers, because the bourgeoisie rule as a class and share this interest. And the feudal state oppresses serfs, because the aristocracy rules as a class and share this interest. And the bronze age warlord oppresses slaves, because the warlords and their hangers on rule as a class, and share this interest.

But a proletarian state - as it were - is the negation of class oppression, because classes are abolished. The proletarian state - as it were - therefore still acts in the shared interests of the proletariat, but the proletariat does not oppress another class, because there is no other class for it to oppress.

More historical materialism, less abstract theory.

I understand this is the notion of a worker's state. However if there are no other classes, i don't see the necessity of still having a state. I don't know how you exactly define this proletarian state or how you think it works. Is it like a parliamentary body or is it a dictatorship or something else?