In order to create a stateless society, wouldn't you first have to conquer all other states? Otherwise you still have a de facto state, whether you call it that or not.
Ah, so you've invented your own definition of the word "state". And if a "state" is defined by the mere existence of violence, than a stateless society is an impossibility.
I would much prefer a coöp commonwealth economy and a democracy with ranked choice vote, a mixed member proportional legislature, and a council of department secretaries as executive branch.
My issue with other socialist is that Leninists will never give up power for "the state to wither away" and anarchists are too allergic to any form of struct even if it is an entirely voluntary confederation style system.
"Definitions" are irrelevant, I'm talking about practice.
It's all well and good to talk about collaboration, until you start trying to accomplish something practical in the real world and then everybody just does their own thing, nobody does anything they don't want to do, and none of the actual hard work gets done.
The great thing about language is that it's constantly evolving and changing because of how people use it and seek to communicate with each other. New words are added to our lexicon all the time. For example, imagine telling someone in 1980 to just go Google something.
39 Comments
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 51d
In order to create a stateless society, wouldn't you first have to conquer all other states? Otherwise you still have a de facto state, whether you call it that or not.
marcos@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 51d
No. You wouldn't first have to conquer all other states.
What make a state exist in your society is the existence of violence, not the existence of other states.
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 51d
Ah, so you've invented your own definition of the word "state". And if a "state" is defined by the mere existence of violence, than a stateless society is an impossibility.
marcos@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 51d
Ah, no, that in my comment is not a definition. You are misreading it.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 51d
You just defined it as such, right there.... Or at least tried to?
zaubentrucker@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 50d
No, he said that a state exists because of violence.
Definition: A human is a featherless bipedal Reasoning: Humans exist because of sex
Ariselas@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 51d
I guess in theory that's where the socialist state comes in to transition from capitalism to communism
Equinox1289@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 51d
I would much prefer a coöp commonwealth economy and a democracy with ranked choice vote, a mixed member proportional legislature, and a council of department secretaries as executive branch.
My issue with other socialist is that Leninists will never give up power for "the state to wither away" and anarchists are too allergic to any form of struct even if it is an entirely voluntary confederation style system.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 13 pts · 51d
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
MrShankles@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 49d
I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist commune
naught101@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 51d
I'm an anarchist, I'd be all in for helping manage a federated co-op structure.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 49d
Well, one of us is confused.
naught101@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 48d
Manage in the "make it work" sense, not the "boss people around" sense. Collaborative.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 48d
Well, OK, but a manager without the authority to tell other people what to do is just a consultant.
naught101@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 48d
Sure, if you want to go with a narrow definition like that
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 48d
"Definitions" are irrelevant, I'm talking about practice.
It's all well and good to talk about collaboration, until you start trying to accomplish something practical in the real world and then everybody just does their own thing, nobody does anything they don't want to do, and none of the actual hard work gets done.
naught101@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 47d
Not with that attitude
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 49d
Managing is literally the easiest part. Finding someone to volunteer for shit shoveling duty is a lot harder.
Kichae@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 49d
Managing means shoveling shit if no one else will.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 49d
Amen. That's a position I fully agree with. It's not one most people who manage stuff agree with.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 2 pts · 49d
Hell, that sounds like actual leadership
naught101@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 48d
That's what management should be.
naught101@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 48d
Exactly.
tomenzgg@midwest.social · 3 pts · 51d
Tell me more about this commonwealth economy? It sounds interesting.
robocall@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 50d
nialv7@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 50d
how can you maintain a proletariat rule without a dictatorship? /s
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 49d
See, if dictators call themselves proles, then it totally is a proletariat. After all, we're all equals, my comrades.
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 51d
Rigth?
Zorque@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 51d
"communists"
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 51d
Still, still not a word. It hasn't been a word, and maybe it will never be a word.
king_comrade@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 51d
That must irritate you everytime.
feannag@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 51d
Maybe they're just Britney Spears fans!
tmyakal@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 50d
The great thing about language is that it's constantly evolving and changing because of how people use it and seek to communicate with each other. New words are added to our lexicon all the time. For example, imagine telling someone in 1980 to just go Google something.
Techranger@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 50d
I cri evrytiem
Kichae@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 49d
Did you understand what was communicated? If so...
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 49d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84sHTvn6xf8
Jayjader@jlai.lu · 4 pts · 50d
every time *so far
homer_simpson_meme.jpg
thatradomguy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 51d
Might I introduce you to Anakin's thesis on TToDPTW?
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 49d
At this stage I’d settle for no more billionaires, and for corrupt politicians to be jailed. Too much to ask?