“Hi! You’re on a rock floating in space.”

What’s annoying is that we probably would be a whole lot closer to actual communism and anarchism if the bolsheviks never took power and destroy all the communism that was happening during the Russian revolution.

That is why I use anarchist instead. It means all of that while also making it clear that authoritarianism is not ok.

I am not against hierarchies if they are justified. The hierarchies that are democratic and non-coercive are acceptable.

Power should not be consolidated, it should be distributed among the population. Any sort of consolidation of power opens the door for people to create systems and hierarchies that maintain power unjustly.

I think that if a society is capable of working in a smaller scale it can be scaled up. Especially with the technology that we have today.

I don’t think that anarchism is unsustainable. all attempts to create anarchist societies have ended because of outside factors (invasions). I don’t see these as shortcomings of anarchism but instead as shortcomings of other systems to tolerate alternate political systems. Also if an anarchist society descends into fascism (red or otherwise) then that is because the people didn’t do enough to oppose it.

I also apologize if some of these statements are short. You can’t unbind ctrl+w to close the window on firefox and I use it to delete the last word so I accidentally deleted my previous two attempts to answer this comment.

Also I appreciate this conversation as it requires me to think through my ideology.

The governing core is the society. If they say no then that society changes. That is how the system works. The people decide how to live their life and if they don’t want to live a certain way they change. As long as the people stay skeptical of all authority the system works. If they don’t it collapses into a class based society.

You don’t need perfect reprogramming. You just need a couple of people who want to live this way and let them live.

Anarchism works. The systems that I am describing have been successfully implemented and work.

What are you trying to say here?

the most dependable members become a governing core.

Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.

This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what’s best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.

what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?

The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.

Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.

There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won’t protect you.

Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.