u/PrettyDark2982

I've been digging into a lot of anthropology lately and looking into past stateless societies. I am seeing a bit of a common theme where conflicts start when a resource such as food becomes scarce. One tribe kills another for its resources, and now that tribe has more resources than it did before. If it keeps this up, now you have a tribe with more resources than everyone else, creating a hierarchy.

In a stateless society, how do you deal with scarcity creating competition over a vital resource? If a drought or a blight hits and a gang is able to preserve itself by pulling a Yamnaya, could this not turn into a state? Especially if they seize control over production of a vital resource?

Most anarchist rhetoric I see seems to assume that the world will be united under anarchy.

Of course there have been many stateless societies in the past, but this was almost all before agriculture when technology was still primitive, and these were all tiny groups of people separate from each other. A lot of anarchists seem to talk about a hypothetical modern anarchist society as if we will all be one tribe. I am not sure if I believe this.

Of course there have been many stateless societies in the past, but this was almost all before agriculture when technology was still primitive, and these were all tiny groups of people separate from each other.

Imagine we are all spread out across a continent with ranging environments and cultures. The people living up in the mountains are inevitably going to develop some kind of culture different from that of the people living in the forest at the bottom separated by a river. I believe this would inevitably lead to two different communities developing, which is not exactly what anarchists want.

Maybe in most cases that would not be a problem, but if you fast forward some centuries, the differences could be different enough that the two cultures clash.

On another note, how do you maintain a society based on mutual aid on a grand scale? I can see how the people on the other side of the river would have incentives to help their neighbors, but would they really have the same incentive to help the people on the mountain who they've never met? Or the people 1,000 miles away in the desert?

I'm sure it doesn't take a genius to figure out why I put that word in quotes, but do you envision a group of some kind that is trained specifically to enforce the rules of the community as their job? For example to prevent crime and to help keep states from invading?

Let's say I am part of Community A and Community B is doing something that is affecting community A negatively. Let's call it Action X

Those of us who are part of Community A go to Community B and kindly ask them to stop what they are doing because of X, Y, and Z reasons.

The problem: Community B disagrees. They believe that Action X is totally justified and refuse to stop. Not only that, they believe that Action X is for the greater good and is therefore needed.

Additionally, let's say this is a dispute that does not at all have an obvious answer. The communities around us are split. Some agree with Community A that Action X is bad, and some agree with Community B that Action X is justified and necessary.

If Community C is on Community B's side and Community D is on ours, how do we determine who is right?

1. How is this issue dealt with without a hierarchical body above us as a mediator?
2. If Community A is deemed to be right and Community B therefore has to stop Action X, who can actually stop them? If they do it again, do the rest of us have the right to kick their doors down SWAT style and stop what they're doing?
3. In the case described in #2, if other communities still do not agree that Action X is unjustified, wouldn't this create intercommunal conflict? Possibly war, just like what we see between states?

Let's say there's a little community living on a plot of land. Maybe it's a hippie ancom commune, maybe it's a cult, I don't know. They are on a plot of land, raise kids there, and are isolating themselves from society.

Within the community, their kids are growing up with no concept of the NAP. The kids are abused, the members are beaten, etc. There are many NAP violations, but the people who grew up in this isolated community do not know any better because it is all they know.

Now let's think about what happens in a statist society. The state sees this and, at least in theory, is now obligated to send the police in and stop this. This community would have created a de facto state, but since there is already a state on the outside, it will stop this community from doing what they do.

Now let's say this happened in an ancap society. Who will protect those people? Who will go in and stop these NAP violations being committed within an isolated community that knows nothing else?

If someone can do that, what incentives do they have to do that?