It supports the case that it can work. I never made an argument that it always works forever. There are failed attempts, but the cause of their failure is also very important. It is often claimed that somehow, internally, anarchism can not work within a country, while usually the reason anarchisam is destroyed is due to outside invasion or interference. It is simply the case, that anarchist are currently outnumbered, mostly due to opinions like this, that it can not work, so we should try it. If we get a critical mass of enough people, it would be the opposite, states would not be able to survive in a majority anarchistic World, as no one would need to surrender themselves to domination by rulers if they can easily find a better alternative.
? A simple wikipedia search shows there is clearly a president of somalia and there is a goverment that is "federal palamentary constitunoal republic". Am I missing something?
This is the president of somalia.
Exactly, that is why no anarchist believes in giving someone power that they can't take back at any moment. That is exactly the anarchist point of view, you don't give other people power, no matter what they say they will use it for.
Power of a commander can be purely on a voluntary basis, many native american tribes lived exactly this way. Most of the prehistoric humans lived this way. You can choose to follow someone more experienced, but that is purely your choice and at any moment you can just simply step-away if you disagree. No one is saying you can't look for inspiration for making decisions in others, but you should never agree to follow someone whatever choice they make.
All armies are made of mere civilians, we are all just people. It is just that some are more experienced then others, for example, by having formal military training or being a veteran. In those situations, people naturally listen to those with more experience, as long as they seem reasonable. Furthermore, you can have formal combat training in societies without rulers as well. So having mere civilians banded together is not a trait of anarchist society.
What power vacuum? What does that even mean? That somebody is always in power over someone else?
If no one is making you do something, you simply choose for yourself. Existence of some kind of a power vacuum would mean that no one can make a decision for themselves about anything, but that some one has to tell them what to do. Which obviously makes no sense, since someone ultimately has to decide.
Politics is all about decision making power. If you have no rulers, then people have the decision making power to choose to live as they wish.
No one has a functional state goverment if it's function is to actually help the people. If states function is to keep people in power, and it is, then they are all functional, including Somalian.
People who write laws benefit from slavery and having lower economic classes. It was never their true intention to get rid of slavery, but only to calm the citizens that are rebeling against it. Overtime they figured smarter ways of slavery. Free slaves > but because of private property they now dont own anything still > they have to take any job under any working conditions > back to slaves again. If some escape this wage slavery, by not working or something, they make up a reason to arrest them, like vagrancy (illegal to be unemployed or homeless) or for not paying your debts or for some stupid reasons as drugs (planted by cops or not) or even dumber for resisting arrest even if there was nothing to be arrested for in the first place.
I don't know, but you can say that for any state. Does Guantanamo Bay prisoners count in US, they are offbroad just so they can legally be tortured. It is all play with rules. Do 2 million civilans killed in US invasions in middle east count? Do Palestinians count to be imrpissioned by the US since Israel couln't do it without their support, to trap them in those regions.
Either way, even if not inside the country, US definitely is more agressive overall and kills and imprissions more people. It is just that in the western world, their media propaganda is a lot stronger than Chinas.
This type of actions are done on purpose to blurry the line between civilians and army so no one knows who is who. Everyone is paranoid so hamas kills more civilans, so Israel government can kill more civilans in retribution. Over all, Isriaelly goverment will win, since they are backed by US and they will take over all the land from Palestinians.
Where there is dominance over others, abuse is inevitable. In cooperatives, where works chose and can at any time dissolve positions of mangers, these things can do not happen.
I work in a coop for more than 5 years, I never got someone not being nice to me, since we all have voting power and it wouldn't be smart to anger your co-workers.
Becuase only presidents are keeping us from all killing each other?
You should read more about existing and past anarchist societies. There is always a lot (if any) violence in anarchist societies, because there are simply no incentives to do it in a place where there is no police to arrest anyone who wants to murder you if you even insult them. All violance and structures of power are very dangerous to anarchist societies so they are very strictly enforced,
This person doesn't know how to search for things on the Internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
You should know that for 95% of huiman existence almost all tribes where anarchist. There is a good youtube channel “What is politics?” that talks about this.
Why Somalia? Did you read somewhere they were anarchists or did you just assume that both anarchists and Somalians are savages so that they have to be related somehow.
It supports the case that it can work. I never made an argument that it always works forever. There are failed attempts, but the cause of their failure is also very important. It is often claimed that somehow, internally, anarchism can not work within a country, while usually the reason anarchisam is destroyed is due to outside invasion or interference. It is simply the case, that anarchist are currently outnumbered, mostly due to opinions like this, that it can not work, so we should try it. If we get a critical mass of enough people, it would be the opposite, states would not be able to survive in a majority anarchistic World, as no one would need to surrender themselves to domination by rulers if they can easily find a better alternative.