Can society really exist without a state?
>>137581727
No. Society needs order to exist.
>anarcho-pacifism
Literally impossible.
>>137581727
No, because society gives rise to state.
>>137581727
Depends on the size of said society.
Within groups of less than 20 people even communism can work.
>>137581727
>>137581727
I absolutely LOVE the idea of anarcho-primitivism, so natural, so peaceful, well as peaceful as you can make it. If we just dismantle ALL nuclear weapons around the world, all we would need then is a uprising and ill go capture my five hundred acres.
>>137581727
No, in order for such a society to work you would have to deny human nature.
One of the deepest flaws that I find with the anarchist philosophy is the assumption that, left to their own devices without any incentive, people would freely choose to work to further society. Perhaps this is true of some, but I know personally of myself that if I had no need of food or water or shelter I would simply do nothing.
This can be easily shown in what we do in our free time when we are in surplus of resources. We go to a beach somewhere and drink margaritas and listen to Jimmy Buffett. We do nothing. Or think about aristocracy; a royal family has usually not had to work or compete to any measurable degree to gain resources, so what do they do with all this free time and money? Do they become a chemist and work on cancer research? No, they play croquet and drink tea and do nothing.
Without any monetary or resource-based incentive for producing, people simply wouldn't produce. Jobs that are necessary for society to function but that people wouldn't want to do in their spare time(plumbing, construction, roofing, etc.) would simply go unfulfilled. Plus, you would have to assume that people wouldn't want to steal from each other/gain more resources, which simply isn't true either.
The answer is yes, this is a functional society, just not for humans.