• Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Without a state, what would constitute an army and what would it fight over?

    If Russians are freely allowed to roam into France, and French into Russia, what would be the matter of the war, and ultimately, what would define French or Russian as a nationality?

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Which is something that we’ll have to deal with using internal forces.

        If it’s a global state, then there should be peacekeepers - the benefit here is that we can literally use armed forces of an entire world, though accountability is a must here. If it’s an anarchy - militias can help solve it - it would be a harder balance, but it’s doable and comes with less corruption.

        Also, people freely moving across the world would lead to a gradual unification of culture, which should take at least religious/racial/ethnical extremism out of the question.

              • Allero@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Inevitably, to some extent. But such enclaves will likely be small in size, which wouldn’t let the global scale conflict develop.

                States have power of all on behalf of certain group, which isn’t much true for the anarchist community.

                (With that said, I think anarchism is full of assumptions and I’m not sure it’s the ideal way forward; but it’s worth mentioning nonetheless)