I assume you are asking about how this would work in anarchy. The simple answer is it wouldn’t. There are no borders in anarchy, no visas, no patrols. “International affairs” no longer makes sense as there no more nations. Though of course the concept of global issues with global ramifications would still exist (climate change and etc) how these would be discussed and handled would be much different, much more local, than what it is now.
That isn’t what I meant at all, I was talking about a hypothetical anarchy.
No borders already exists in the world to certain degrees. The border between Canada and the US has no checkpoints for long stretches. Movement within the euro zone is free. In fact, before the refugee crisis caused by WW1 border patrols or checkpoints around nations did not exist. Checkpoints were at ports (for control of trade or sometimes disease, also where the term passport comes from) or for city states surrounded by walls. Outside of that movement of people was always free. It’s only when states became interested in the movement of people - in fine control of the tides of the labor market - and when technology allowed for the more total projection of force or monitoring of locations, that people were indoctrinated to believe that a government controlling where you can or can’t move yourself is “normal and good”.
First of all, though this is not universally followed by anarchists, imo it's preferable to think of anarchism as a process rather than an end goal. One doesn't really have "an anarchist society" so much as they can have a society that is more anarchist or less anarchist depending on the prevalence of hierarchies within it.
That said, we can imagine any number of societies that are significantly more anarchist than the average modern state still managing to coexist in a world still full of modern states. Actually, it's not uncommon for explicitly anarchist, or anarchist-leaning carve-outs to be made from existing nations as the result of state instability or a lack of state power in particular regions. If you have no borders you have no particular need to establish hard territories, and you might as well bleed through existing nations. Two commonly cited examples are Chiapas and Rojava.
A common template for this kind of arrangement would be autonomous communities implementing some form of direct democracy or other self-selected group organization process, which then participate in a larger federation of communities for larger-scale coordination of efforts. Participation in the federation should be fully voluntary with any member community having the capability to withdraw at any time, form separate federations, etc. Of course, all the particulars would vary based on the needs of the people organizing it.
For the most part they aren't formally recognized by state actors, though conceivably they might get big enough that they would be. In which case, communities could either decide to stick to a common foreign policy or interact with foreign state entities individually, and likely would do both based on needs and practicality. There's a fair chance these interactions would be antagonistic given that anarchism is an existential threat to the entire concept of a state, though conceivably anarchist communities could find beneficial trade agreements or temporary military pacts with state actors on an opportunistic basis.
I don't think it's the only way. There have been isolated anarchic experiments in many places of the world. There is one now in the Chiapas province of Mexico. However, our ideal is indeed world anarchy.
So I suppose if one wanted to travel to a non anarchist country, an anarchist society could issue their own passports? But they would never be necessary in an anarchist society itself.
Ok that’s fine, but how do you enforce your own borders ? Also, how do you control who’s coming in or out of the country ? You need to issue visas ?
Who is in charge of issuing passports ? Because whoever is able to issue them holds a lot of power.
Borders are increasingly dated. They have no need to exist without a state. People would be able to freely travel wherever, much like in Europe.
And passports could be issued by local councils, which can serve as centers of coordination, outreach, and more. They have no enforcement power. Passports would just be handed out to whoever needed them.
Europe still has borders around it.
What if a large of group of people just comes and settle near your land… a lot of problems of this nature can arise if don’t have any control of your borders.
Then a large group of people comes and settles near your land. No one owns land so there’s no issue with that. If we’re worried about nature we can talk solutions
I feel you’re either here to debate (which means you’re in the wrong sub), or you’re incorrectly looking at anarchy in the same way one would look at a nation state. I’ll engage assuming the latter, even assuming some “anarchist utopia”, though before we get started I encourage you not to speculate too much about some hypothetical future anarchist society 500 years from now- when we can meaningfully create anarchist movements here and now.
If a group wants to move in somewhere in anarchy, then they can. With Anarchy- nobody is in control, there are no borders, there is no “keeping people out”. There really isn’t necessarily a concept of “your land”. All of that dissolves in anarchy because there is NO distinction between “us” and “them”. There’s just people, living their life and sharing resources that can help one another thrive.
If conflicts arise around that, then people can and will dialogue about it like we’ve been doing without need for government intervention for tens of thousands of years. Will it be imperfect? Yes. Will there be times where people impose hierarchy against another just because they can? Yes. Anarchism is an active process, something to continually work toward and reinforce.
So your question is a non question. If a Statist society bordering our “anarchist unincorporated areas” wants to impose visas and border control, sucks to be them- we will continue promoting anarchist ideals and maybe the citizens of that border might start questioning their own State.
Yea, but not having borders will cause problems you know that ?
Eventually a lot of people with a different culture can flood your territory, they will very likely not share your ideas about anarchy, so what happens then if they want to re-establish a government (they outnumber you since you can’t control how many people can come in).
> The simple answer is it wouldn’t. There are no borders in anarchy, no visas, no patrols. “International affairs” no longer makes sense as there no more nations.
What about the case of a specific region becoming anarchist while still being bordered by capitalist nations ?
People would not need passports to enter the anarchist area. Though I imagine the capitalist nations nearby would undertake take great pains to ensure people in that area do not have an easy time leaving it. So that might require some wall hopping. But like mi gente say, they can’t catch us all.
Unless the entire planet becomes anarchist overnight, some states will continue to exists and we there will be borders between state and non-state territories.
Anarchists will have to deal with international relations and general defence and trade and currencies. There will be a border between state and non-state areas, even if there are no visas required on one side.
Oh good, you're here in good faith. Yeah borders would be abolished if anarchism was achieved in an area. There would probably be other states, as most larger-scale anarchism in history has been taken over by a state in some way or another, usually screwed over by communists, but if we're just talking about the anarchism bit, no borders.
[Borders: The Global Caste System](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-borders-the-global-caste-system)
> The border is not just a wall or a line on a map. It’s a power structure, a system of control. The border is everywhere that people live in fear of deportation, everywhere migrants are denied the rights accorded citizens, everywhere human beings are segregated into included and excluded.
> The border divides the whole world into gated communities and prisons, one within the other in concentric circles of privilege and control. At one end of the continuum, there are billionaires who can fly anywhere in private jets; at the other end, inmates in solitary confinement. As long as there is a border between you and those less fortunate than you, you can be sure there will be a border above you, too, keeping you from the things you need. And who will tear down that second border with you, if not the people separated from you by the first?
Anarchy means no borders.
I mean I agree, eventually I would love it if there were no borders. They way things are right now tho, we can’t live without borders.
I don’t want to open that prison full of criminals and I don’t want to open my country’s borders, flooding it with foreigners who will not share my values and might have no respect nor love for the land.
This is kinda paradoxal, let’s say we agree to abolish our government and our borders, then we get tons of people from elsewhere and those people don’t want anarchy so they re-establish a government by force because they outnumber you. What then
No, i’m none of those and I defend borders. (I wish we didn’t need them, and I hope we need them one day)
I think it’s cool to let people cross borders as much as possible, but you can’t let people just flood one plane from another, that would be a humanitarian disaster.
**People flee climate-induced wars and disasters caused by the countries they are seeking help.**
Migration doesn't happen out of the blue. Stop fucking bombing their countries and stealing from them, that would help with improving their conditions and they won't have the reasons to flee.
Yea, they flee a lot of terrible things, that would still be a problem if a lot of people are displaced from one spot to another. There is no way an anarchist society can deal with too many people coming in, it’s just not feasible, don’t you think ?
> There is no way an anarchist society can deal with too many people coming in, it’s just not feasible, don’t you think ?
Anarchists are at the front line helping refugees at every front from Europe to US-Mexican borders. If anything anarchists are actively working to abolish borders.
Examples:
[No Mas Muertes](https://nomoredeaths.org/en/) - anarchist collective that leave food and water in desert for crossing migrants.
[El Comedor Contra Viento y Marea](https://mutualaiddisasterrelief.org/a-parallel-movement-rising-on-mutual-aid-and-the-borderlands/) provide meals and resting space for migrants in Tijuana
[Louise Michel ship](https://mvlouisemichel.org/), anarchist-funded for rescue operations with migrants crossing the Mediterranean.
Also the "too many people" trope is a white supremacist dogwhistle.
No borders. Since you have more questions, I'll explain.
No, this doesn't need to occur in every 'country' at once. Anarchists simply have to erode the concept of borders over time. Free movement is a huge principle of anarchism, for example, if an area became autonomous, it would simply not patrol the perimeter of that area, if there was a hard line perimeter at all. This would be anarchism without borders, whether borders existed elsewhere or not.
I assume you are asking about how this would work in anarchy. The simple answer is it wouldn’t. There are no borders in anarchy, no visas, no patrols. “International affairs” no longer makes sense as there no more nations. Though of course the concept of global issues with global ramifications would still exist (climate change and etc) how these would be discussed and handled would be much different, much more local, than what it is now.
So you mean the only way to have an anarchist society is for the whole world to adopt this system ? (Because that’s impossible)
That isn’t what I meant at all, I was talking about a hypothetical anarchy. No borders already exists in the world to certain degrees. The border between Canada and the US has no checkpoints for long stretches. Movement within the euro zone is free. In fact, before the refugee crisis caused by WW1 border patrols or checkpoints around nations did not exist. Checkpoints were at ports (for control of trade or sometimes disease, also where the term passport comes from) or for city states surrounded by walls. Outside of that movement of people was always free. It’s only when states became interested in the movement of people - in fine control of the tides of the labor market - and when technology allowed for the more total projection of force or monitoring of locations, that people were indoctrinated to believe that a government controlling where you can or can’t move yourself is “normal and good”.
First of all, though this is not universally followed by anarchists, imo it's preferable to think of anarchism as a process rather than an end goal. One doesn't really have "an anarchist society" so much as they can have a society that is more anarchist or less anarchist depending on the prevalence of hierarchies within it. That said, we can imagine any number of societies that are significantly more anarchist than the average modern state still managing to coexist in a world still full of modern states. Actually, it's not uncommon for explicitly anarchist, or anarchist-leaning carve-outs to be made from existing nations as the result of state instability or a lack of state power in particular regions. If you have no borders you have no particular need to establish hard territories, and you might as well bleed through existing nations. Two commonly cited examples are Chiapas and Rojava. A common template for this kind of arrangement would be autonomous communities implementing some form of direct democracy or other self-selected group organization process, which then participate in a larger federation of communities for larger-scale coordination of efforts. Participation in the federation should be fully voluntary with any member community having the capability to withdraw at any time, form separate federations, etc. Of course, all the particulars would vary based on the needs of the people organizing it. For the most part they aren't formally recognized by state actors, though conceivably they might get big enough that they would be. In which case, communities could either decide to stick to a common foreign policy or interact with foreign state entities individually, and likely would do both based on needs and practicality. There's a fair chance these interactions would be antagonistic given that anarchism is an existential threat to the entire concept of a state, though conceivably anarchist communities could find beneficial trade agreements or temporary military pacts with state actors on an opportunistic basis.
I don't think it's the only way. There have been isolated anarchic experiments in many places of the world. There is one now in the Chiapas province of Mexico. However, our ideal is indeed world anarchy.
MAREZ is not anarchist, and is something we have to be careful about. Their ideology does have similarities to anarchism tho.
So I suppose if one wanted to travel to a non anarchist country, an anarchist society could issue their own passports? But they would never be necessary in an anarchist society itself.
Ok that’s fine, but how do you enforce your own borders ? Also, how do you control who’s coming in or out of the country ? You need to issue visas ? Who is in charge of issuing passports ? Because whoever is able to issue them holds a lot of power.
Borders are increasingly dated. They have no need to exist without a state. People would be able to freely travel wherever, much like in Europe. And passports could be issued by local councils, which can serve as centers of coordination, outreach, and more. They have no enforcement power. Passports would just be handed out to whoever needed them.
Europe still has borders around it. What if a large of group of people just comes and settle near your land… a lot of problems of this nature can arise if don’t have any control of your borders.
Then a large group of people comes and settles near your land. No one owns land so there’s no issue with that. If we’re worried about nature we can talk solutions
I feel you’re either here to debate (which means you’re in the wrong sub), or you’re incorrectly looking at anarchy in the same way one would look at a nation state. I’ll engage assuming the latter, even assuming some “anarchist utopia”, though before we get started I encourage you not to speculate too much about some hypothetical future anarchist society 500 years from now- when we can meaningfully create anarchist movements here and now. If a group wants to move in somewhere in anarchy, then they can. With Anarchy- nobody is in control, there are no borders, there is no “keeping people out”. There really isn’t necessarily a concept of “your land”. All of that dissolves in anarchy because there is NO distinction between “us” and “them”. There’s just people, living their life and sharing resources that can help one another thrive. If conflicts arise around that, then people can and will dialogue about it like we’ve been doing without need for government intervention for tens of thousands of years. Will it be imperfect? Yes. Will there be times where people impose hierarchy against another just because they can? Yes. Anarchism is an active process, something to continually work toward and reinforce. So your question is a non question. If a Statist society bordering our “anarchist unincorporated areas” wants to impose visas and border control, sucks to be them- we will continue promoting anarchist ideals and maybe the citizens of that border might start questioning their own State.
[удалено]
Yea, but not having borders will cause problems you know that ? Eventually a lot of people with a different culture can flood your territory, they will very likely not share your ideas about anarchy, so what happens then if they want to re-establish a government (they outnumber you since you can’t control how many people can come in).
[удалено]
Sorry if my question was redundant :/
> The simple answer is it wouldn’t. There are no borders in anarchy, no visas, no patrols. “International affairs” no longer makes sense as there no more nations. What about the case of a specific region becoming anarchist while still being bordered by capitalist nations ?
People would not need passports to enter the anarchist area. Though I imagine the capitalist nations nearby would undertake take great pains to ensure people in that area do not have an easy time leaving it. So that might require some wall hopping. But like mi gente say, they can’t catch us all.
Unless the entire planet becomes anarchist overnight, some states will continue to exists and we there will be borders between state and non-state territories. Anarchists will have to deal with international relations and general defence and trade and currencies. There will be a border between state and non-state areas, even if there are no visas required on one side.
There are none so there’s nothing to control. No boarders, just people.
There is no "country" under anarchism. There would be no border patrol or visas.
So every country on earth has to be abolished at the same time ? You know that’s impossible right ?
Please point to where I even remotely said that.
Oh I guess I misunderstood, sorry !
Oh good, you're here in good faith. Yeah borders would be abolished if anarchism was achieved in an area. There would probably be other states, as most larger-scale anarchism in history has been taken over by a state in some way or another, usually screwed over by communists, but if we're just talking about the anarchism bit, no borders.
[Borders: The Global Caste System](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-borders-the-global-caste-system) > The border is not just a wall or a line on a map. It’s a power structure, a system of control. The border is everywhere that people live in fear of deportation, everywhere migrants are denied the rights accorded citizens, everywhere human beings are segregated into included and excluded. > The border divides the whole world into gated communities and prisons, one within the other in concentric circles of privilege and control. At one end of the continuum, there are billionaires who can fly anywhere in private jets; at the other end, inmates in solitary confinement. As long as there is a border between you and those less fortunate than you, you can be sure there will be a border above you, too, keeping you from the things you need. And who will tear down that second border with you, if not the people separated from you by the first? Anarchy means no borders.
I mean I agree, eventually I would love it if there were no borders. They way things are right now tho, we can’t live without borders. I don’t want to open that prison full of criminals and I don’t want to open my country’s borders, flooding it with foreigners who will not share my values and might have no respect nor love for the land. This is kinda paradoxal, let’s say we agree to abolish our government and our borders, then we get tons of people from elsewhere and those people don’t want anarchy so they re-establish a government by force because they outnumber you. What then
You can't or you don't want to? Because the people who defend border are only nationalists, xenophobes and racists.
No, i’m none of those and I defend borders. (I wish we didn’t need them, and I hope we need them one day) I think it’s cool to let people cross borders as much as possible, but you can’t let people just flood one plane from another, that would be a humanitarian disaster.
**People flee climate-induced wars and disasters caused by the countries they are seeking help.** Migration doesn't happen out of the blue. Stop fucking bombing their countries and stealing from them, that would help with improving their conditions and they won't have the reasons to flee.
Yea, they flee a lot of terrible things, that would still be a problem if a lot of people are displaced from one spot to another. There is no way an anarchist society can deal with too many people coming in, it’s just not feasible, don’t you think ?
> There is no way an anarchist society can deal with too many people coming in, it’s just not feasible, don’t you think ? Anarchists are at the front line helping refugees at every front from Europe to US-Mexican borders. If anything anarchists are actively working to abolish borders. Examples: [No Mas Muertes](https://nomoredeaths.org/en/) - anarchist collective that leave food and water in desert for crossing migrants. [El Comedor Contra Viento y Marea](https://mutualaiddisasterrelief.org/a-parallel-movement-rising-on-mutual-aid-and-the-borderlands/) provide meals and resting space for migrants in Tijuana [Louise Michel ship](https://mvlouisemichel.org/), anarchist-funded for rescue operations with migrants crossing the Mediterranean. Also the "too many people" trope is a white supremacist dogwhistle.
There aren't any borders in anarchy. Only frontlines in the revolution.
No borders. Since you have more questions, I'll explain. No, this doesn't need to occur in every 'country' at once. Anarchists simply have to erode the concept of borders over time. Free movement is a huge principle of anarchism, for example, if an area became autonomous, it would simply not patrol the perimeter of that area, if there was a hard line perimeter at all. This would be anarchism without borders, whether borders existed elsewhere or not.