There is quite a number of extant peoples who evince me otherwise. Mondragon corporation and Linux Foundation both serve as evidence against your position as well. You most probably don't have an example of a functioning society because you've misconstrued your definition of society to be exclusive to the design of states. But the stateless form of man is that of small networks of aligned people, and therein lies the check and balance. And I'd postulate given the wide proliferation of knowledge, the high literacy rate, the level of interdependence and so on of the modern era, that people are more able than ever to self-organize in a positive and stateless life to produce a far more egalitarian landscape and one with a greater deal of optionality to the participants therein.
And if I'm being frank, what I see peering over the modern landscape is that the state is little more than a puppet for corporate interests, protecting malefactors from retribution while allowing them in turn to exploit the trust of people that the system isn't stacked. More or less it's a dissolution of the rule of law that consolidates power into the state through that means, and producing what is more or less a completely unruly class which is allowed at length to exploit everyone.
I suppose you're arguing the Hegelian perspective, but I assert the apex of man or the geist, is precisely that which is described in anarchist utopian literature. It's also corroborated inexplicitly by Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" towards the end. Failing to assert position that leads us to continued systems of oppression and a constancy of ennui within the zeitgeist, and a zeitgeist itself which is quite probably unhealthy as it inherits inertia and in being resistant to change it is constantly misdirected which we see everywhere constantly.
> But the stateless form of man is that of small networks of aligned people, and therein lies the check and balance.
I don't think that will work, either. A company like Intel couldn't exist based on small networks. It requires massive scale.
Back in the 70's the car manufacturers British Leyland was handed over to the unions. They abolished management and made decisions collectively. In the end, they realised that that kind of system couldn't work, and brought in management.
Checks and balances may work to some extent. Power structures usually emerge. There's always going to be an elite class.
A great essay called "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" was written by Jo Freeman, a feminist no less.
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
I urge everyone to read it. It will really shape your perspective.
It seems to me that pure anarchist societies are inherently fragile and that power structures will inevitably emerge.
If you like the state so much why don't you renounce your citizenship in whichever developed nation you currently reside eschew your money, and ride out life in China? Maybe India? Vietnam?
You literally said "abolish the state", of which there are only a few examples in this world (maybe only one) and they all suck. The empirical evidence for your deeply held belief that life is better without any centralized planning is non-existent, and actually even opposite to your stated beliefs.
You are totally right. They play by words. Never by facts. Capitalism is so bad that let us go rant about it day and night, live from it, and ignore all socialists paradises.
And if I'm being frank, what I see peering over the modern landscape is that the state is little more than a puppet for corporate interests, protecting malefactors from retribution while allowing them in turn to exploit the trust of people that the system isn't stacked. More or less it's a dissolution of the rule of law that consolidates power into the state through that means, and producing what is more or less a completely unruly class which is allowed at length to exploit everyone.
I suppose you're arguing the Hegelian perspective, but I assert the apex of man or the geist, is precisely that which is described in anarchist utopian literature. It's also corroborated inexplicitly by Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" towards the end. Failing to assert position that leads us to continued systems of oppression and a constancy of ennui within the zeitgeist, and a zeitgeist itself which is quite probably unhealthy as it inherits inertia and in being resistant to change it is constantly misdirected which we see everywhere constantly.