How does a stateless society (anarchy, comunism...

how does a stateless society (anarchy, comunism, whatever) protects it's citizens from another state that wants to conquer it?

Apparently, things like that don't happen in fantasyland...

Citizen militias and private mercenaries,

the invaders will be stopped by the lack of roads

What if the opposition simply offers to pay more money to the mercenaries?

how does a citizen militia can realistically beat an entire enemy state army with trained soldiers and military gear?

Won't happen if you just make the whole world stateless :^)

See world war 2 Russia. Draft the population.

Such a society cannot protect its citizens, that's why such societies don't exist. commiefags like to claim that "real communism" has never been done, and they're right because it's completely fucking impossible

It doesn't. Kek

Then they are not very trustworthy mercenaries and they gig is most likely over since not many customers are going to hire a group with such reputation.
Afghanistan. Never underestimate guerrilla warfare.

do you think you can simply draft civilians and take them to war without proper training and gear?

afganisthan had basic tribal organizations.
they're not anarquists.

Using BWCs or TS

Fucking kek

That's exactly what the Soviets did

the hidden hand of the market shall crush all opposition

so basically send millions to the meat grinder?

sounds like a great plan my brother.

can't wait to see a bunch of local militias without a HQ having a war against modern armies.

the same way any pre-empire country did, guerilla warfare and citizen militias

the question is:

would you be willing to pay for security measures ?

if the answer is yes, then exactly the same way it is now.

if the answer is no, then fugg off

Tribal organisations are not state. You have some ancaps totally ok with the church and traditional anarchists who defend a very local, very decentralised management junta.

The lack of state doesn't suddenly mean humans become hyperindividual animals.

>lets risk astronomically higher deaths because of our autistic aversion to pooling resources

>What is UN
>What is allies

Diplomacy can still happen with large corporations doing the talk

>communism
>stateless society

They leave the roads in such disrepair that the opposing army can't advance

Better question: Can India ever become Anarcho-capitalist? Who would build the designated shitting roads?

>world war 2 Russia
>stateless

>stateless
>a fucking draft, or any way of enforcing said draft

yeah, but even afghanistan is a state.

bro, that's their game.

fpbp

Armies can fight other armies. But armies cannot fight an entire population.. that is unless you happen to be Kitchener..

artillery and air force can easily take infantery.

can't wait to see a bunch of local militias without a HQ having a war against modern armies.


Have you been living in a bubble? It has been and is happening right now

Companies like Lockheed and Martin and Esso

I think parts of India effectively are. There was a great article that argued that Guangdong people in China are sort of naturally anarcho-capitalist and always have been. But neither all of China nor all India could ever be brought up to that standard. The social structures that exist (please correct me if I'm wrong, Pajeets) pretty much came into existence and survive to protect exactly the sort of people who could never last a day in anarcho-capitalism.

you mean isis?

or just terrorists cells?

I used the Afghanistan example to show you how some more or less unorganised militias could face a superior more organised army and still either reach an stalemate (USA) or win (URSS).

If you want some RL examples of what an anarchistic society could look like then you have anarchist Spain (certain zones of Catalonia, Aragon and Andalusia during the Civil War) or the Kowloon Walled City (more like anarcho-capitalism with the Triads operating as security).

Yes.. but what I am saying is that the fighting wouldn't be open battle where artillery can hit an obvious enemy. It's more like the Troubles in Ireland or Gaza where the entire population is agains an invading army force. They create insurgencies such as the IRA and Hamas

>let's let an authoritarian regime just waltz in and take over invalidating our years of working hard to avoid such a thing

your examples don't count because the opossing army is playing with fair rules and don't want to genocide the anarchy population.

There's nothing stopping USA to use nukes on every inch of afghanistan.

Warfare has advanced to the point where insurgents of any nationality and description can simply get all their orders via phone from people they may never meet. The headquarters could be a tiny bare room with a phone charger and a laptop and be the HQ of an organization

Disney world too.

They would be more competent than our government personally apeaing

how do you avoid propaganda, briberies and psychological warfare or simple economic blockades?

do you think ISIS could beat the USA if USA uses all it's forces like in WWII?

Also why would any country want to invade an anarchic society? How would that even got their interests?

There's nothing stopping the USA to use nukes anywhere. If you're going to completely destroy a nation just for the shits and gigs, with airstrikes it really doesn't matter what political system they are using.

natural resources.

What fair rules? What even are fair rules in military takeover and fighting?

If your fighting a fair fight then you are doing something wrong.

Because they're an expansionist power. What do you think happened to the Ukrainian Free State?

That would be for any country, but anarchic ones in particular are not worth the try. It would be easier to deploy the resources of a state

that's not the question.

the question is how a stateless society defends againts a trained enemy with state of the art gear.

USA has losts lasts wars because they contain their military power and don't want to genocide the local population.

It depends... Would the US still be funding ISIS?

States and armies can never truly eradicate an ideology

Worked in Soviet Union, worked in China, worked in Cuba.

It's economically more efficient to trade them.

It's more of a though exercise.

how could a stateless society defends itself from another enemy state that considers ideologically the mortal enemy of such stateless society.

They steamrolled the nazis with that tactic, why change now?

And we told you. People coming together for a common cause and fighting in urban warfare and insurgency. Make the enemy patrols too scared to venture into your city.

IEDs

ok, how does that works now that drones exists?

It's called anti-aircraft weapons

It doesnt
thats why liberatarianism, communism, anarcho capitalism is silly

They'll have designated shitting fields instead, and their shit will fertilize the surrounding jungles of India and more trees means less CO2, this way global warming will be solved.

Automated defense systems. It worked for Atlantis.

How does an anarchic capitalist state even function in international relations tho

A prerequisite to communism is that the entire world becomes Communist. So therefore you won't need an army or a state because the whole world is Communist.

This is what communists actually believe.

ideally everyone is armed and knows how to use their weaponry and bodies for complete self-defense

unfortunetly, most believers in a stateless society are naive as fuck and don't believe in that... so they'll certainly get steamrolled when their neighbors begin to think they'd make nice slaves.