What Exactly Makes Anarchist Societies Stateless

that decisions are made by the people affected by them

In anarchism there is:
Direct democrazy
Recallable delegates
Rules
Freedom of movement
Subscription or donations
No exploiters
Mass rule
Forgiveness or temporary/permanent expelness
Equal access to violence
The system exist to serve the people
People are volunteering to maintain the system
People are urged to engage in solidarity
The individual has to undergo a minimum of compromises with its inner self
The system becomes an expression of the people
There will be harmony

In states there are:
(At best) Representative democrazy
Politicians stays in office for a static amount of time (usually 4 years)
Laws
Borders
Tax
One class exploiting another class
Minority rule
Economic punishment or temporary/permanent emprisonment
Monopoly on violence
People exist to serve the system
People are paid to maintain the system
People are urged to engage in competition
The individual has to undergo many compromises with its inner self
People becomes an expression of the system
There will be contradictions

There will be no states because there will be no power or organisation based on states.

FS98

How exactly would you define the word state or the word government?

Proudhon defined governement:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

A state is something you are forced to be a part of due to your geographical location so that you can be made ready for exploitation

FS98 asked:

How exactly would you define the word state or the word government?

Here is Wikipedia:

The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's, which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory. General categories of state institutions include administrative bureaucracies, legal systems, and military or religious organisations.

Another commonly accepted definition of the state is the one given at the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States in 1933. It defined state as a space that possess the following : A permanent population, a defined territory and a government that is capable of maintaining effective control over the corresponding territory and of conducting International relations with other states.

Here is another pertinent Wikipedia definition:

Civil society is the "aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens." Civil society includes the family and the private sphere, referred to as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and business. By other authors, "civil society" is used in the sense of 1) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens or 2) individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government.

On the rare occasion that I get to discuss anarchism with non-anarchists, in terms which (hopefully) are understandable by them, I tend to give them a first approximation by stating that when government and business have been withered away, we are left with a classless and stateless global civil society.

It's pretty rough and ready, but what can you do?

I think the word state leaves a good hint... it's something which is stable and so not in transformation... anarchism from my understanding is the dissolution of power, not so that there is no thing such as power, since being in a society means we exert power or political energy over others, but that this power is not solidified into static entities... so I think that certain anarchist theories on organization like syndicalism might offer something that in a sense is similar to a state, because to even have councils whose members are constantly shuffled, you still have these centers where power is processed.

Gulai Polye]In anarchism there is:
Direct democrazy

Well, I think that you'll find that the contemporary anarchist movement does tend to attract a lot of crazies. ;)

Sike

Gulai Polye]In anarchism there is:
Direct democrazy

Well, I think that you'll find that the contemporary anarchist movement does tend to attract a lot of crazies. ;)

And what has that to do with direct democracy`?

The Pigeon

so I think that certain anarchist theories on organization like syndicalism might offer something that in a sense is similar to a state

No if something is similar to a state there will be people on the top who cant be challenged because they use the state to defend their position

In syndicalism delegates can be removed from their position from day to day.

In the state people are forced to live by the laws made by the state. Thus the laws are made by the few individuals who are on the top for the few individuals who are on the top, and everyone else is forced to be subjugated to these laws.

In anarchism rules are made by the people for the people. This guarantees non exploitational rules which most people wanna follow without forcing people to follow the rules.

In the state people are forced to pay tax if they live inside the borders of the state.
In anarchism you choose to be a part of the system

I agree, though I feel when you use the words system, this is diluting the essence of anarchism. I am saying that a system is essentially static, and by extension a (libertarian) state. Of course that might be an oxymoron here, but they're just words so, take it as you will.

Dear GP, sorry if my rather jokey attempt at utilizing your typo to effect a bit of light-hearted humor came off as perhaps a bit flippant, but I'm kind of a mischievous sort. ;)

The Pigeon touched on this already -

If archaeologists 1,000 years hence were shifting through the rubble of a large-scale, technological anarchist society - they would 100% determine that what they were looking at was a 'state' type society. They would see evidence for large sedentary populations and big engineering works; hallmarks of 'state' societies. They would determine that some high-level of organization and coordination (a state) was needed to facilitate that particular way of life. The archaeologists would be slightly confused at the lack of evidence suggesting differential wealth but they would look around and see ample evidence for division of labor and again think that they were dealing with a highly complex state type society.

Now-a-days, anthropologists are much more critical, and rightfully so, of quick-and-easy progressivist societal classifications like 'hunter-gather', 'chiefdom' or 'state' . The level of variability in all things human turns that exercise semantic very quickly - which is really what is at the root of these questions of 'state'.

Basically, if you think a state is intrinsically tied to vertical social organization than you think anarchist society would be stateless.

If you think a state is large scale social organization and coordination, you might think that all horizontal forms that commies and other have imagined throughout the years would certainly count as a 'state'.

Sike

Dear GP, sorry if my rather jokey attempt at utilizing your typo to effect a bit of light-hearted humor came off as perhaps a bit flippant, but I'm kind of a mischievous sort. ;)

Aah it was a joke .. ok :)

The Pigeon

I agree, though I feel when you use the words system, this is diluting the essence of anarchism. I am saying that a system is essentially static, and by extension a (libertarian) state. Of course that might be an oxymoron here, but they're just words so, take it as you will.

Well if you look at what is a system:
University of Twente

. A system can be said to consist of four things. The first is objects – the parts, elements, or variables within the system. These may be physical or abstract or both, depending on the nature of the system. Second, a system consists of attributes – the qualities or properties of the system and its objects. Third, a system had internal relationships among its objects. Fourth, systems exist in an environment.

https://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Communication%20Processes/System_Theory/

Then you see anarchism, once put into practice, will become a system or several systems.