deleted

Basically, panarchism is just a BS idea popular among right-wing pro-capitalist "libertarians" with the idea being that one be allowed to to live under the established government of whatever nation-state that one would like to live under. Unlike anarchism, panarchism does not challenge the existence of nation-states, and it is therefore not anti-statist.

Also, anarchism is as much anti-capitalist as it is anti-statist.

Just more phlegm coughed up by right wing types.

It is assumed and understood that in a global anarchist-communist society that people would have freedom of movement. The imagineering of Panarchism happened when right wing libs tried to further justify the continued existence of the state and capitalism. As if being able to pick up and move far away to live and work under oligarchs with different faces is some great leap forward for the cause of human liberty?

Seriously, leave this shit wherever you found it ;-)

Scheuerf

So would it be correct to say that panarchism is necessarily statist? It seems like something similar to panarchy would exist in anarchist societies. The only difference between panarchism and what would exist in an anarchist society would be that the collectives that you can join or leave regardless of geography in anarchist societies would be directly democratic and based upon anarchist principles.

anarchism would not be a load of isolate groups that existed in complete independence from each other, that kind of arrangement is impossible, instead different groups and industries would group together into federations.

In a hypothetical anarchist world nation-states and territorial boundaries would no longer exist and one would be free to travel to and live virtually anyplace on earth, so it could be said that "panarchy" would exist integrally in an "anarchist society", though as political theory "panarchy" would be rendered totally redundant in the first place by the non-existence of government and territorial boundaries.

The Wikipedia page mentioned that panarchism is popular among those on the right, but it also mentioned that it is advocated by some socialists.

Maybe a few theorists among the libertarian-left have entertained the idea from time to time but other then that I don't think it is in any sense a popular theory among non-electoral socialists. First of all, how would panarchism be introduced other then through electoral means aimed at changing laws regarding citizenship?

I'm aware that anarchism is anti-capitalist. I used the term anti-statist because it didn't seem like panarchism had much to do with anti-capitalism.

If it is not anti-capitalism then it is not really anti-statism either for the very reason that a strong state is ultimately required to regulate and enforce capitalist social relations in favor of the capitalist class. Without the state, or something analogous to the concentrated force available to the state, the relatively small population of capitalists could not protect their privileged access to property from the majority of the world population made impoverished because of their own lack of equal access to property. Genuine anti-statism also implies anti-capitalism.

Scheuerf

radicalgraffiti

anarchism would not be a load of isolate groups that existed in complete independence from each other, that kind of arrangement is impossible, instead different groups and industries would group together into federations.

But there would still be different levels of federation in which people would be able to move and choose freely between.

i dont know what you mean by this?
groups would need to federate with other groups in order to make decisions, if you are building roads, water electric supplies etc this all has an affect on others. a group of a hundred or a thousand people cant do that stuff by themselves, so they need to coordinate with other groups of people, which would necessitate a means to make decisions collectivity, ie a federation. this is not something that you can simple opt out of.

Scheuerf

I think there would probably be pretty significant differences among different regions. I think it would be likely that some people would want to live in mutualist or collectivist economies, while others would want to live in communist ones. You would also be able to not participate in this federation if you'd like.

i don't see how radically different economic systems could operate together.

Scheuerf

radicalgraffiti

Scheuerf

radicalgraffiti

anarchism would not be a load of isolate groups that existed in complete independence from each other, that kind of arrangement is impossible, instead different groups and industries would group together into federations.

But there would still be different levels of federation in which people would be able to move and choose freely between.

i dont know what you mean by this?
groups would need to federate with other groups in order to make decisions, if you are building roads, water electric supplies etc this all has an affect on others. a group of a hundred or a thousand people cant do that stuff by themselves, so they need to coordinate with other groups of people, which would necessitate a means to make decisions collectivity, ie a federation. this is not something that you can simple opt out of.

Scheuerf

I think there would probably be pretty significant differences among different regions. I think it would be likely that some people would want to live in mutualist or collectivist economies, while others would want to live in communist ones. You would also be able to not participate in this federation if you'd like.

i don't see how radically different economic systems could operate together.

If a school were to be built and operated, lower levels of federation would make the decisions involved because they would be the only ones being affected by them. If I understand correctly, various anarchist schools of thought were put into practice in Spain at the same time.

you don't "move and chose" between different levels of federalism though, things have to be done at the level they have to be done at.

spain had a brief anarchist revolution in parts and people in different places had different idea how things should work, so they did different things, if this had happened without the civil war and hte starlinists then the different approaches would have conflicted with each other and standardised systems would have developed.
but really a civil war, which the anarchists lost, really isn't a model for a future society

Huh, well recently I discovered a site called Panarchy I'd never heard the term before and the articles its hosting seems a bit incoherent but it does host some texts I'd not had much luck finding otherwise.