You live in a fantasy world

Another one lol

ML user doesnt understand humor. Shocker

Hes not been in power for over a decade, cant be in power again and left without incident. Obama derangement syndrome much. Bad faith and stupid

This is part of the problem. I did answer ypur question but you were incapable of recognizing it. Im here because “sticking your head in the dirt doesnt change anything”

Whay exactly have i posted to divide people. Whefe did i tell peolle that what they do is poison.

Lemmy is full of shit people actively making the internet worse and more divisive. Sticking your head in the dirt isnt going to change anything

Ypu are part of the problem with the internet. Please stop posting.

These are the exact same arguments given for the advent of writing. People like you have been making these complaints since we first learned to write anything down.

I think we’re actually circling the same issue but drawing different conclusions from it.

You say Rojava is just an example of federated communities working together, which is fine, but the important part is that it only works because it has state-like structures. It has an administration, courts, and a military command structure. Once you have those, you’re already outside anarchism and into decentralized governance.

That’s kind of the point I’m making. Once enough communities federate together to handle things like defense, infrastructure, logistics, etc., you inevitably recreate the same coordination structures states evolved to solve those problems. They might be called councils instead of ministries, but they’re doing the same job.

The corruption argument also doesn’t really work the way you’re framing it. You say someone would have to bribe an entire community instead of a few officials, but that assumes communities behave as a unified rational actor. In reality local politics can be just as corruptible. Social pressure, patronage, intimidation, and local alliances still exist. Decentralization often just spreads power across many smaller political arenas instead of eliminating corruption entirely.

On the “everyone is armed like Switzerland” point, Switzerland actually works because it’s a highly organized state with centralized institutions and logistics. The militia exists inside a coordinated national structure. Without that coordination, widespread armament alone doesn’t produce stability.

The scarcity point also seems a bit optimistic. Even if we solved basic food and housing, scarcity doesn’t disappear. Water rights, strategic land, energy infrastructure, and transportation networks still create conflicts between groups. Mutual aid works great inside trusted networks, but it doesn’t automatically resolve competing priorities between communities.

And on the “they only lost because outside states crushed them” argument — that actually reinforces the structural issue. If decentralized societies consistently require centralized allies to survive against centralized opponents, that suggests centralized coordination has real advantages in defense and large-scale organization.

I’m not saying decentralized governance can’t work or that councils are a bad idea. Local governance often works better than distant centralized control. I’m just skeptical that a system made entirely of federated local councils can scale indefinitely without recreating the same coordination structures states developed.

So I guess the question I keep coming back to is this:

If two communities strongly disagree over something critical — say water access, land use, or infrastructure — and neither side is willing to back down, who ultimately enforces the final decision?