Honestly, it’s very difficult to imagine and while there is plenty of literature on the subject I don’t think any of us can truly say. I personally have not read the literature and for me to speculate on it would do more harm than good I think. The reality of a stateless society seems so far off from my lifetime that discussing how it might look feels like fantasizing to me. My focus has always been on getting to a point where one is possible and studying how to do so as this is far more relevant to my conditions.

Stateless societies absolutely have existed. The state had to arise at some point. Foraging and horticultural groups are examples of this but neither can sustain our current human population so no they are not practical in the way you are asking. There were also attempts at utopian communism that were internally stateless but ultimately subject to the whims of whatever state they resided in so their status as stateless is debatable. You won’t find a largescale stateless society in the modern era primarily because it would make them incredibly vulnerable. Proposing, hypothetically, you eliminate class within a large industrialized society and therefore internally remove the requirement for a state, that society is still beholden to the global dynamic of imperialism. The state is still required to protect the interests of their society from the contradicting interests of capital abroad. This is why communism must be an international struggle.

I would consider authoritarian a useless word for describing them. Sure, you could call them that and it would fit, but it says very little about them and fails to distinguish them from other states.

All states are authoritarian. Holding and exerting authority is the point of a state. The state exists as a tool for a class to express its authority over the other.

This same issue applies to the term dictatorship as well. When we hear the term authoritarian we must ask authority for whom. When we hear the word dictatorship we must ask what group is dictating and to what end.

Until the state is abolished every society is authoritarian and a dictatorship. So what’s the point of the descriptor?

Edit: if I have been too vague I’m happy to elaborate further

Makes for great justification of hierarchy

Did not take this to be homophobic at first glance but I’ve now had 2 people mention it. Should I remove?

I saw it more as like, open submission to fascism.

Also can’t believe I just got called a liberal

Definitely not how I understood this. Saw this as more representative of submission to fascism

It is

I’ve just never enjoyed his content tbh. He also encourages faith in American electoralism to an extent that makes me uncomfortable and participates in drama slop too much for me to enjoy.

I know that last bit may seems strange considering what I have posted but I generally do not directly consume internet drama. I have never seen anything from the channels of either of these people. I just hear about it from other people and go, haha funny.

Odysseus is clearly pulling you out of the tar pit

I’m not personally a fan

My placement on this scale will remain unknown unsaid…

They gave one to Henry Kissinger

Its a reference to how the balkan peninsula, specifically former yugoslavia, was broken into a multitude of weaker independant states primarily by exploiting ethnic tensions. This allowed western capital to exert significant influence on the political-economy of these countries in a way they could not when they were united. As these new states fought eachother and destroyed themselves foreign capitalist bought up their economies and to this day remain significant employers in the region; allowing them to extract wealth they couldn’t have without balkanization and the violence that came with it.

It essentially boils down to the divide and conquer strategy. I honestly don’t believe the west is currently capable of accomplishing this in Russia no matter the outcome of the Ukraine war. The Balkans have a history of nationalist movements and a dense diversity of cultures that made them much more vulnerable to this strategy than modern Russia would be.