So to bring together some of the points raised in this and several related topics:
Bands are a desired result of social formation. Without time tested longevity, without an animal relationship with the land, those anti-mass social formations may be better referred to as a "collective" or more specifically an anti-mass collective. Collectives have potential to be bands, but they have just as much potential to be a business, an activist group, a mass organizing group and so on. For this reason, a critical approach to living may be desired. Networking with other collectives that are all attempting to define themselves as anti-mass and direct action oriented can help with the experiment.
In an anti-mass approach, living an anti-mass lifestyle is part of the rebellion against mass society. However in direction, boycotting mass society is not the intention. Have a collective/direct action orientation which maximizes the power of the individual through a collective relationship is. This includes the legitimacy of violence, but also the removal of legitimacy from the institutions of mass society which make up or defend the state of the territory in question. In order to make an effective claim of autonomy is to create local networks of subsistence which exist as a shadow economy for anti-mass/direct action collectives.
This may seem like a counter power situation and while that is debatable, the counter power of collectivism was interpreted in a mass society relationship, where the outcome became the furtherance of business, often with a friendly relationship or association with unions and other civil society institutions.
This differs in intention. If collectives engage in commodity exchanges, the profits would be used to solidify the collective's anti-mass/direct action capabilities, its multi-generational growth, its reduction of the division of labor, its ability to subsist without the luxuries of mass society, its reciprocal internal culture. The Amish come to mind as an comparative example, though I'm certain their may be much to criticize about them, Amish living gives a tangible vision for an anarchist attempt. But so do the Almighty Gaylords, both imperfect examples to see the flexibility of this praxis.
For the indigenous, this approach may seem redundant. Mass society is often the culture of the occupier. But then again without a critique of mass society (or despite it) many indigenous have accepted it into t
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.