Is the long-term stable coexistence of different political-economic systems in different (or even the same) territories possible, provided that the state monopoly ceases to exist?

For example, a large ancap city neighboring a network of anarcho-eco-communes, and nearby, indigenous rainforest dwellers with their own variation of a stateless arrangement. What are the prerequisites and what are the obstacles to stability in a global sense?

meta-anarchist

Ever since progress (interpreted primarily as scientific and technical, but inevitably affecting social relations as well) became a significant value for a certain critical mass of people, the stability of any political-economic systems has been under constant threat. Liberal regimes of the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries differ from each other so much that their own mothers wouldn’t recognize them.

Therefore, in the long run, no current configuration of communities will, of course, be preserved. More stable societies (like the selva aborigines mentioned in your example) will be eroded by less stable ones. Less stable ones will borrow certain practices from more stable ones. Different societies will have slightly different dynamics in population change—both through natural growth and through co-optation into neighboring societies.

One thing can be said with reasonable confidence: if concepts of property in neighboring communities prove to be compatible, then, at the very least, conflicts between them will be minor and episodic, without any nonsense like wars of extermination. How property is defined within a community is not that important; the main thing is that when interacting with neighbors, the peculiarities of their worldview are taken into account.

For instance, if raids for brides are launched from the forest, if people from the fields visit suburban gas stations to get fuel for free, and if city dwellers place new residential quarters in the fields and turn a piece of the forest into a park—then irritated dialogues with the general message of “what exactly did you have in mind?” are inevitable. After some time, a mutual adjustment is inevitable: raids will become ritualized and turn into a folklore festival for the city dwellers; fuel will be gifted to the communists in exchange for their eco-products; suburban housing will adopt some features of communal living; and the park on the border of the selva will be used for raids once a year, and for peaceful walks and picnics the rest of the time.

As scientific development progresses, humans tend to decrease, rather than increase, their impact on nature. If food can be grown in a test tube in a cupboard, it is much more convenient than growing it in manured fields. If metals are extracted from seawater, it is far more pleasant than digging up mountains in search of ore. If additional space can be packed into a fourth dimension and put in a pocket, then the wild and untouched selva will begin right at the doorstep—there will be no need to clear-cut it.

Thus, there are long-term factors that will promote the outward expansion of the city, and there are factors of the opposite direction. There are factors promoting the expansion of ancap culture as the culture of a wealthier society, and there are factors promoting the expansion of communist and primitive relations (the abundance of goods makes such downshifting attractive to many). There will be no stability for us. Let us weep!