“Take the Clinton pledge"

“Is the idea of a “voluntarist” society simply impracticable and illusory or something truly viable?”
It is, of course, illusory. Oh, you might be able to make a go of something small, on the scale of a commune involving a handful of people on a farm somewhere; but were your “voluntarist” society begin to grow as a fashion to the point where Western style corporations began to perceive it as a potential or possible encroachment on their prerogatives, you’d be dealt with in due course. Just ask any society that today tries, or yesterday tried, to go its own way? Syria or Libya or Latin America or, too often forgotten, even the people living in the ‘remote’ but resource rich regions of the Congo, to name but a few — anyone? How did things work out for the “voluntarist” and highly democratic and egalitarian indigenous societies of North America once the newly independent State of America decided that their extermination as functioning societies was in the “national interest?”
No. Unless the many who comprise the rank and file of the modern state (especially those employed in ‘policing’ or ‘soldiering’ functions) come over to the side of the common people’s political and economic interests, lucidly aware in their purpose to mutiny, your “voluntarist” society’s life expectancy is pretty much predicated on how well it can fly below the corporate radar or go pretty much unnoticed.
It is unlikely, in my opinion, that anything substantial will change without something close to a civil war happening.
It won’t necessarily have to be violent but I think the dismantling of the current structure of things, if consciously and deliberately achieved, will have to at least threaten an explosion.

James is preaching to the converted, as he notes, so why should he refer to the Democratic Party as the “Left”?