Posed similar questions about communism in the past. I’m just trying to understand, I ask because I know there is a reasonable contingent of anarchists here. If you have any literature to recommend I’d love to hear about it. My current understanding is, destruction of current system of government (violently or otherwise) followed by abolition of all law. Following this, small communities of like minded individuals form and cooperate to solve food, safety, water and shelter concerns.
Not very well. At least not for large communities, or ones that want to live modern lives in the developed world.
Yes it’s quite possible to have small communities where everyone knows each other, then you can enforce rules through consensus and social pressure.
But it would be impossible to have large societies or to live in a modern developed world with no hierarchical structures.
There’s a lot of unsaid assumptions going on here. If you’re talking about turning our society completely without any preparation, I’d agree. If you’re talking about having similar levels of healthcare or I strongly disagree
Wouldn’t viewing a large community as a federation of small ones solve the problem? Federations pop up when needed. When they don’t reach consensus, they break up into smaller parts, some of which give the idea a try?
Seems very natural to me, similar to how open source repositories interconnect. People collaborating, differing of opinion, forking or restarting.
That works in isolation, but a federation where everyone is free to cooperate or refrain from doing so will always be weaker militarily than a neighbor who can press everyone into the army.
So any anarchist federation that is successful enough will attract outside aggressors who want to expand, take their shit or force them to join.
True, but history has some examples of how to possibly deal with this e.g. Makhno’s defence of the free territory, or the Zapatistas making use of the isolation of the jungle.