How would an anarchist society work in practice?

Question

If there were no police, no authorities...then would for example protect people from being mugged, their goods stolen, murdered....who would pass judgement or impose sanction on the perpertrators of crime? It confuses me, I like the concept to an extent but can't figure it out!

Answer 1

it would be in essence pure communism.

Answer 2

Just because there would be no rulers dosn't mean that there would be no order. In an anarchist society there would be far less crime of most kinds because there would simply be no need for it, for instance people would not have to steal to make money because goods and services would be freely exchanged. Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves.

Of course there would still be some crime, to say that there wouldn't would just be rediculous. This crime would be dealt with by the entire community, the community would decide what the propler course of action to take would be. There would not be prisons, at least like the prisons we currently have, because prisons do little to solve the problems. Instead we would focus on rehabilitation.

I realize that there are some situations that the above mentioned will not address, this is because I don't have all the answers. Try looking at the anarchist faq to address these issues, it is an excellent resource.

Answer 3

Unless everyone was devoted to following some type of guideline like the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" it would be a pretty scary place.

Only when everyone is nice to each other could it work... but then what if someone deviates???  What to do!?!?!

Answer 4

Small clans of people, where people who are not leaders, would form a group of followers who would find a leader who is physically strong to lead the group. Would work kindof like a mob.  But there would be continuous wars over areas. Example would be the begining of Scottland. The reason the concept is not good is because you can't trust anyone and you would go from tribe to tribe until you found one that fit. Once you did find one that fit it would more than likely be the begining of the next gov't. It's all about the survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive.

Answer 5

It just depends on your definition of anarchy. If you define it as a free-for-all, where everybody (or almost everybody) only cares about themselves, and nobody tries to protect the freedom of others, then that's a completely different situation than a society where everybody (or almost everybody) believes in protecting eachother's freedoms.

The second scenario is what most anarchists mean when they are trying to spread the ideas of anarchism.

Any organization can become corrupt, whether it's a union, a corporation, or a government. Even if you didn't have organizations, you could still have individuals running around behaving like mafia or a member of an unaccountable army.

When you say a person is sovereign or an organization is sovereign, you also have to consider how other sovereign individuals / organizations will react when this one attempts to harm others.

If we assume anarchists agree that they will protect eachother from hierarchy and coercion, then I don't think society has to worry about a few random rogue individuals that don't agree with freedom for everyone.

Answer 6

From *an anarchist FAQ:*

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193...

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193...

From Dyer Lum's "Economics of Anarchy:"

http://praxeology.net/DL-EA-10.htm

Anarchism, in a nutshell, supports free association, opposes the state, and opposes hierarchy. (At the very least, anarchists oppose involuntary hierarchy; anarchists often try to create egalitarian alternatives to the semi-voluntary hierarchies too).

There are several different traditions which respect these values, and usually recognize each other as forms of anarchism. These traditions borrow ideas from classical liberalism, from early socialism, from each other, and sometimes from other sources.

People depend on each other. People tend to create their own voluntary social order, including free association, reciprocity, mutual aid, and, if necessary, mutual defense. Once people create this order, a state, or any other criminal gang, is in trouble. So the state, to preserve itself, must preempt voluntary social order.

Highleyman, "An introduction to anarchism:"

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp00155...

"An anarchist FAQ:"

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193... or

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html (same text)

Many other anarchist works are also available at:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Arc... and

http://www.infoshop.org/library/Main_Pag... (different works) and elsewhere

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

Answer 7

It would most likely a totalitarian or a secular theocracy  (kinda like communistic Soviet Russia in its zealous belief of communism) due to most anarchists I chatted to online are very inflexible in their beliefs, very heavily inflicted by group think and even through claim they celebrate individuality and unique thought and ideas in solutions implementing their theories, are in practice quick to squash such attempts and criticisms of new people who notice this pattern. Not to mention unrealistic. Some think anarchy would be spread through the use of unions and labor parties. Unfortunately Unions are as much of the system they wish to overthrow

Answer 8

There would be unlimited anarchy in an anarchist society. It is only in a socially defined society that limited anarchist beliefs and activities can be appealing. No one would know what to expect from others, therefore fear would cause the individual to give up his complete freedom for a measure of peace and security. The only anarchist that could survive would be someone who lives in isolation.

Answer 9

The strongest most successfully aggressive person is first.  The pecking order starts from there.