Under what circumstances would anarchy work as a political system?

Under what circumstances would anarchy work as a political system?

Anarchy is the lack of a political system so never.

In a Utopian thought experiment or in an incredibly tiny scale.

When you're the only person on earth

Anarchy is like Communism it looks great on paper but it does not work in real life since it does not take human nature into consideration!

Two people living on an island

It doesn't, because people will always organize into supportive arrangements, whether that's clans or communes. As soon as they do that they have to impose some rules, and then you have government again.

Communism looks bad on paper tbh.

How does anarchy look good on paper? Anarchy only feels good emotionally... To some

It wouldnt really work because human nature is inherintley evil, and we will just end ip destroying ourselves

Good and evil are objective. Being a basic bitch is quantifiably you.

I believe anarchism in traditional sense allowes communes to exist and make rules but every member of the commune has to agree 100% on the rules and everyone has the right to join the community meetings and every opinion has equal value.

soo that could work on a real tiny scale

Tribal anarchy is what we had during our evolution.

I agree. As long as there were no outside existential threats, like an actual state with the power that a state confers.

Really, anarchy only works like you said, on a very small scale, and preferably within the confines of a larger state that will protect it.

>Implying I wouldnt NEED to physically dominate the only other person on the planet and would ultimately have to chain them up when I slept or they might one day reach the conclusion to do the same to me.

Would be pretty funny to half-heartedly fake kindness to each other as we spent weeks putting on muscle, eating right, and secretly trying to find the best weapons.

>human nature is inherintley evil
I personally think human nature is inherintly good but too much power gives opportunity to abuse the power. Serioulsy every dictator ever abused power to oppress people or a certain group of people.

Anarchism has nothing against rules. Anarchism focuses on voluntary/intentional societies.

Well if there's a larger state that can press rules (even if they don't) or protect the commune at will, it's not a souvereign anarchist state anymore.

That's my point.

You can have a voluntary anarchic society tucked away in the Rocky Mountains or something because you're protected by the larger state surrounding you. You can have anarchy on a small scale while still being "safe" from the possibility of invasion and conquest by another state.

There isn't really a way for an anarchic society to protect itself from an outside, organized state.

There also isn't such a thing as a sovereign anarchist state, since anarchy implies the absence of a state entirely.

SO you have an anarchist state (or no state.. actually). People form communes and have their own rules and shit. It's only a matter of time until wars in between these micro-states.

Also technology and science would improve veeeerrryyy slloooow or not at all

>anarchy
>political system

pick one retard

small tribes

Entirely un-achievable outside of small the level of small scale communities. Even more idealistic than communism and that's saying a lot. Keep dreaming kid.

Communism looks good on paper to some since people like the idea of sharing resources
Anarchy looks good on paper to some since they see it as freedom.
Hate to tell you but you are wrong and right at the same time but tribal anarchy is a oxymoron. Tribalism is what we had during our evolution yes. But you can't have both tribalism and anarchism.Since tribalism means having rules and anarchism is a lack of rules.And there might not be written down rules in tribalism but there are customs and rituals and there is leadership usually from the alpha men and usually the elders hold some power as well.

Almost all political ideologies / policies are created on the basis of having the perfect "followers"

Namely mindless automata who follow an idea blindly and without question.

Since this is not the case, no long term and wide reaching political system will ever work as intended, nor be beneficial for everyone.

The best we could hope to get would be a large number of different ideologies applied to different groups withing a community, in specific situations.

In this scenario life is pretty much like jungle tribes. So you have 20 people and 5 kids? Is the opinion of the kids of equal value? Let's say no, so now we have to make a rule for when their voice is of equal value. The kids can't vote, they are oppressed.
Same with demented people, down syndrome, really old people etc.

Second, how the fuck are you going to make rules in which EVERYONE agrees. Day 1 we agree on rule x. After a week 1 person doesn't like rule x, so it is abolished. Everybody has a veto to abolish any rule at any time.
So this could only work if these 20 people are reaaaly like minded. Even then there's the kids/retards problem.


How do these modern day anarchists think this could ever work?

>How do these modern day anarchists think this could ever work?

Most of them probably don't have any long term endgame. If they hate capitalism and government why not start up self sustaining communes and grow food instead of setting dumpsters on fire and acting like adolescent twats

That's the thing.

When I said rules have to be imposed, I meant it. You have to have a way of enforcing the rules, and it can't just be banishing offenders, since then what do you do with a child who commits vandalism or something?

Once you start setting up rules and enforcement you basically have a state again. Or at least that's how it seems to me. I'm not an expert on the topic and would welcome somebody to explain it so I can learn something.

well I know a sort-of commune in the neighborhood of Amsterdam. It's a squatted haven with around 50 people living there. They have meetings once a week but from what I've heard they don't agree on much. Also there are some polish immigrants living in trailers outside of their borders and they're not allowed inside until they 'prove they will be useful to the community' or some shit like that so basically there's a rule that oppresses those people so they still suck.

I'd like to squat my own place there and live there. When they come to kick me out I'll say 'well do you OWN this place?' They don't. Wonder how that will turn out. Probably get kicked out to live with the banned polish crowd. Maybe those guys are more of an anarchy than these so called anarchists.

Well like said earlier you can have rules but they have to be agreed on by everyone. It would be a democracy otherwise

So then what do you do with law breakers?

You agree on rules so you also agree on sanctions (or lack there of)