What are some historical precedents for a successful anarchist society?

Since everyone in this thread is retarded, I'll chime in. Look into the history of Catalonia. They went through a moderately successful period of anarchism. Of course the Spanish Civil war put an end to that.

If your system can't handle external threats, it's a shit system. The world isn't fair, and if your experiment gets fucking crushed by people who are far better and more competent than you, you don't get to whine to mummy about how franco is cheating and you should get another turn

>If your system can't handle external threats, it's a shit system.
hey autism you missed the point, anarchism has no external or internal boundary line, thus cant be beat, thus all action can be placed under this banner and you cant lose.

>inb4 national anarchism

Right here:

Anarchism is not a social-planning ideology like democracy but is rather an ontological position about the role of government in society. It's like asking "What are some historical precedents for a successful egalitarian society?" It's not a non-sensical question, it's just that anarchism is not a "central principle" upon which you create a society.

That's just redefining losing as winning, and claiming that you're now undefeatable.

wrong. ur stuck in a dichotomy, classic case of feeblemindedness. i never ever implied the negative to be true, that was your false causation of a peasent mind jumping to that wrongful conclusion

>t serf

Everyone was an anarchist until agriculture.

Then some asshole figured out he could have power over people if collected them together and made them work in the fields growing shit.

HOORAY CIVILIZATION AND ETERNAL SLAVERY

wrong, from that point property rights were invented and anarchism continued, flourished, & fortified

So your argument is literally ad hominem insults

ladies and gentlemen, the retard

Depends.

Anarcho-Primitivism? Check out the Guyaki of Paraguay (Society against the state is an excellent book to read) or the Yolgnu of Arnhem land. The Guyaki will actively kill anyone who seeks out political power, and the justification for this is strangely quite egoist (coming from Pierre Clastres). The Yolgnu are highly decentralized and at best have ceremonial leadership, but each tribe is very independent (hence the decentralization), but had a society quite expansive in northern australia at one point.

Im not the kind of person to go "hurr, every native tribe or primitive society was anarchist" though, so if anyone says random native tribes were, they probably dont know their history, as, though very minarchist in many regards, most native tribes did exercise hierarchy, political power, chiefdoms, etc.

The Apache have some anarchistic elements and non-hierarchical elements though, but anarchism is actually pretty rare in native tribes typically.

As for something later on, during the early colonial era there were some societies or groups which could possibly be construed as anarchist. Pennsylvania actually kicked the colonial governor out at one point and there was no overall political authority ruling over the entire colony/region (which just led to a bunch of mennonites, amish folk, fur trappers, and a few merchant based cities doing their own thing, though with their own local authorities + refusing to pay taxes to the crown).

Thats not anarchism though, but its sort of getting there.

Pirates supposedly had a sort of egoistic democracy, though not quite anarchism.

The West though (before the middle of the 19th century) was largely anarchaic. There often wasnt clear authority in specific territories, more often than not settlements were on their own, people elected direct representatives, taxes wern't around, etc. Thats an interesting period to look at if you wanna explore a very, very decentralized society.

As for modern anarchism, there's Catalonia (though honestly, this was basically a dictatorship of the proletariat in everything but name, because everyone was ideologically indoctrinated/brainwashed and beat on the church).

Theres the Ukranian Free State, which was anarchist and didn't involve quite as many blood thirsty attacks on the church. Thats something interesting to look at, especially how the military differed in hierarchy under "anarchism" (basically it was individual cells/ groups coordinating and people voting on important decisions/ leaders, though that basically translated to a bunch of dudes with motorcades listening to Makhno).

There's the Baja California revolution during the Mexican Revolution.

There's the Shinmin autonomous zone in Korea

The Zapitistas

and to some Rojava has been considered Anarchist

Otherwise, past these, I don't consider random small towns that are "anarchist" to be mass societies and save random spots in antiquity or the early colonial period, there arent many examples

>Everyone was an anarchist until agriculture
What, you seriously think hunter tribes didn't have chieftains?
Never go full retard bud

It's not that anarchism can't handle external threats it's that it just simply lost a very important war. No matter how great your system is it can't conjure weapons or soldiers out of nowhere or cause all their enemies to drop dead.
Most tribes don't have one single king who rules everything. Usually there are specific respected individuals or elders who people tend to follow and obey out of respect, not fear. Additionally, brutal punishments were never the norm, with most disputes being settled with discussion or at the worst, with ostracism or exile. When you've know everyone around you for life you're not going to be very willing to main or kill him because some guy told you too.

A man being stranded alone on a desert island? Otherwise it doesn't exist.

Men are social animals like gorillas or chimps, and in power hierarchies necessarily and naturally emerge among groups of men.

Altruism is essentially based on two factors:

1. It is evolutionary advantageous for you to help your relatives survive and reproduce, because they are passing on many of your shared genes.

2. When you have more men, its easier to go kill your enemies and take their women (and to prevent that from happening to you). You need to be able to trust the guy you are hunting and fighting next to: your life depends on it.

So there is tremendous group cohesion among small bands of men, but that doesn't mean that a power structure doesn't exist. The smartest strongest man is still boss, but in paleolithic times the group leader probably actually cared for his fellows, because they were also his cousins, brothers, nephews, etc.

jack donovan is a self loathing, alt right homosexual....not smart to quote him i should think

You're stretching the definitions. Hierarchy and authority isn't just some guy who people follow, it in a set in system where the people being ruled have no choice but to be ruled. Following some guy because you think he's a good leader and because he's charismatic doesn't mean he has authority over you. Authority is the idea that someone has a right to force you to do things you don't want to do; whereas leaders voluntarily gain followers, rulers exercise authority over their subjects.
>power hierarchies necessarily and naturally emerge among groups of men.
There being one guy who the other follows doesn't mean there's a hierarchy or an exercise of power.