What are some examples of successful anarchist societies in history?

What are some examples of successful anarchist societies in history?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

None, at least if you consider a society only successful if it can sustain all other major forces rallying together to crush it.

Literally none. Don't like them fool you when they say Catalonia.

There are none Catalonia, Free territory, Shinmin autonomous region these societies all failed.

anarchism is a meme

Here's my personal all inclusive list:
>

Government is the end game of highly intelligent social creatures as we know it. It's just impossible to pool resources with no management of said resources.

Now, that doesn't mean that all government is good or accidental/purposeful mismanagement of resources doesn't occur.

The world of anarchy is short, dumb, cruel, and boring.

anarcho-communism is stupid but thats a pretty dumb interpretation of it

Detroit

>prevent anyone from having stuff
confirmed for not knowing the difference between private property and possessive property

Societies that eventually developed governments.

there are none and don't let any faggot memer tell you otherwise

OP said successful, user. Sorry to break it to you, but existing for less than 5 years is not successful by any definition of the word.

why is "anarchism=no government at all" such a widespread meme?

political philosophies usually seek to interpret ways of life within the political scope, meaning you can have a pragmatic libertarian society without the bullshit that Veeky Forums usually memes about. An anarchist society simply means a society influenced by the respective ideals, not a pure philosphy incarnate.

>anarchist societies

>successful

hahahahahahaha!!

Christiania in Denmark has been selling weed and being cop free largely unmolested for quite a while now.

They also have a lot of gang problems.

The best kind of anarchy

I'm not sure if you're being winkingly sarcastic since ancaps aren't anarchists or just being dumb.

Anarchism suffers from the same problems as communism in that nobody can define it because there are no practical examples. So it's just some theoretical construct that has no real relevance to the world.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

seemed kinda succesful desu
[spoiler]until communists came [/spoiler]

Who enforces the distinction.

You anarkiddies are so fucking retarded.

You don't need to. Private property is already an institution that needs to be enforced, by removing the enforcement of it no more is necessary.

How will anarchists prevent people from claiming ownership over the means of production, if they manage to posses it and are willing to defend it?

Do they not intend to use force to prevent the re-privatization of property?

Do they not differentiate between that force/violence and the force/violence of the would be privatizer?

Isnt then, the distinction between the state (monopolized violence) and the will of the anarchist mass blurred? Even negated?

Arent anarchists replicating state power? Dont all ideologies which accept mass society replicate state power?

Why is everyone talking about ''''''''anarcho''''''''-communism when anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism because it seems to be the only group that actually argues for a stateless society.

Anarcho-Communism is extremely unlikely to be succesfully implemented because it requires two things.
1. It requires an area where an ancom society can thrive without any threat from the outside world.
2. It requires every single one of its individuals to agree with the philosophy and not to take advantage of their comrades. That means no one may use violence, restrict somebody elses freedom, mistreat someone in any way, take more than what belongs to them or contribute nothing to society.

anarchy suffers from the whole "let's organize as if we were a state but let's not call it a state" thing

>anarchist society
what?

>money
wew lad

>ha the reaction backstabbed/fucked you over every time
>that disputes your theory
can this meme just end?

Theory doesn't mean shit if it can't be properly implemented friendo. No Anarchist movement would be big enough to fend off wave after wave of reactionary armies trying to fuck their shit up. Just look at Catalonia and the Free Territory.

Anarchy was successful in Ukraine and Catalonia. It was crushed because rightists are essentially inhuman.

To be perfectly fair, failure of implementation doesn't mean the theory is unsound. Democracy only lasted a limited time in Athens, and then we spend centuries without it before it abruptly became the dominant form of governance on the planet.

>rightists are essentially inhuman

Except for the fact that the distinction between means of production & normal property has blurred so much that you can't even divide personal & private without inconsistent arbitrary definitions that don't hold water.

At most some Ancoms admit that it is up to the will of the majority in the community in question and they can be as arbitrary as they want cos Democracy.

Newsflash, property is property and Democracy is shit.

The distinction between property and not property is arbitrary in any society.

post anarcho-merms

Except property itself has a very clear line of logical reasoning during disagreement, the distinctions people dream up on top of that always lack consistency and destroy the fundamentals of why ownership as a concept is important.

Well to be fair they fell because of the Red Army

...

>Except property itself has a very clear line of logical reasoning during disagreement

Not really. See the concerns about absentee ownership or the question of whether finders is indeed keepers (which are both in fact the same issue). Either conclusion you can take on this particular issue has odd ramifications (if I can't own something when absent from it, what stops people from stealing my house when I go out to get the groceries versus the whole bag of worms that is allowing someone to own something in perpetuity just because they laid claim to it at one point, even if they appear to have abandoned it).

As much as he gets memed about here, Stirner does a really good job of showing how property ownership is indeed just an arbitrary construct, and that you ultimately own what you can either defend from others, or others are willing to help defend for you.

>fascism is the best way to strength a nation to fight outside forces and/or to bring back a nation back on its feet after collapse

Fascism has consistently failed at both of these. Fascist states have been almost universally destroyed by outside forces, and tended to slow down the recovery of the nations that adopted them.

Same thing with libertarianism, has there ever been a successful libertarian society or place?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovism

How is libertarianism appreciably different from liberalism as represented by this infographic?

Why would the Libertarian say he agrees with the Fascist when what he says is directly opposed to all the stated Fascist tenants?

>Libertarianism & Fascism are "god-tier"

I cringed.

>libertarianism in the same tier as fascism

>libertarianism as an independent coherrent ideology
americans everybody

Further, American libertarianism (ignoring the anarchist roots of the word itself, we're strictly talking about the nearly exclusively American phenomenon) is just an outgrowth of liberalism.

American Libertarian thinkers draw extensively on the old liberal thinkers of the latter Enlightenment.

please refer to:

> you can either defend from others, or others are willing to help defend for you.

Pretty much. In a civilized society while force is necessary if no agreement is reached, the great achievement is the ability to use reasoning and evidence to arbitrate disputes, it at least gives us a semblance of cooperation and peace which has done quite a bit under Capitalism.

Sliding scale.

I think the idea behind it is that they respectfully disagree and see the merits in either idea (no fucking clue why) and disdain the rest.

Yeah, I'm not arguing with that, I'm just pointing out that our particular notion of property is still a fairly arbitrary construct. It's been a useful one, but is indeed arbitrary.

For the record I don't agree with anarcho-communism (or any communism for that matter) but they're not entirely wrong in thinking that private property is just a societal institution.

>I agree that ethics should be controlled by the government but Iavtualky think there should be as little government as possible.

That picture is some gr8 b8

Free Territory

The internet

cavemen

Nearly every commune through history without hierarchy, including the ones today. Most of them are usually very successful and sustainable, and typically the only reason why they die is because the next generation want to join the outside world. If you're talking about a mass society, there's not many examples because it truly hasn't been tried beyond a few occasions, and even if it failed with a mass society it says nothing about its validity.
There difference between private and personal property is pretty clear cut because the definitions are based upon the means of production. Your house is still your house even if you're absent because your ownership of it isn't entirely based upon possession, while one's ownership of private property is.
>Capitalist society encourages peace and cooperation and not exploitation and compulsory agreements
>disputes are settled through reasoning and evidence and not through hiring the best lawyers
I laughed.

Prehistoric burial patterns and (in the case of the Neolithic) structural layouts indicate (arguably) some form of hierarchy.
In the Paleolithic, however, there is much less evidence for any form of hierarchy, though it's debatable whether these collections of hominids constitute a society, as, especially in the Lower Paleolithic, the Homo genus had only just emerged, and lithic industires must not be confused with the presence of societies. Granted, in the Upper Paleolithic, we do see small settlements and culture emerging, though despite the lack of artefactual evidence for the contrary, we cannot conclude that the societies were "anarchist".

Can it really be called arbitrary though, merely because some people disagree in disputes with force?

Property has a clear framework of reasoning that relies obviously on the people involved at the time, the same with any human interaction. The framework is very consistent though, subjective claims of ownership, backed up by evidence or logic of an objective link to the thing being claim & a subjective interpretation of the link. Ie. I bought this, here is the receipt.

This is the same with the scientific method, subjective hypothesis, backed by objective evidence followed by a subjective interpretation.

It remains consistent in the realm of argumentation, but just as applying heat to ice doesn't change the evidence for what ice is, applying force in property disputes doesn't change what property is and how it's argued.

> the definitions are based upon the means of production

....and the difference between means of production and any other type of property have blurred so much it's become a meaningless distinction.

> your ownership of your house isn't entirely based upon possession
> while one's ownership of private property is

You might want to expand on that because it doesn't follow at all. Saying that you still own a house whether you possess it or not is the same as owning a means of production whether you possess it or not (ie absentee ownership). How is private property entirely based on possession and a house or personal possession is not?

> >Capitalist society encourages peace and cooperation and not exploitation and compulsory agreements

Don't be ridiculous, voluntary interaction for mutual benefit has produced cooperation period.

>disputes are settled through reasoning and evidence and not through hiring the best lawyers

Yes the states court system is very flawed, however the concept of ownership itself remains with a consistent framework. The fact that people argue ownership claims better than others doesn't invalidate the concept itself. Just as someone taking a candy from a retard that just bought it.

I dont understand your definition of private possession. Do you have a better one?

>....and the difference between means of production and any other type of property have blurred so much it's become a meaningless distinction.
It's really not. Labor, tools, and natural resources are the means of production. A house isn't any of those.
>You might want to expand on that because it doesn't follow at all. Saying that you still own a house whether you possess it or not is the same as owning a means of production whether you possess it or not (ie absentee ownership). How is private property entirely based on possession and a house or personal possession is not?
The rules for private property vs personal property are different because private property affects everyone while personal property doesn't. A person owning a house doesn't matter to me, while them owning the local natural resources or factories do.
>Don't be ridiculous, voluntary interaction for mutual benefit has produced cooperation period.
When the system is designed for you to either work for someone or be homeless, obviously working for someone benefits you both and can be said to be voluntary, but again, that's not really saying much when the alternative is homelessness.
>The fact that people argue ownership claims better than others doesn't invalidate the concept itself.
If something is true or not, how good of a orator or arguer you are shouldn't be relevant.
Property that relates to the means of production is considered private property, while property that doesn't is considered personal. There could be grey areas like whether your garden or car is personal or private, but in general the two are very different.

Your house is on land, can you not own the land, as it is a natural resource?

Computers are tools. Can you not own a computer? Or is it just software that has to be public?

>Your house is on land, can you not own the land, as it is a natural resource?
The amount of land a single house is on isn't really relevant to any significant industry or farming. Whereas declaring hundreds of acres yours because you said so, is.
>Computers are tools. Can you not own a computer? Or is it just software that has to be public?
It depends on the circumstances. In a wester country computers are so widespread that a single computer can be considered personal property, whereas a poor community in Africa where IT work or software development is somehow an industry, a single computer would be private. A supercomputer or a server farm are rare and important enough in a western country to be considered means of production and as such private property.

Not an argument.

Fuck off fascists.

A failure of discourse

...

>Someone with no idea how many decades of big government programming were required to get Detroit as fucked as it is today.

There is no such thing as an anarchist society.

Society is orderly.

Why no both? Sounds like what a functional anarchy would include.

>It depends on the circumstances. In a wester country computers are so widespread that a single computer can be considered personal property, whereas a poor community in Africa where IT work or software development is somehow an industry, a single computer would be private.

Arn't you just describing a scenario where personal property = private property owned by one person? So the distinction between private and personal property is about how widespread it is?

>The rules for private property vs personal property are different because private property affects everyone while personal property doesn't.

But widespread computers does affect everyone. It means that you can have more people shitposting on a Iranian air-freshener enthusiast board.

>Can it really be called arbitrary though, merely because some people disagree in disputes with force?

Unless it's etched in universal law as something like C being the limit of all motion, it's fucking arbitrary.

Yes and no. Farmland and timber forests are pretty widespread, but they're still means of production and therefor private property. Classifying something as private property is ultimately an economic question rather than a widespread categorical one. If there's only two people in the entire world there's no reason in distinguishing different types of property, because they could just claim whatever they wanted and it'd make no difference. The question of private vs personal property is only relevant if such a distinct needs to be made. For instance, if there was an extensive economy based upon computers, then computers would become a means of production, and if there were a scarcity of computers in such an economy then computers would become private property; they could always have been considered private property, but the distinction only matters in certain circumstances.
>But widespread computers does affect everyone. It means that you can have more people shitposting on a Iranian air-freshener enthusiast board.
Unfortunately so. But I mostly meant affect in an economic sense.

the individual

Nigs chomping out so hard that the white people with money left wasn't a big government program you tard. Electing a corrupt fuck like Kwame Kilpatrick is debatable but that's what happens when you let the chimps just elect whoever they like best basing their choice on who is the most hood

...

...

...

...

...

...

My fav

...

...

...

Stirner actually gave some examples of a union of egoists. He said some friends going to a wine bar, children playing and two people in love with eachother.

Anarcho-capitalistism

how can you have no system of law or government whatsoever yet still have an economy(which is a system perpetuated by a government or system of law)in which to practice capitalism in?

I like anarchism because it is one of the more profound political thought experiments we have come up with.

It will tell you nearly everything about the person attempting to define it. Are they optimistic about the possibilities of human social arrangements? Do they ultimately need authority for any sense of motivation or morality? Are they just dumb and want to fuck shit up? There is a version of anarchy for each of these types, and just as many revealing arguments against their implementation.

There are more versions of anarchy than there are practitioners, and it exists almost entirely as discussions, books, and very brief experiments to always be absorbed by more violent, neighboring systems of higher organization.


Anarchy is impossible, so long as the primitive drives for dominance and subservience remain at the core of our species, and those so cursed with visions of how we could live better and more freely can only be architects of strange and beautiful places that cannot be built, and will never be occupied.

Good day.

>feudalism 2: recreational nuclear boogaloo

Except anarchism advocates for the abolishment of hierarchies, something which capitalism generates, to the point where in an an cap society you'd have the corporations dictating your life.

But hey, NO TAXES THO

here, FTFY

...

You're still essentially taxed through rent and your labor being exploited.
Makho was a cool guy but man did he look like a giant homo. I guess he's proof that someone can be charismatic without being good looking.

That communism paragraph. Jesus Christ.

J U S T

your ideology is just so bad

The problem with anarchism is that is it unable to deal with "wtf we have to stop this!" people. It's not even because it runs counter to the ideology of the a prevalent superpower that says "wtf we have to stop this!" it can be brought down by pretty much anyone who goes "wtf we have to stop this!".

It's perfectly able to deal with it; it just like all ideologies loses wars that are extremely in their disadvantage.

...