What is the closest example of an anarchist society?

What is the closest example of an anarchist society?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Anarchist Catalonia, it lasted for about a year iirc. From the rose-tinted classes of people recounting it, it sounded like a paradise. People would arrive at work, decide what quotas they needed to reach, agree on working conditions, and get paid in scrips issued by their factory union. Each scrip represented one hour worked, and they could be traded for the value of one hour of goods or services elsewhere.

I can't speak to the practical problems of that, because no one narrated on any of them, but on the political side, justice was usually mob rule and very touch and go, international diplomacy was impossible since there was no central authority on the matter, and organizing an effective army, particularly in the middle of a civil war, was nearly impossible since no one wanted to swear loyalty to any sort of command structure because it violated their ideals. Eventually the Anarchists were overcome by Russian backed Communists who were far more ordered than they.

modern day Somalia

>anarchist
>society

this

also Southern/Eastern Ukraine during the Russian civil war was occupied by Anarchist factions for a few years

>ruled by warlords
>anarchy

just like ''''''anarcho'''''' capitalism.

Freetown Christiania

If Denmark ever decides to stop putting up with it, it would end very quickly

It looks to function more as a hang out district for a more alternative scene

>/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

Interesting piece

"In a communal meeting consisting of Christiania residents it was decided that the stalls in Pusher Street (by far the site of the largest cannabis sale in Denmark) should be removed, which happened the following day, September 2. Local residents also urged people who were friends of the neighborhood to help by not buying cannabis in Christiania. About two months later, it was estimated that the cannabis sale had dropped by about 75%."

All of human society up until 0AD kind of

Didn't they demolish the place last year?

An anarchist society is just one where nobody holds the laws as sacred.

It depends on your conception of "anarchism". If you mean a society without a centralized government authority, then there is the Roman Republic, the Commonwealth of Iceland, Frisia during the Middle Ages, Dithmarschen in the Holy Roman Empire.

If you mean a society without any kind of governance, there is literally none. Even Anarchist Catalonia had the CNT/FAI telling everyone else what to do, just like the YPG does in Rojava nowadays. I'm sure some sort of drug lord or intellectual figure also exerts influence in Freetown Christiania which is just governance by other name.

Which is silly because the less laws are hold sacred, the more the state is needed to enforce the laws that exist.

If the laws are hold as sacred in a society, there is no need of a state to enforce them.

Holding something sacred means you're blind to its true value, and being blind to something's true value means you will inevitably waste it.

For those of us who are incapable of doing a quick google search anarchism is not synonymous with chaos. Fucking rubes.

First answer is the best answer, this gentleman is correct. The Spanish revolution is the only time it actually happened, and only really in one city.

I think the Danish government has been wanting to develop in the area for some time

>"In order to present a reasonable use of area after an eventual "cleaning", the Danish government commissioned an architectural competition. 17 proposals were received, of which only eight have met the formal competition requirements. All of the proposals were rejected by the jury."

They're probably going to try and make it look like less of a ghetto and more like a Little Amsterdam to bring more travelers

Sounds like they might be getting sold out

How isn't it anarchism? There's no laws nor state in place. Anarchism doesn't rule out rule by warlords.

Probably The Free Territory in Ukraine. It existed from 1918 to 1921

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

The wild west in America, and the future cosmological exploration.

>this isn't the logical conclusion of any anarchistic society

Anarch-threadly reminder that in the middle east there's literally one faction worth backing and it's Rojava. Literally the good guys in the middle of a shit hole.

Yeah its funny when Orwell recounts how the higher officers had to ask nicely to get their men to do an attack.

>backing NATO stooges

lmao

Anarchism by its very name rules out rule by anyone, lords (war or other), kings, gods, priests. It literally means "without rulers". Are you retarded or just american?

Rulers will naturally form. It's like mad max, eventually the strong with enslave the weak

>the only self proclaimed "anarchist" area in the world is a spraypainted zone which resembles even the worst shitholes in africa while it lays in the capital of denmark

really makes you think

Wow you sure convinced me with those hot movie references.

In Anarchism, there are no rulers. This is by definition.

You are wrong. Leader of a biggest street band is ruler on area of their influence.

>>/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

nice dubs

place looks exactly like I would think, a burn out hippy town for druggies
>On April 24, 2005, a 26-year-old Christiania resident was killed and three other residents injured in a violent gang assault on Pusher Street. The reason for this was a feud over the cannabis market of Copenhagen.

Commonwealth of Iceland is the closest I can think of, although it was before the development of anarchism as a modern ideology, i.e. before there really was a powerful state to oppose oneself to. It was just sort of the default for independent settlers in the end of nowhere

"and whoever wants to be first must be your slave--"

what about the ukraine free territory
or rojava, and the zapatistas in 1911 the magonistas in tijauna or the ezln in 1991

there's no such thing. Anarchism = rule of criminals and corporations

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

The Virtue of Selfishness “The Nature of Government,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 112

>Each scrip represented one hour worked, and they could be traded for the value of one hour of goods or services elsewhere

Holy fuck that's idiotic.

yeah, it's how things work if you're anti-authoritarian. You actually have to convince people to join you in free association in order to fight for the common interest instead of holding them at gunpoint. I think they democratically elected the "officers" as well.

>www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Iuco_kDKs

I remember watching locals get interviewed on YouTube years ago

This.

I don't think you described that correctly.

Medieval Iceland.

this.

So if somebody commits a crime and runs to another country, they get away with no consequences? Because that's basically what you're saying.

Then the system in which that exists is not Anarchism, it is something else.

Anarchism doesn't exclude rulers. Anarchism exclude a state.

>anarchism doesn't exclude a ruler

What did he mean by this?

>anarchism doesn't exclude rulers
>anarchism excludes a state
wat

not that person and not really an answer to the question, but notice that this is basically how it works today. For instance, the US can't persecute assange or snowden, as they are residing in equador/russia and these governments aren't extraditing them.

We tolerate attention as long as it is slavery.

>Anarchism doesn't exclude rulers

I'm pretty sure that's literally the entire point of anarchism.

The difference is that a security company has their reputation at risk if they harbor thieves. The reputation of a state doesn't matter because no choice lul.