Economic models in anarchism: what actually works?

Mark Torres14 said:Pure utopia.
It won't work.😕

The first three points aren't just theoretical—they’re actually happening right now. Any serious business model looking to stay competitive—which basically means staying one step ahead of the pack—is already implementing these kinds of operational strategies.

As for items 4 and 5? Those are pure fantasy. You will always find someone willing to manipulate the system for their own gain, and frankly, that’s not even a difficult feat—if you actually read them, I can certainly provide some real-world examples if anyone is interested.

.. look, let's be honest .. you all seem to need these constant shifts in commerce and capital just to maintain some sense of leverage .. those power dynamics ..
.. so you can finally figure out who actually brings something to the table and who's just dead weight .. right? .. fine then ..

.. we’ll have to see what you actually require ..
.. my grandfather used to manage cattle with nothing but grit .. if it turns out you're more terrified of losing your comforts than he was of losing everything .. then you've really messed up .. if you aren't certain you could feed yourselves today the way he did .. or if you're more preoccupied with survival than he ever was .. then something went fundamentally wrong somewhere along the line ..

.. if you need these hierarchies just to confirm whether you're pushovers .. well .. that won't save you either .. naturally .. you'll still find yourselves needing anarchy ..

Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.

Quincy:

but capitalism features: 1. money 2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down)

That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.

Quincy:

My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something).

Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.

Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).

It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.

Well, obviously there isn't. But if you have all your basic needs met—a warm roof over your head, a full stomach, and actual freedom—then everything else becomes an absolute luxury, and commerce starts to take a backseat. To be honest, I’ve never quite understood people who take out loans just to buy a fancy car or a new phone when they aren't actually necessary for survival. So, if everyone had their essentials covered, trading would naturally become less of a priority...

Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.

Quincy:

but capitalism features: 1. money 2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down)

That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.

Quincy:

My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something).

Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.

Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).

It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.

As I mentioned:
Where I see the real issue lies within people themselves—a human being remains a human being whether they are being crushed by a boot or given every ounce of freedom they could ever want.
So, the problem isn't necessarily found in different systems, or even in capitalism itself, provided that people don't eventually decide to show their darker side at some point.

Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.

Quincy:

but capitalism features: 1. money 2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down)

That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.

Quincy:

My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something).

Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.

Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).

It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.

In the standard way most people think, money will always exist, and there really isn't a difference whether it's in a physical form or in the form of "credit." It's the same thing with the same flaws, just in different packaging...

Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.

Quincy:

but capitalism features: 1. money 2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down)

That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.

Quincy:

My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something).

Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.

Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).

It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.

That impulse might be a leftover from eras defined by scarcity and famine, but if we had truly self-sufficient economies, hunger wouldn't exist; everyone would have what they need for survival and produce it themselves.
The downside to that approach is a lack of daily "luxuries"—meaning you wouldn't have access to things like bananas unless you grew them yourself or lived near someone who did and was willing to trade.
But the reality is that people have lived quite well, and continue to live well, without those kinds of extras. It's just that we've become a bit too spoiled...

What actually needs changing is the people rather than the system, because if you change the people, the system will eventually follow suit. History shows that trying to force the reverse always results in either violence or intense resistance, and you never quite get the whole population to walk away satisfied with such shifts.

Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.

Quincy:

but capitalism features: 1. money 2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down)

That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.

Quincy:

My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something).

Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.

Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).

It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.

Don't you see that the issue isn't with trading itself, but with this human obsession where "everyone has to have everything"? The way we satisfy our needs today is exactly what fuels the race to see who can accumulate more; if everyone were required to handle their own basics, that competitive drive would likely vanish...

The biggest drawback that anyone who considers themselves "socially acceptable" sees in my proposal is precisely that sense of renunciation. But the truth is, we aren't any smarter, better, or more advanced than we were 2,000 years ago during the days of Plato and Socrates... so I truly don't see why we must cater to such an endless craving for luxury, gourmet food, or trinkets.
My idea would essentially force people to gradually become capable of doing everything—to ensure everyone knows how to care for themselves so that the loss of one individual doesn't jeopardize the survival of the community. Only then would everyone finally be equal (which, of course, doesn't mean everyone becomes worthless just because they are replaceable).

Zachary Turner6 said:The first three points aren't just theoretical—they’re actually happening right now. Any serious business model looking to stay competitive—which basically means staying one step ahead of the pack—is already implementing these kinds of operational strategies.

As for items 4 and 5? Those are pure fantasy. You will always find someone willing to manipulate the system for their own gain, and frankly, that’s not even a difficult feat—if you actually read them, I can certainly provide some real-world examples if anyone is interested.

dustyskipper3 said:1) Connecting the workforce through a massive information network that isn't owned by any single entity—basically built on voluntary contributions and service ads from individual producers. Think virtual companies, decentralized operations without those old-school hierarchies, ad-hoc teams, networking, and digital marketing, things like that;

2) Using open-source software that gets constant updates;

3) Trading goods using virtual currency and its derivatives—you know, stocks, options, and other securities traded on virtual exchanges. I guess the stability would be maintained by constantly tracking supply and demand across various points in a unified global market for goods and services;

4) Continuous, self-regulating consumer satisfaction checks via electronic voting or deliberative decision-making through networks. If someone provides poor service or just fails to deliver, they’d automatically lose their customer base and might just have to throw in the towel;

5) Social assistance based on voluntary donations and advertising—kind of like how charities today run ads for sick or underprivileged children through big corporations, but this would be decentralized and handled through various free services maintained by the network users themselves on a pro-bono basis.

etc.🙄

I just highlighted the parts that belong in a sci-fi novel given where humanity is currently at. Otherwise, this is just a slightly more liberal version of capitalism stripped of any actual governance. It all boils down to "voluntary" participation.
What if I'm a killer? How does this society defend itself against me?

Peter Parker62 said:While I was digging through various anarchist texts for a research paper I'm working on, I noticed a pattern. It seems like most of the philosophers and critics I've come across focus almost entirely on the ideology itself—basically just arguing why the state is a bad idea and why it needs to be dismantled. They might touch on getting rid of our current version of capitalism, but it feels like a secondary thought in most of the literature I've read so far.
On the flip side, it feels like hardly anyone—maybe nobody?—actually offers a concrete roadmap for solving the practical problems. Like, if you're planning to get rid of the whole employer-employee dynamic, how does labor actually get organized? If the goal is to scrap money, how do we handle the exchange of goods and services? How would production, transportation, and supply chains even function? I mean, we keep circling back to the same issue: how am I supposed to pay for bread and milk at the grocery store? It’s pretty obvious that offering some random service to the cashier isn't exactly the most efficient solution... (and let's be honest, that's probably not going to work out well either).
Basically, I was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on what an economic system under these conditions might look like. Also, if you have any reading recommendations—ideally stuff available online—that would be great.

Since my paper isn't quite finished yet, it would also be really helpful if you could mention what you see as the biggest flaws in a final state of anarchy, or even the flaws in the transition process leading up to it...

Thanks, 🙂

Hey!

Not sure which philosophers you've been hitting up? From what I know, most writers on anarchism are all about nuking the state (laws)—basically saying everything should be private property. The goal of this kind of political setup is max individual freedom... meaning no one has the right to tell you what you can or can't do. That doesn't mean getting rid of money. People who want to kill off cash are usually just utopians. Just like most political systems, anarchists view money as a tool for exchange. Instead of farmers swapping grain back in the day (and using that grain to get whatever else they needed), money serves the same purpose. Money doesn't actually shrink individual freedom—if anything, it boosts it. Real anarchists push for capitalism (aka economic freedom)—they aren't trying to limit it. Utopians are the ones who want to scrap private property and money entirely—making everything "communal," or owned by the state.

Anyway, if you actually meant anarchists and not utopians, here's my take on the pros and cons.
The biggest pro is definitely the individual liberty anarchism aims for. Everyone's responsible for their own life, and nobody gets to meddle in what you choose to do. Promoting self-responsibility feels like a solid recipe for living a happy, fulfilling life... The biggest con is that anarchists don't seem to see the need for an institution (like a state within a specific area) to protect citizens from people using force against them. This means anarchists don't want objective justice (equal laws for everyone), which I think is super necessary. You need an unbiased party to set objective rules that apply to everyone in a given territory. Anarchists lean toward private police and private militaries. But if police are private, you end up with tons of different agencies, each with its own set of rules. The headache starts if I subscribe to one police service and my neighbor subscribes to another. Imagine I do something my police say is fine, but my neighbor's police say is illegal. We both call our respective cops, they both show up at my door—and then you've got a massive, unsolvable mess on your hands. That's why I think you need an institution to set objective, equal laws for all citizens.

I think government is necessary, but only as a minimal player—way smaller than what we have now—basically just the military, police, and the courts. Everything else should be totally decoupled from the economy.

As for those utopians... honestly, they seem like naive people who dodge reality by daydreaming about how things *should* work instead of actually thinking about how they *do* work. Take the idea of getting rid of money—utopians don't realize that individuals are the ones creating wealth (which money just represents), while the state (like some massive federal bureaucracy) can really only spend it. They think abolishing money will end poverty, but the truth is everyone is poor unless they decide to actually produce something. If you kill the way we measure wealth, you won't make everyone rich; you'll just make everyone broke. I'm sure you see the contradiction in saying bureaucrats are capable businessmen—they aren't actually producers.
The best proof of what happens when the state tries to scrap private property—that whole utopian drive—is the Soviet Union. They sold people this smoke and mirrors dream that giving up their freedom would make them happy. As you know, it turned out people ended up neither happy nor free.

I actually have a suggestion (for the authors who wrote about this topic) for a political system that maximizes individual liberty while also including the elements that anarchy is missing.

Not sure if any of this connects to what you're looking for... but hey, if you have questions, just ask!

I guess it’s probably unnecessary for us all to keep repeating definitions of anarchism. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here what we're talking about. There's that small minority that views it as just a state of pure chaos—seeing it as a potential "man is a wolf to man" situation—but if you look at the English Wikipedia, there are some really well-developed classifications of different types of anarchism, and honestly, the internet is full of shorter excerpts if anyone actually wants to read up on it.

What I'm specifically interested in, though, is how certain theories hold up in practice. For instance, Bakunin argues that the bourgeoisie ascend to management positions where they rake in unrealistically massive salaries, claiming they deserve it because their jobs are harder or carry more responsibility than those of the workers. But on the flip side, he suggests these positions should either be paid equally or, even better, the whole concept of management and administration should be scrapped entirely in favor of giving oversight of the facilities directly to the people. My first question is—what happens if you have a construction firm, say, where more than 50% of the employees are FBI agents or perhaps skilled tradespeople? I don't want to sound condescending, but those individuals might not necessarily be qualified to handle the economic or financial side of things. Then there's the second scenario: a massive corporation like Microsoft or some other giant. You'd still need to organize some kind of councils, committees, or boards, because you simply can't have a million employees deciding every tiny detail of business operations through a democratic vote. I also realize I made an inherent error by using the term "employees"—that word probably needs to be tossed out too. After all, who would coordinate and oversee everything?

On the other hand, regarding the abolition of the state itself—rather than just corporate structures—I see a potential opportunity for creating numerous voluntary funds that people could contribute to. To me, a system like that seems like an excellent replacement for sales tax, which, let's face it, feels like a constant, legalized robbery the government commits against its citizens.
Just to clarify the concept: you'd have a fund for infrastructure, a fund for cancer research, a fund for space exploration, maybe even a fund for religion (though I'm pretty convinced those folks would find a way to turn a profit very quickly... they're talented at that sort of thing), and so on.
For example, at the end of the month, if I'm frustrated with slow internet speeds, I could just pay $50, $100, or whatever amount I feel like into a telecommunications fund. Or I might pay a certain amount into a transit fund because I just blew out my car's suspension hitting a pothole. At a certain point, it just feels better to pay up and live comfortably rather than refuse to pay and deal with crumbling roads everywhere.

I suppose the fundamental principle, which always seems to get lost in the shuffle, should be that we—the people—are primary. Any form of governance, non-governance, or institutional setup exists solely to serve us. If a government starts suffocating us, stealing from us, or dragging us into wars, then it needs to go, because it has started existing merely for its own sake (which is how most modern states operate). But then again, if an institution is actually doing good (why shouldn't a state be?), then it ought to be preserved, because serving the people is its ultimate purpose, right?..

Peter Parker62 said:I guess it’s probably unnecessary for us all to keep repeating definitions of anarchism. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here what we're talking about. There's that small minority that views it as just a state of pure chaos—seeing it as a potential "man is a wolf to man" situation—but if you look at the English Wikipedia, there are some really well-developed classifications of different types of anarchism, and honestly, the internet is full of shorter excerpts if anyone actually wants to read up on it.

What I'm specifically interested in, though, is how certain theories hold up in practice. For instance, Bakunin argues that the bourgeoisie ascend to management positions where they rake in unrealistically massive salaries, claiming they deserve it because their jobs are harder or carry more responsibility than those of the workers. But on the flip side, he suggests these positions should either be paid equally or, even better, the whole concept of management and administration should be scrapped entirely in favor of giving oversight of the facilities directly to the people. My first question is—what happens if you have a construction firm, say, where more than 50% of the employees are FBI agents or perhaps skilled tradespeople? I don't want to sound condescending, but those individuals might not necessarily be qualified to handle the economic or financial side of things. Then there's the second scenario: a massive corporation like Microsoft or some other giant. You'd still need to organize some kind of councils, committees, or boards, because you simply can't have a million employees deciding every tiny detail of business operations through a democratic vote. I also realize I made an inherent error by using the term "employees"—that word probably needs to be tossed out too. After all, who would coordinate and oversee everything?

On the other hand, regarding the abolition of the state itself—rather than just corporate structures—I see a potential opportunity for creating numerous voluntary funds that people could contribute to. To me, a system like that seems like an excellent replacement for sales tax, which, let's face it, feels like a constant, legalized robbery the government commits against its citizens.
Just to clarify the concept: you'd have a fund for infrastructure, a fund for cancer research, a fund for space exploration, maybe even a fund for religion (though I'm pretty convinced those folks would find a way to turn a profit very quickly... they're talented at that sort of thing), and so on.
For example, at the end of the month, if I'm frustrated with slow internet speeds, I could just pay $50, $100, or whatever amount I feel like into a telecommunications fund. Or I might pay a certain amount into a transit fund because I just blew out my car's suspension hitting a pothole. At a certain point, it just feels better to pay up and live comfortably rather than refuse to pay and deal with crumbling roads everywhere.

I suppose the fundamental principle, which always seems to get lost in the shuffle, should be that we—the people—are primary. Any form of governance, non-governance, or institutional setup exists solely to serve us. If a government starts suffocating us, stealing from us, or dragging us into wars, then it needs to go, because it has started existing merely for its own sake (which is how most modern states operate). But then again, if an institution is actually doing good (why shouldn't a state be?), then it ought to be preserved, because serving the people is its ultimate purpose, right?..

People in high-level roles carry more weight—more focus required, more mental heavy lifting—so it’s totally normal, and honestly fair, that they pull in more cash.
I was grabbing a ride in Los Angeles recently and chatting with a driver who's been at it for about 20 years. I asked him why he hasn't started his own business after all this time, especially since he knows the industry inside and out. He just said—man, who wants that kind of headache? What if someone comes at you with a complaint? Then you're stuck dealing with the fallout (that's the responsibility part).
The point is, we should be freeing people from unnecessary chains and letting those who want to be hyper-productive go for it—low taxes, fair courts, basically letting the government stay out of the economy. Just let talented, ambitious people do their thing without interference (classic Laissez-faire capitalism). Indirectly, even the less driven folks end up benefiting from that.
The answer isn't to pile on more regulations that just end up neutering the people who are actually responsible and entrepreneurial. That path doesn't lead to equality—it just leads to everyone having nothing.

Peter Parker62 said:I guess it’s probably unnecessary for us all to keep repeating definitions of anarchism. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here what we're talking about. There's that small minority that views it as just a state of pure chaos—seeing it as a potential "man is a wolf to man" situation—but if you look at the English Wikipedia, there are some really well-developed classifications of different types of anarchism, and honestly, the internet is full of shorter excerpts if anyone actually wants to read up on it.

What I'm specifically interested in, though, is how certain theories hold up in practice. For instance, Bakunin argues that the bourgeoisie ascend to management positions where they rake in unrealistically massive salaries, claiming they deserve it because their jobs are harder or carry more responsibility than those of the workers. But on the flip side, he suggests these positions should either be paid equally or, even better, the whole concept of management and administration should be scrapped entirely in favor of giving oversight of the facilities directly to the people. My first question is—what happens if you have a construction firm, say, where more than 50% of the employees are FBI agents or perhaps skilled tradespeople? I don't want to sound condescending, but those individuals might not necessarily be qualified to handle the economic or financial side of things. Then there's the second scenario: a massive corporation like Microsoft or some other giant. You'd still need to organize some kind of councils, committees, or boards, because you simply can't have a million employees deciding every tiny detail of business operations through a democratic vote. I also realize I made an inherent error by using the term "employees"—that word probably needs to be tossed out too. After all, who would coordinate and oversee everything?

On the other hand, regarding the abolition of the state itself—rather than just corporate structures—I see a potential opportunity for creating numerous voluntary funds that people could contribute to. To me, a system like that seems like an excellent replacement for sales tax, which, let's face it, feels like a constant, legalized robbery the government commits against its citizens.
Just to clarify the concept: you'd have a fund for infrastructure, a fund for cancer research, a fund for space exploration, maybe even a fund for religion (though I'm pretty convinced those folks would find a way to turn a profit very quickly... they're talented at that sort of thing), and so on.
For example, at the end of the month, if I'm frustrated with slow internet speeds, I could just pay $50, $100, or whatever amount I feel like into a telecommunications fund. Or I might pay a certain amount into a transit fund because I just blew out my car's suspension hitting a pothole. At a certain point, it just feels better to pay up and live comfortably rather than refuse to pay and deal with crumbling roads everywhere.

I suppose the fundamental principle, which always seems to get lost in the shuffle, should be that we—the people—are primary. Any form of governance, non-governance, or institutional setup exists solely to serve us. If a government starts suffocating us, stealing from us, or dragging us into wars, then it needs to go, because it has started existing merely for its own sake (which is how most modern states operate). But then again, if an institution is actually doing good (why shouldn't a state be?), then it ought to be preserved, because serving the people is its ultimate purpose, right?..

Maybe some core essentials—like the police or the military (not counting mechanics, the internet, or religious groups 😉)—could be funded through a national lottery? You know, fund the stuff the government actually needs to regulate that way, and let everything else stay private. Private ownership is great because it actually gives people an incentive to produce things—they get to keep what they earn. It’s an illusion to think some bureaucrat is gonna do a better job than someone actually trying to succeed. Same goes for honesty—it's a myth that bureaucrats are more upright than entrepreneurs. Maybe we should start emphasizing that being ambitious doesn't automatically mean you're greedy... kind of like the vibe in *Atlas Shrugged* by Ayn Rand.

Peter Parker62 said:I guess it’s probably unnecessary for us all to keep repeating definitions of anarchism. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here what we're talking about. There's that small minority that views it as just a state of pure chaos—seeing it as a potential "man is a wolf to man" situation—but if you look at the English Wikipedia, there are some really well-developed classifications of different types of anarchism, and honestly, the internet is full of shorter excerpts if anyone actually wants to read up on it.

What I'm specifically interested in, though, is how certain theories hold up in practice. For instance, Bakunin argues that the bourgeoisie ascend to management positions where they rake in unrealistically massive salaries, claiming they deserve it because their jobs are harder or carry more responsibility than those of the workers. But on the flip side, he suggests these positions should either be paid equally or, even better, the whole concept of management and administration should be scrapped entirely in favor of giving oversight of the facilities directly to the people. My first question is—what happens if you have a construction firm, say, where more than 50% of the employees are FBI agents or perhaps skilled tradespeople? I don't want to sound condescending, but those individuals might not necessarily be qualified to handle the economic or financial side of things. Then there's the second scenario: a massive corporation like Microsoft or some other giant. You'd still need to organize some kind of councils, committees, or boards, because you simply can't have a million employees deciding every tiny detail of business operations through a democratic vote. I also realize I made an inherent error by using the term "employees"—that word probably needs to be tossed out too. After all, who would coordinate and oversee everything?

On the other hand, regarding the abolition of the state itself—rather than just corporate structures—I see a potential opportunity for creating numerous voluntary funds that people could contribute to. To me, a system like that seems like an excellent replacement for sales tax, which, let's face it, feels like a constant, legalized robbery the government commits against its citizens.
Just to clarify the concept: you'd have a fund for infrastructure, a fund for cancer research, a fund for space exploration, maybe even a fund for religion (though I'm pretty convinced those folks would find a way to turn a profit very quickly... they're talented at that sort of thing), and so on.
For example, at the end of the month, if I'm frustrated with slow internet speeds, I could just pay $50, $100, or whatever amount I feel like into a telecommunications fund. Or I might pay a certain amount into a transit fund because I just blew out my car's suspension hitting a pothole. At a certain point, it just feels better to pay up and live comfortably rather than refuse to pay and deal with crumbling roads everywhere.

I suppose the fundamental principle, which always seems to get lost in the shuffle, should be that we—the people—are primary. Any form of governance, non-governance, or institutional setup exists solely to serve us. If a government starts suffocating us, stealing from us, or dragging us into wars, then it needs to go, because it has started existing merely for its own sake (which is how most modern states operate). But then again, if an institution is actually doing good (why shouldn't a state be?), then it ought to be preserved, because serving the people is its ultimate purpose, right?..

Exactly. The government should be facilitating growth and individual freedom—not just collecting taxes, playing pretend businessman (building bridges and whatever...), and treating citizens like they're too incompetent to think or fight for themselves. They act like this overbearing parent who "knows" what's best for everyone.

Mark Torres14 said:I just highlighted the parts that belong in a sci-fi novel given where humanity is currently at. Otherwise, this is just a slightly more liberal version of capitalism stripped of any actual governance. It all boils down to "voluntary" participation.
What if I'm a killer? How does this society defend itself against me?

And right there we hit the necessity for certain repressive elements within a society. Anarchism would function beautifully—mostly because it relies on individual, human responsibility—if *everyone* were equally conscientious and accountable. However, how do you stop those who aren't from causing harm to the rest of society? That’s another question left hanging in the air.

Bravo, servantes!

-> As someone working in IT, I’d argue that those setups aren't just theoretical; they are already actively being used.
Your first point is pure web advertising—take YouTube or Dropbox, for instance. They are great examples: free sites, free uploads, free downloads; the end user doesn't pay a single cent, yet these platforms have the potential to generate multi-million dollar revenues. How? Through advertising. And these are essentially virtual companies, networking their resources via a decentralized web that belongs to no one.

Furthermore: Dropbox or BitTorrent are excellent examples of open-source software that undergoes constant, iterative updates...

And moving further: how do you even envision a stock market that doesn't track supply and demand? There are people—hell, entire corporations—whose sole business is selling INFORMATION that influences the market (which is a massive amount of data), thereby driving both supply and demand. All stock exchanges are interconnected within the global market and remain interdependent—this recent crisis is just another perfect example of how the whole world suffers due to the total incompetence of Americans.

The other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any actual credibility.

There you go, suburban—a little something for a seminar topic: link anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to find ways of distributing goods (information and capital) that align with anarchist principles (economics). Since agriculture isn't the primary driver anymore, information is the key. It's the most powerful form of capital out there today.

I find the idea of anarchism fundamentally unworkable in practice. I simply cannot envision a functioning society where every single individual decides on everything. It seems to me that some form of hierarchy is baked into the very nature of human structure—it’s unfortunate, but that is just how 🤷
.
The reality is that lately—particularly within sectors like corporate management—we are seeing a shift away from rigid, top-down hierarchies toward more horizontal models. That is certainly progress. However, even within these flatter organizations, there is still always someone at the top accumulating capital and maintaining control over the levers of power.

Zachary Turner6 said:And right there we hit the necessity for certain repressive elements within a society. Anarchism would function beautifully—mostly because it relies on individual, human responsibility—if *everyone* were equally conscientious and accountable. However, how do you stop those who aren't from causing harm to the rest of society? That’s another question left hanging in the air.

Bravo, servantes!

-> As someone working in IT, I’d argue that those setups aren't just theoretical; they are already actively being used.
Your first point is pure web advertising—take YouTube or Dropbox, for instance. They are great examples: free sites, free uploads, free downloads; the end user doesn't pay a single cent, yet these platforms have the potential to generate multi-million dollar revenues. How? Through advertising. And these are essentially virtual companies, networking their resources via a decentralized web that belongs to no one.

Furthermore: Dropbox or BitTorrent are excellent examples of open-source software that undergoes constant, iterative updates...

And moving further: how do you even envision a stock market that doesn't track supply and demand? There are people—hell, entire corporations—whose sole business is selling INFORMATION that influences the market (which is a massive amount of data), thereby driving both supply and demand. All stock exchanges are interconnected within the global market and remain interdependent—this recent crisis is just another perfect example of how the whole world suffers due to the total incompetence of Americans.

The other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any actual credibility.

There you go, suburban—a little something for a seminar topic: link anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to find ways of distributing goods (information and capital) that align with anarchist principles (economics). Since agriculture isn't the primary driver anymore, information is the key. It's the most powerful form of capital out there today.

Come on now. Who exactly is profiting from those Premium subscriptions for a service like Dropbox? ☕

the other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any real credibility

There you go, suburban. Here is some food for thought for your seminar: you connect anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to derive methods for distributing goods—both information and capital—that align with anarchist principles (economics). Because nowadays, agriculture is secondary. Information is what matters. It is the ultimate capital.

I agree that there is a significant shift happening within information technology, but you are overlooking the fact that this shift does not lead to anarchy. There is still someone who owns all these supposedly "open" platforms, and the tech industry and its massive lobbying power in the USA are essentially the new oil lobby.
That is a far cry from anything one could actually call anarchistic. 🤷

fadedbison17 said:Hey!

Not sure which philosophers you've been hitting up? From what I know, most writers on anarchism are all about nuking the state (laws)—basically saying everything should be private property. The goal of this kind of political setup is max individual freedom... meaning no one has the right to tell you what you can or can't do. That doesn't mean getting rid of money. People who want to kill off cash are usually just utopians. Just like most political systems, anarchists view money as a tool for exchange. Instead of farmers swapping grain back in the day (and using that grain to get whatever else they needed), money serves the same purpose. Money doesn't actually shrink individual freedom—if anything, it boosts it. Real anarchists push for capitalism (aka economic freedom)—they aren't trying to limit it. Utopians are the ones who want to scrap private property and money entirely—making everything "communal," or owned by the state.

Anyway, if you actually meant anarchists and not utopians, here's my take on the pros and cons.
The biggest pro is definitely the individual liberty anarchism aims for. Everyone's responsible for their own life, and nobody gets to meddle in what you choose to do. Promoting self-responsibility feels like a solid recipe for living a happy, fulfilling life... The biggest con is that anarchists don't seem to see the need for an institution (like a state within a specific area) to protect citizens from people using force against them. This means anarchists don't want objective justice (equal laws for everyone), which I think is super necessary. You need an unbiased party to set objective rules that apply to everyone in a given territory. Anarchists lean toward private police and private militaries. But if police are private, you end up with tons of different agencies, each with its own set of rules. The headache starts if I subscribe to one police service and my neighbor subscribes to another. Imagine I do something my police say is fine, but my neighbor's police say is illegal. We both call our respective cops, they both show up at my door—and then you've got a massive, unsolvable mess on your hands. That's why I think you need an institution to set objective, equal laws for all citizens.

I think government is necessary, but only as a minimal player—way smaller than what we have now—basically just the military, police, and the courts. Everything else should be totally decoupled from the economy.

As for those utopians... honestly, they seem like naive people who dodge reality by daydreaming about how things *should* work instead of actually thinking about how they *do* work. Take the idea of getting rid of money—utopians don't realize that individuals are the ones creating wealth (which money just represents), while the state (like some massive federal bureaucracy) can really only spend it. They think abolishing money will end poverty, but the truth is everyone is poor unless they decide to actually produce something. If you kill the way we measure wealth, you won't make everyone rich; you'll just make everyone broke. I'm sure you see the contradiction in saying bureaucrats are capable businessmen—they aren't actually producers.
The best proof of what happens when the state tries to scrap private property—that whole utopian drive—is the Soviet Union. They sold people this smoke and mirrors dream that giving up their freedom would make them happy. As you know, it turned out people ended up neither happy nor free.

I actually have a suggestion (for the authors who wrote about this topic) for a political system that maximizes individual liberty while also including the elements that anarchy is missing.

Not sure if any of this connects to what you're looking for... but hey, if you have questions, just ask!

👍 Exactly. Without institutions, it is difficult for a society to even exist. In such a vacuum, anyone could do whatever they wanted—for instance, if someone stole from me, I could burn their house down or hit them over the head with a club, and no one would be able to stop me.

I believe the government is necessary, but only as a minimal participant (much smaller than it is today)—strictly limited to the military, the police, and the judiciary. The state should be completely decoupled from the economy.

A state that is entirely disconnected from the economy would struggle to function, because that is essentially attempting to rely on Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and we have already seen that it doesn't always work. A market completely severed from the state ignores social needs entirely; it results in a market where people are left at the mercy of raw capitalism.

Still, it seems to me that the core issue isn't primarily economic, though the economy certainly has its issues (after all, where does progress and the drive to improve come from without competition? 🤷), but rather a matter of social organization.

I suspect people wouldn't know how to handle that level of responsibility if they had to decide everything themselves. It seems to me that most people have no desire to deal with social issues at all. Furthermore, there always seems to be a need for someone to make the final call—even if decisions are made based on some form of social consensus, there still has to be someone to count the votes and announce the results. Whether they want to or not, that person holds a privileged position, which inherently grants them a greater degree of social power and influence than everyone else—which effectively dismantles the entire concept of anarchy.
So, I don't know. To me, this version of anarchy is nothing more than a pure utopia.

.. if you put together a list of everything you need... well, that list is essentially useless unless you’re making it with your neighbors in mind..
.. friends.. is it really that hard to admit we are nothing without our community?

.. it's what you might call a warrior's existence.. that one.. specific life.. somewhere between the animal kingdom and the divine..
.. out there.. you have to watch the essentials.. your rifle.. your clothes.. and especially your footwear.. your food.. and particularly.. your water..

.. regarding thieves.. anarchism certainly promotes a certain.. laissez-faire approach..
.. which means a thief can hope to screw over one person.. but making it impossible to screw over two.. that's the goal..
.. and the person who takes them down with a club.. or hangs them in their own backyard.. needs to understand they have to be both decisive and righteous.. basically.. they are taking responsibility for themselves and their property.. and.. since he is a man.. he is also taking responsibility for his fellow man..
.. damn it.. a thief needs a warning.. if we catch you, you're dead..

.. that one politician on TV.. dodging from desk to desk just to take bribes.. screwing over the American government.. a NATO member.. and every honest American neighbor.. did you warn him.. or did you simply forget?

.. damn it.. one more thing..
.. I don't want to bring you down.. but this world you've been building since that prick from Nazareth—the one they'll probably crucify again the day after tomorrow—this world you've spent two thousand years constructing... it turns out.. damn it.. it's messy.. it's broken.. it's cursed.. and honestly, friends.. it isn't even close..
.. despite all that love and happiness.. amigos.. it turned out to be a total joke..
.. I know that's a hard truth to swallow..
.. but don't go thinking the Heavenly Father is going to grant you another two thousand years..

.. otherwise..
.. you're afraid of people..
.. that's interesting.. damn it.. but it's a long story..
.. you love systems.. structures.. and schemes.. you aren't bothered by those bastards who reduce you to mere rats.. yet you are terrified of a fellow human being..
.. it's a very curious.. and.. almost laughable situation..
.. damn it.. that's anarchy for you.. you're just terrified of the man standing outside the system right in front of you..
.. and well.. that's life.. Happy Easter..

electrictiger70 said:Come on now. Who exactly is profiting from those Premium subscriptions for a service like Dropbox? ☕

the other two points are theoretically viable, but they're far too susceptible to manipulation to maintain any real credibility

There you go, suburban. Here is some food for thought for your seminar: you connect anarchism (philosophy) with web technologies (computer science) to derive methods for distributing goods—both information and capital—that align with anarchist principles (economics). Because nowadays, agriculture is secondary. Information is what matters. It is the ultimate capital.

I agree that there is a significant shift happening within information technology, but you are overlooking the fact that this shift does not lead to anarchy. There is still someone who owns all these supposedly "open" platforms, and the tech industry and its massive lobbying power in the USA are essentially the new oil lobby.
That is a far cry from anything one could actually call anarchistic. 🤷

Pfft, honestly—who exactly is forcing you to go Premium? I’ll give you this much: it’s definitely a lure, no argument there. But look, let’s be real for a second—if you actually want the data—the actual information—then pay up. Or, you know, go find some other way to get it. Your call.😁
I never said they weren't making money. On the contrary—dear lady—both YouTube and Dropbox, along with the ever-growing torrent scene, are massive cash cows. And besides, don't worry, Premium subscriptions aren't even the primary driver of revenue for Dropbox...

I agree that there’s a massive shift happening in the tech world—there really is—but you’re forgetting one crucial detail: this evolution isn't exactly leading us into some kind of digital anarchy. We aren't living in a lawless frontier just because things are changing quickly. At the end of the day, there are still a handful of gatekeepers who own almost all these "open" platforms we rely on. Honestly, if you look at the influence the tech industry and its lobbyists wield in the US today, they’ve basically become the new oil lobby.
That’s a far cry from anything that could actually be labeled as anarchistic. 🤷

Look, I’m not even going to argue that the tech lobby exists—it’s massive, powerful, and incredibly well-entrenched. There's no denying that. But honestly? In this day and age, there are more ways than ever to push back against them.
If you have even a modicum of digital literacy—we’re talking basic common sense here—you wouldn't dream of throwing money away on software from Microsoft, Lavasoft, Symantec, or any of their ilk. Why pay a premium when you can find identical, if not superior, alternatives for free? We’re mostly talking about operating systems and various applications, which are scattered all over the web if you actually know where to look. This is exactly why they say the internet is our best friend... though, of course, I’m strictly referring to individual users. Corporate entities and legal departments, unfortunately, don't really have the luxury of playing fast and loose with "pirated" software.

Nothing in this world is ever truly free. There is always a motive—usually a massive profit margin—hidden behind the curtain. Let’s be real: the folks at Google, Mozzila, or the teams driving giants like YouTube and Facebook aren't exactly driven by pure altruism or a sudden desire to uplift humanity through free services. They’re businesses, plain and simple. Now, you moderators? You guys are my personal icons of selflessness—assuming it's actually true that you're all volunteers, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt, of course. But hey, that's just how it goes—people always seem to value the things they can't actually have.😁😢🙂
Look, everyone else is reaping the benefits here—myself included, and let’s be clear, that’s a pretty significant point—so I honestly couldn't care less if some giant corporation is making a buck off me chatting with my buddies or scrolling through YouTube clips. If anything, I’d say they should be paying us for the idea.🙏

All in all—to wrap this whole thing up—here we are.There are actually several ways for an individual user to push back against the neo-imperialism practiced by giants like Microsoft and their ilk. Of course, we’re technically breaking the law when we use pirated versions of Windows or download cracked software and unauthorized data—but look at it this way: by playing by their rules, we’re essentially subsidizing their monopolies and stripping ourselves of any real digital freedom. So, whether you're grabbing a movie via a torrent or hunting down an antivirus through Google, you're—in a small, somewhat chaotic way—engaging in a bit of resistance against the "information lobby."🤷

electrictiger70 said:👍 Exactly. Without institutions, it is difficult for a society to even exist. In such a vacuum, anyone could do whatever they wanted—for instance, if someone stole from me, I could burn their house down or hit them over the head with a club, and no one would be able to stop me.

I believe the government is necessary, but only as a minimal participant (much smaller than it is today)—strictly limited to the military, the police, and the judiciary. The state should be completely decoupled from the economy.

A state that is entirely disconnected from the economy would struggle to function, because that is essentially attempting to rely on Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and we have already seen that it doesn't always work. A market completely severed from the state ignores social needs entirely; it results in a market where people are left at the mercy of raw capitalism.

Still, it seems to me that the core issue isn't primarily economic, though the economy certainly has its issues (after all, where does progress and the drive to improve come from without competition? 🤷), but rather a matter of social organization.

I suspect people wouldn't know how to handle that level of responsibility if they had to decide everything themselves. It seems to me that most people have no desire to deal with social issues at all. Furthermore, there always seems to be a need for someone to make the final call—even if decisions are made based on some form of social consensus, there still has to be someone to count the votes and announce the results. Whether they want to or not, that person holds a privileged position, which inherently grants them a greater degree of social power and influence than everyone else—which effectively dismantles the entire concept of anarchy.
So, I don't know. To me, this version of anarchy is nothing more than a pure utopia.

Man, this is a fantastic thread.
Exactly. If we view the idea of anarchism as a liberty for the people movement rather than a drive toward societal chaos (that man is a wolf to man state—which is how the simpletons and the uninformed tend to see it)—then it rests entirely on the pillar of personal responsibility. But, as Cervantes so astutely pointed out: what happens if not everyone possesses that sense of responsibility? (And let’s be real, there will definitely be those who don't.) We don't even need to descend into the extreme of being amoral; it's enough if someone is simply "lazy"—if you'll allow me to paraphrase there, quite without irony, believe me. How does the system hold then?

This is one of the fundamental aporias of anarchy. Is it ever truly surmountable?🤷

Anarchy isn't merely about a lack of order within social structures—it’s more deeply about rejecting any system, rule, or model that attempts to exert authority over the individual.
A social economic model, on the other hand, represents a structured framework—a specific method for distributing limited societal resources.

So—what purpose does an economic model serve to an anarchist? Is it meant to preserve the status quo, or perhaps just to maintain the "governance" of anarchy itself?😁

William Gonzalez3 said:Honestly, you all are such little fighters.
If the US military were made up of people like you, toppling the global order and establishing a new one would probably be nothing more than a joke.

That being said, I suspect this discussion on anarchism shouldn't get too... well, anarchic—we really ought to steer back toward the actual subject at hand.
In my view, everyone seems to be approaching this from the wrong angle.
Essentially, you are searching for viable, practical economic models—and every other kind of framework, for that matter.
However, you seem to be overlooking the fact that anarchy is, by its very nature, a utopian concept. Therefore, any economic model intended to govern within it shouldn't be anything less than utopian—which is to say, impossible.
The possible simply cannot function within the impossible.
So, perhaps we should pivot toward looking at more idealistic solutions.
For instance, let's consider how an anarchist society might actually operate, and what specific preconditions would need to be met for it to even work.
In an anarchist system, society would have to act in direct opposition to how things work today regarding those who cause harm to the community.
Instead of rewarding or celebrating them—instead of feeling that envy or thinking, "Look at him, he really made it, if only I could do the same"—everyone should simply turn their backs on them.
Workers would need to refuse to work for unscrupulous employers; families would need to distance themselves from members who choose paths of vice, malice, or general debauchery.
To take a local example, an organized anarchy on a forum like this would be entirely feasible if the members of every sub-forum just ignored those who stir up trouble, commit wrongs, or spread toxic thoughts and bad vibes.
In that scenario, moderators wouldn't even be necessary.
Broadly speaking, if we functioned that way, neither institutions nor authorities would be needed, and the world certainly wouldn't descend into chaos.

But that’s really just isolation—essentially locking away anyone who doesn't fit the mold—whereas true anarchy represents the absolute peak of individual liberty...(an organized anarchy😍)

Jonathan Brooks8 said:But that’s really just isolation—essentially locking away anyone who doesn't fit the mold—whereas true anarchy represents the absolute peak of individual liberty...(an organized anarchy😍)

Not quite. Personal freedom can't just expand infinitely—eventually, it’s bound to crash headlong into someone else's rights. But if we could actually discipline ourselves—without needing some authority figure hovering over us with a baton—well, now we're talking. That would actually get us somewhere close to anarchist principles.
Sure, anarchy equals maximum personal freedom. But if we screw over others, they’re going to screw us right back, and suddenly our "freedom" starts shrinking again. I mean, what kind of freedom do you really have when you're living in a state of constant conflict?

So... how exactly do you envision any community functioning without some established set of rules? Does that even work? No. It doesn't. It’s really just a question of how those rules are implemented (whether it's an oligarchy, an autocracy, a democracy, or a bureaucracy...😁). The goal should be to move away from vertical power structures and toward horizontal ones.🤷

If someone doesn't mesh with a community, they can either learn to integrate or simply isolate themselves—or perhaps find a different group altogether. The catch is that everyone has this deep-seated desire to belong. But honestly, how far are we willing to go? What are we actually prepared to sacrifice just to feel like we belong?
The sense of belonging is precisely what anarchism seeks to uproot. Though, in practice, that sounds like an incredibly difficult task to pull off.

Zachary Turner6 said:Man, this is a fantastic thread.
Exactly. If we view the idea of anarchism as a liberty for the people movement rather than a drive toward societal chaos (that man is a wolf to man state—which is how the simpletons and the uninformed tend to see it)—then it rests entirely on the pillar of personal responsibility. But, as Cervantes so astutely pointed out: what happens if not everyone possesses that sense of responsibility? (And let’s be real, there will definitely be those who don't.) We don't even need to descend into the extreme of being amoral; it's enough if someone is simply "lazy"—if you'll allow me to paraphrase there, quite without irony, believe me. How does the system hold then?

This is one of the fundamental aporias of anarchy. Is it ever truly surmountable?🤷

And that's exactly where the trouble starts. Anarchists always see themselves as the only righteous, honest people left, but whenever you stumble onto their websites, you just get hit with this massive wave of demagoguery and pure subjectivity. I actually just ran into a site recently that spends all its time bashing the global economy, only to end up concluding that smart white people just want dumb Black people to be their slaves.🤣🤣🤣

It's not even the only extreme group serving its own agenda either... I usually just lump them in with those trashy groups filled with all those trendy conspiracy theorists.

People just want change overnight without putting in any actual effort or risk, so they'll swallow pretty much any ideology... honestly, they'd probably vote for Winnie the Pooh if he promised them enough.

Anarchists don't have an economic system, nor do they seem to want one, but I feel like anarchism is just a tool you can use for a little while—as long as you can control it and turn it off when you're done with it.

Look at the war in Canada. I'm not trying to turn this into a political debate about war, but you could say Canada was a prime example of that kind of anarchy. God only knows how much stuff was smuggled, stolen, or looted back then... meanwhile, different sides were clashing in raids but also cooperating behind the scenes... and some people were following certain laws that clearly only existed on paper and weren't actually respected. They just believed whatever propaganda they were fed.
😲 😁
Now, a new elite has basically "emerged from the shadows." They took advantage of the chaos and are now trying to maintain this practically anarchic state within Canada until they can wash their money or somehow "justify" or legalize their status. They're trying to make sure the war profiteers can stay in power permanently without any competition. By the time a real rule of law kicks in, these guys won't be able to touch them.

I think a theory I read once on a German website hits pretty close to home regarding this topic.

William Gonzalez3 said:Honestly, you all are such little fighters.
If the US military were made up of people like you, toppling the global order and establishing a new one would probably be nothing more than a joke.

That being said, I suspect this discussion on anarchism shouldn't get too... well, anarchic—we really ought to steer back toward the actual subject at hand.
In my view, everyone seems to be approaching this from the wrong angle.
Essentially, you are searching for viable, practical economic models—and every other kind of framework, for that matter.
However, you seem to be overlooking the fact that anarchy is, by its very nature, a utopian concept. Therefore, any economic model intended to govern within it shouldn't be anything less than utopian—which is to say, impossible.
The possible simply cannot function within the impossible.
So, perhaps we should pivot toward looking at more idealistic solutions.
For instance, let's consider how an anarchist society might actually operate, and what specific preconditions would need to be met for it to even work.
In an anarchist system, society would have to act in direct opposition to how things work today regarding those who cause harm to the community.
Instead of rewarding or celebrating them—instead of feeling that envy or thinking, "Look at him, he really made it, if only I could do the same"—everyone should simply turn their backs on them.
Workers would need to refuse to work for unscrupulous employers; families would need to distance themselves from members who choose paths of vice, malice, or general debauchery.
To take a local example, an organized anarchy on a forum like this would be entirely feasible if the members of every sub-forum just ignored those who stir up trouble, commit wrongs, or spread toxic thoughts and bad vibes.
In that scenario, moderators wouldn't even be necessary.
Broadly speaking, if we functioned that way, neither institutions nor authorities would be needed, and the world certainly wouldn't descend into chaos.

But what happens when the trolls, the bad guys, and the toxic people band together to ignore all the decent folks? How do you stop them without a moderator?
It’d be pretty interesting to take just one single section of this site and try applying anarchist principles to see how it holds up.
Take me, for example—I’m "sick" enough that anyone who likes flowers is an enemy in my book.😁