Can someone explain anarchy to me? How would such a society even

>>133719848
>How would such a society even function?
it doesn't. case closed

>>133719848
they want irl mad max

>>133719848
Anarchy is the political resistance fighting mommy and daddy that won't buy the latest shiny Macbook

>>133719848
if we keep progressing as it is the world is going to be a toilet anyways. Might as well return to the primitive while there's still some trees left.

>>133719848
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh2WeAO-5tE

Depends, there's a lot of different approaches to anarchy. Ancaps have their own approach. I'm from the leftist side of it and I particularly would support communalism. Essentially it would work like this: people organize as smalls villages and towns. No government, just personal agreement and cooperation and deciding things on face-to-face discussion and direct democratic voting. These smaller groups would cooperate with other groups in confederacies. If you need a regional hospital or something, a bunch of towns in the confederacy could build a bigger, shared city between them.

The main crux is this: cooperative anarchy can't be done with larger societies, but in smaller groups it's natural. It's like how a family or tribe functions.

Anarchism is communism/socialism.

It's all the same kind of ideologies. The idea is elimination of hierarchy. Basically the "no masters, no slaves" philosophy. That doesn't mean a free for all. They envision a society where everyone is constantly voting to directly manage their community.

They envision businesses to be co-ops which are run owned, run and managed by the same employees. They envision government to be like some public assembly where you go to vote on what to do next, on a weekly basis.

It's the anti-thesis of "don't thread on me" because you are basically not allowed to do anything on your own. You cannot just be and decide to do stuff, unless you completely retire from the rest of society and life as a hermit.

>>133719848
Most 'Anarchists' are just lefty authoritarian pajama boys who like to play revolutionary. They don't relieve believe in it, they just see it as means of implementing leftist totalitarianism.

>>133720499
And as soon as you find something shiny I and my roving band of bandits will come and rape your women, skin your children and then hang you from a tree to serve as a warning.

And if I don't do it someone else will. That is the communist 'utopia'

>>133721457
I said villages and towns, not hippie communes. Militias are a must.

>>133721629
Ugh. Flagmalfunction.

Funfact: the Paris Commune turned a museum into an arms factory.

>>133719848
Nobody actually believes in anarchy - it's just a "romanticized" thing that is being pushed by commies - if actual anarchy would break lose, all those people that claim to be anarchists because they're weak faggots would perish first

It's similar to squatters: for some people this is "sooo romantic and rebellious" until they find out that the toilets aren't working, that there's no radiator and that it smells funny

>>133720499
>I'm from the leftist side of it and I particularly would support communalism
I'm ethnonatianalist but deeply I support communalism too DESU. But I can't see how an anarchist could survive or at least be a part of the commune-society. He/She would suffocate in a communalist environment like a Greek City-State (example ancient Athens)


>>133721457
>What is army? What is Koinon (Confederacy/confederation like the Delian League/Athenian Empire etc)

>>133721903

This.

Rich white kids think being homeless is "fun" until they learn what hunger is for the first time.

It's the fetishisation of the apocalypse. People who believe the world would be better off without any form of government or power and everyone just left to their own devices. I'm sure the prepper community would probably be on board with this sort of thing. Personally I don't actually mind the idea in principle, however in practice that's not really how things work

>>133722215
I don't think it would be much different from now or when the Native Americans did it. You grow up surrounded by friends and family that you would know your entire life, and when you're old enough, stay and contribute or go find another tribe to mingle with.

In a sense, because the focus is on smaller groups, it is a return to a certain amount of primitivism. The fact is that as humans we suck and struggle in bigger groups. The down side is economic cooperation suffers somewhat, but even far right NatSocs could tell you that globalism can be a harmful force on both culture and economics.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

To me the State should only care about sovereign power like the army, police, justice etc.
Also, the State mustn't tell me how I have to live, it's not its role, in France, we have more and more liberticide laws where the State forbids you to do that, force you to do that. Anyway, people conform themselves to the group, so there cannot be derives. If someone wants to wear a burqa, it's her right, she'll be discriminated by people and probably stop, while when the State comes to put its nose in it, the women who wear a burqa will have the impression to troll the State and more of them will do it to act as rebels. It creates the opposite of the intended effect.

Schools, hospitals, transports etc. must be privatized to allow competition and avoid monopoles. Markets should regulate the economy, the State mustn't put its nose into the economic sphere.

Read Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed.

Probably the best and most accessible explanation of what anarchy truly means, how it functions in practice. As it also makes quite clear, its a logical system of social order if natural resources are scarce. Probably the best thing mankind can do after a E.L.E., disaster, that is looking ever so likely as we progress further in our current system.

>>133719848

It depends on the type of Anarchy, most of them are seeking to replace government functions with voluntary co-operations, so the good things the state did keep happening since most people would want to keep them running by whatever favored economic system and the bad things the state did stop happening if no one's forced to pay for them with taxes.

Anarcho-Capitilism = private companies will run everything the state did and the free market distributes resources to who earns them, charity hopefully takes care of the needy.

Anarcho-Communism = local-level communes will run everything the state did and they distribute resources to who needs them, large scale logistics might be voted on democratically.

Anarcho-Mutualism = hybrid of the last two so people can have their own private property but companies using others labor are run by local communes so McDonald's can't take over the country.

Anarcho-Transhumanism = let's push our evolution so far we don't have to worry about any of this shit, our augmented global hivemind and AI waifus will sort it out.

Anarcho-Primitivism = literally yes, let's go back to the stone age.

Anarcho-Individualism = could technically do any of this if everyone involved agrees to it.

Anarcho-Egoism = not my fucking problem lmao every man for himself give me your wallet fuckboy.

In reality if any of these replaced a government near-by governments would simply interfere with them and turn them into proxy states or already existing criminal/terrorist groups would do the same like in Libya or Somalia so it'd probably take some sort of global economic catastrophe or other world wide disaster that causes EVERY large organization to fail to function for any sort of anarchism to go unmolested by outside actors.

>>133723179
But at some point transport for example would also become a monopol if there was competition or not? You can just buy another company for example when you have enough money to do so. Also you can manipulate other companies and stuff like that. To me anarcho-capitalism just seems as naive as communism for example.
Explain it to me please

>>133723594
>Anarcho-Communism = local-level communes will run everything the state did and they distribute resources to who needs them, large scale logistics might be voted on democratically.

Fair assessment.

>In reality if any of these replaced a government near-by governments would simply interfere with them and turn them into proxy states

Also fair. The Paris Commune was a good attempt,but everyone got shot in the face. You really need a government that abandons their duty, simply does not give a fuck or consents to an anarchy, so anarchism is an opportunity-based thing. Running around with a mask smashing windows is a cute hobby, but does nothing, Antifa.

kekistani posters are the worst underage retards on this entire board
I have yet to see a single decent, interesting, non-cringy kekistani poster

File: Anarchist-And-Mother-by-Banksy.jpg (114KB, 580x870px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 580x870px

>>133724237
Nothing wrong with trying to understand something.