Your response indicates you’ve never actually engaged with any anarchist philosophers or thought before, let me ask you this, do you really think no anarchist philosopher EVER thought of any of those points? Research the beliefs of bakunin, kropotkin, and the likes before giving strong opinions on anarchism, else you look unbelievably ignorant to anyone who actually is familiar with the material.
Central authority and law is meant to kept that chaos in check.
Law, sure, central authority? It does the opposite, it causes a great deal of misery and chaos. It is unchecked power held by few who won’t give it up under any circumstances, it maximizes the chaos of humanity. Freedom and democracy are the only counter-balance, and anarchists just want to maximize democracy.
Given your example, what would happen if two groups in the same town both elected their own police force with wildly different directives?
Both groups would show up to the meeting and either reach consensus or leave it to a democratic vote. I want to point out that this has NEVER happened in any anarchist society, why do you think this is a likely scenario? If they were absolutely deadset, I suppose there could be a schism, but there’s no historical reference for this, because why would this ever happen?
Please, if you’re going to try a gotcha argument like this, engage with the material and look for a historic reference. This WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS? can be done with any ideology, if there’s no historic reference for it, then sure, it could cause a disaster, but it hasn’t ever so why should I care? I can come up with countless theoretical disasters, and real ones for capitalism.
What happens when you give those cops the means to enforce their directives and they decide to enact their own rules?
They’ll do poorly at the next town meeting and probably be demoted/swapped out…
How would you even get them to do their job without a centrally backed currency?
They can choose not to do it, of course. There’s an idea of mutual aid, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, the people would be grateful for them doing a good job and would help them elsewise, as just one example. Mutualism actually has various currency-related anarchist strategies, a central authority is not needed for making a currency valid, I don’t know why you believe that premise to be the case.
Law, sure, central authority? It does the opposite, it causes a great deal of misery and chaos. It is unchecked power held by few who won’t give it up under any circumstances, it maximizes the chaos of humanity.
I agree central authority has the potential to lead to complete and utter chaos, like we saw in countless wars particularly WW1 and 2.
Both groups would show up to the meeting and either reach consensus or leave it to a democratic vote.
Or they’d decide to cling to their own power. It all depends on which individuals get to any position of power. In an anarchic society, smaller amounts of power can go a lot further. A militia of 10000 men roaming through a decentralized federation of people has the potential to do a lot of damage. With monopolized violence that militia would have a difficult time ever forming.
Most of my thinking is in regard to a state like America turning into an anarchist society. Given there’s 350 million~ Americans, it’s a certainty that there would be a plethora of groups organizing to solidify their power base. That’s why there are no anarchist nation-state sized population to look to as an example for the hypotheticals I’ve posed. Any opportunity for anarchism has already given way to a centralized government.
I can come up with countless theoretical disasters, and real ones for capitalism.
Wherever humans are involved, there will inevitably be disaster. There are many, many valid critiques of capitalism, especially the digital corporate capitalism that has taken over.
They can choose not to do it, of course. There’s an idea of mutual aid, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, the people would be grateful for them doing a good job and would help them elsewise, as just one example. Mutualism actually has various currency-related anarchist strategies, a central authority is not needed for making a currency valid, I don’t know why you believe that premise to be the case.
What would this look like in practice? If you lived in what is now California and you wanted to sell to someone in current day New York, what currency would you accept in lieu of money within an anarchist society?
Or they’d decide to cling to their own power. It all depends on which individuals get to any position of power. In an anarchic society, smaller amounts of power can go a lot further. A militia of 10000 men roaming through a decentralized federation of people has the potential to do a lot of damage. With monopolized violence that militia would have a difficult time ever forming.
Can you point to any example of this happening in any major anarchist society? Surely if it’s that simple it must have happened so many times.
hint: it has not, because the premise is entirely wrong. Anarchists just want power to be democratically controlled. There’s no reason to believe your premise would be the case under any anarchist framework that I can think of.
Most of my thinking is in regard to a state like America turning into an anarchist society. Given there’s 350 million~ Americans, it’s a certainty that there would be a plethora of groups organizing to solidify their power base. That’s why there are no anarchist nation-state sized population to look to as an example for the hypotheticals I’ve posed. Any opportunity for anarchism has already given way to a centralized government.
Yeah but why? Not because of any of the arguments you’re posing, but because anarchist societies have severeral disadvantages to start with, not because of anarchist philosophy, but because there’s people in power that desperately want anarchism to fail. Because if anarchism succeeded, their need for power would be in question. The bourgeois want anarchism to fail, the political elites want anarchism to fail, because if it doesn’t, they will have no reason to exist anymore, so, they will stop at nothing to destroy it. Anarchist societies are usually destroyed through militaristic means externally, not because of internal politics.
Wherever humans are involved, there will inevitably be disaster. There are many, many valid critiques of capitalism, especially the digital corporate capitalism that has taken over.
This doesn’t make your case against anarchism better, it makes it worse, if humans are given absolute power over a region, they’ll cause even more disasters than a democratic average of their wants and needs.
What would this look like in practice? If you lived in what is now California and you wanted to sell to someone in current day New York, what currency would you accept in lieu of money within an anarchist society?
I’m just going to give you a lazy ai slop answer because you didn’t even bother engaging with the material to demonstrate even an AI has a better grasp on the concepts and possibilities than you do.
Cool, let’s break it down. You’re basically asking: in an anarchist society with no central state enforcing a national currency, how does long-distance exchange work? Especially in terms of trust and what medium of exchange you’d actually use.
First off, kill the idea that “currency = fiat money enforced by state.” That’s statist brainrot. There are multiple alternatives that already work or could scale up under the right conditions. Here are a few anarchist-compatible ones, with what this might look like between people in (current) California and New York:
Mutual Credit Systems
How it works: Instead of money, people use a ledger of IOUs. You provide goods/services and get credited. You spend your credits by getting goods/services from others. It’s community-run and transparent.
Cross-country?
Each region could run its own system, and inter-network protocols (like how email works between servers) allow for trust bridging.
Ex: California’s mutual credit co-op is linked to New York’s. When you "sell" something to someone in NY, their system debits them and credits you in your system, at an agreed-upon exchange rate or trust agreement.
What you’d accept: An increase in your credit balance with a known, interoperable ledger you trust. No “money” changes hands, just account balances shift.
Commodity-backed or labor-backed currencies (Mutualist style)
How it works: Currency is backed by labor hours or some agreed commodity. Not state-issued. Think “labor notes” (à la Josiah Warren) or time banking.
Cross-country?
You’d accept someone’s labor-backed tokens only if their issuing system is trusted and known. Some federations or unions would emerge to verify these currencies.
Ex: NY co-op issues “2 labor-hour” notes. You accept them in Cali because your local org is partnered with theirs and agrees those notes are redeemable.
What you’d accept: Verified tokens or digital equivalents backed by hours of labor or some standard good (like kilowatt-hours, staple crops, etc.)
Barter networks with reputation layers
How it works: No centralized money, just peer-to-peer exchange coordinated by platforms or groups, with reputation and trust systems.
Cross-country?
You post what you offer, someone in NY posts what they want, and trade happens if there’s mutual benefit. Could be direct, or multi-hop (A trades with B who trades with C, facilitated by a platform).
Ex: You ship reptile care equipment to NY. You get credits on the platform, and you use those credits to "buy" computer repair in SF.
What you’d accept: Platform credits or barter, assuming you trust the person/platform and the reputational system is solid.
Cryptocurrency (as a tool, not ideology)
How it works: Stateless digital currencies like Monero or Bitcoin. Not perfect, but anarchists can and do use them for stateless commerce.
Cross-country?
Duh. It already works. No trust network required, just agreement on accepting that coin.
Ex: You say “I take Monero.” Person in NY sends it. Done.
What you’d accept: The specific crypto you chose to trust/use, probably privacy-based or co-op issued.
Real-world example?
You’re in a federated anarchist society where the West Coast uses a labor-credit federation called Red Pacific Ledger, and the East Coast uses Northeast Mutual Trust. Both are part of a federation of federations called FreeCoNet. Their systems talk to each other via open protocols.
You sell a bike part to someone in NY. They initiate a transaction via FreeCoNet. Their mutual aid co-op vouches for their credit, and your West Coast ledger credits your account. You use that credit to get food, healthcare, whatever. No state, no banks, no bullshit.
TL;DR
You’d accept:
A known mutual credit from a federated system.
Labor-backed notes redeemable in your area.
Crypto you trust.
Platform credits in a barter network.
Or straight-up negotiated barter if you're off-grid af.
None of this requires a state. Just trust networks, open protocols, and federated autonomy. It’s already how most long-distance trust works anyway—just without the cops and capitalists taking a cut.
Want me to sketch out a hypothetical system architecture or trust model?
Can you point to any example of this happening in any major anarchist society?
The fact there are none is proof that’s exactly what happens.
Yeah but why? Not because of any of the arguments you’re posing, but because anarchist societies have severeral disadvantages to start with, not because of anarchist philosophy, but because there’s people in power that desperately want anarchism to fail. Because if anarchism succeeded, their need for power would be in question. The bourgeois want anarchism to fail, the political elites want anarchism to fail, because if it doesn’t, they will have no reason to exist anymore, so, they will stop at nothing to destroy it. Anarchist societies are usually destroyed through militaristic means externally, not because of internal politics.
Exactly.
This doesn’t make your case against anarchism better, it makes it worse, if humans are given absolute power over a region, they’ll cause even more disasters than a democratic average of their wants and needs.
I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding. I should clarify that I do not wish that centralized government has to be the case. I wish human nature was not inherently violent and greedy. If anarchism could work, I would be happy to partake. However, I do not believe that it is possible for a sustained community to exist as an anarchy because human nature eventually pushes us to organize. We are a species dictated by game theory.
The fact there are none is proof that’s exactly what happens.
No, that is proof SOMETHING prevents them, not at all the thing you’re describing, proof the thing you’re describing would be a primary source saying that happened.
Exactly.
That means none of the problems with anarchism are internal, which is a significant blow to the notion that we shouldn’t be doing anarchism.
I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding. I should clarify that I do not wish that centralized government has to be the case.
It doesn’t, considering the only thing that stops anarchism is external forces destroying it, it’s completely possible.
I wish human nature was not inherently violent and greedy. If anarchism could work, I would be happy to partake. However, I do not believe that it is possible for a sustained community to exist as an anarchy because human nature eventually pushes us to organize.
This premise has nothing to do with anything, it doesn’t matter how violent or greedy people are, anarchist philosophy has no bearing on these ideas.
Anarchism is not disorganized, it’s actually HIGHLY organized, because it’s democratically managed.
We are a species dictated by game theory.
I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
So, first, you acknowledge that the only reason anarchism is destroyed is due to external forces, not internal politics, then, you say, see? anarchism is fundamentally flawed.
No, the world is setup in a way that destroys peoples movements in general, this isn’t a flaw with anarchist ideology, this just means it’s difficult to create an anarchist society while the US is a world superpower.
No, that is proof SOMETHING prevents them, not at all the thing you’re describing, proof the thing you’re describing would be a primary source saying that happened.
Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.
So, first, you acknowledge that the only reason anarchism is destroyed is due to external forces, not internal politics, then, you say, see?
As long as people are involved, there’s the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn’t as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.
That final belief is part of the problem. “If Jimmy cheats then so will I” is all I hear out of everything you wrote. I read it all. I’m going to reply to your snarky reply to me here. You’re putting a lot of effort into being an ignorant asshole. It’s lame.
There are millions of Jimmys. Self-serving, power hungry people end up in positions of power because they are willing to do whatever it takes to get there. It’s ok if you think I’m an ignorant asshole.
Read the material before you continue to make an ass of yourself. Like the person trying nicely to educate you said, if you think the folks who spent their lives thinking about and practicing anarchism didn’t think about this, read further.
Chaos is a byproduct of human nature. Central authority and law is meant to kept that chaos in check.
Given your example, what would happen if two groups in the same town both elected their own police force with wildly different directives?
What happens when you give those cops the means to enforce their directives and they decide to enact their own rules?
How would you even get them to do their job without a centrally backed currency?
Your response indicates you’ve never actually engaged with any anarchist philosophers or thought before, let me ask you this, do you really think no anarchist philosopher EVER thought of any of those points? Research the beliefs of bakunin, kropotkin, and the likes before giving strong opinions on anarchism, else you look unbelievably ignorant to anyone who actually is familiar with the material.
Law, sure, central authority? It does the opposite, it causes a great deal of misery and chaos. It is unchecked power held by few who won’t give it up under any circumstances, it maximizes the chaos of humanity. Freedom and democracy are the only counter-balance, and anarchists just want to maximize democracy.
Both groups would show up to the meeting and either reach consensus or leave it to a democratic vote. I want to point out that this has NEVER happened in any anarchist society, why do you think this is a likely scenario? If they were absolutely deadset, I suppose there could be a schism, but there’s no historical reference for this, because why would this ever happen?
Please, if you’re going to try a gotcha argument like this, engage with the material and look for a historic reference. This WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS? can be done with any ideology, if there’s no historic reference for it, then sure, it could cause a disaster, but it hasn’t ever so why should I care? I can come up with countless theoretical disasters, and real ones for capitalism.
They’ll do poorly at the next town meeting and probably be demoted/swapped out…
They can choose not to do it, of course. There’s an idea of mutual aid, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, the people would be grateful for them doing a good job and would help them elsewise, as just one example. Mutualism actually has various currency-related anarchist strategies, a central authority is not needed for making a currency valid, I don’t know why you believe that premise to be the case.
I agree central authority has the potential to lead to complete and utter chaos, like we saw in countless wars particularly WW1 and 2.
Or they’d decide to cling to their own power. It all depends on which individuals get to any position of power. In an anarchic society, smaller amounts of power can go a lot further. A militia of 10000 men roaming through a decentralized federation of people has the potential to do a lot of damage. With monopolized violence that militia would have a difficult time ever forming.
Most of my thinking is in regard to a state like America turning into an anarchist society. Given there’s 350 million~ Americans, it’s a certainty that there would be a plethora of groups organizing to solidify their power base. That’s why there are no anarchist nation-state sized population to look to as an example for the hypotheticals I’ve posed. Any opportunity for anarchism has already given way to a centralized government.
Wherever humans are involved, there will inevitably be disaster. There are many, many valid critiques of capitalism, especially the digital corporate capitalism that has taken over.
What would this look like in practice? If you lived in what is now California and you wanted to sell to someone in current day New York, what currency would you accept in lieu of money within an anarchist society?
Can you point to any example of this happening in any major anarchist society? Surely if it’s that simple it must have happened so many times.
hint: it has not, because the premise is entirely wrong. Anarchists just want power to be democratically controlled. There’s no reason to believe your premise would be the case under any anarchist framework that I can think of.
Yeah but why? Not because of any of the arguments you’re posing, but because anarchist societies have severeral disadvantages to start with, not because of anarchist philosophy, but because there’s people in power that desperately want anarchism to fail. Because if anarchism succeeded, their need for power would be in question. The bourgeois want anarchism to fail, the political elites want anarchism to fail, because if it doesn’t, they will have no reason to exist anymore, so, they will stop at nothing to destroy it. Anarchist societies are usually destroyed through militaristic means externally, not because of internal politics.
This doesn’t make your case against anarchism better, it makes it worse, if humans are given absolute power over a region, they’ll cause even more disasters than a democratic average of their wants and needs.
I’m just going to give you a lazy ai slop answer because you didn’t even bother engaging with the material to demonstrate even an AI has a better grasp on the concepts and possibilities than you do.
Cool, let’s break it down. You’re basically asking: in an anarchist society with no central state enforcing a national currency, how does long-distance exchange work? Especially in terms of trust and what medium of exchange you’d actually use. First off, kill the idea that “currency = fiat money enforced by state.” That’s statist brainrot. There are multiple alternatives that already work or could scale up under the right conditions. Here are a few anarchist-compatible ones, with what this might look like between people in (current) California and New York:
Mutual Credit Systems
How it works: Instead of money, people use a ledger of IOUs. You provide goods/services and get credited. You spend your credits by getting goods/services from others. It’s community-run and transparent.
Cross-country? Each region could run its own system, and inter-network protocols (like how email works between servers) allow for trust bridging.
What you’d accept: An increase in your credit balance with a known, interoperable ledger you trust. No “money” changes hands, just account balances shift.
Commodity-backed or labor-backed currencies (Mutualist style)
How it works: Currency is backed by labor hours or some agreed commodity. Not state-issued. Think “labor notes” (à la Josiah Warren) or time banking.
Cross-country? You’d accept someone’s labor-backed tokens only if their issuing system is trusted and known. Some federations or unions would emerge to verify these currencies.
What you’d accept: Verified tokens or digital equivalents backed by hours of labor or some standard good (like kilowatt-hours, staple crops, etc.)
Barter networks with reputation layers
How it works: No centralized money, just peer-to-peer exchange coordinated by platforms or groups, with reputation and trust systems.
Cross-country? You post what you offer, someone in NY posts what they want, and trade happens if there’s mutual benefit. Could be direct, or multi-hop (A trades with B who trades with C, facilitated by a platform).
What you’d accept: Platform credits or barter, assuming you trust the person/platform and the reputational system is solid.
Cryptocurrency (as a tool, not ideology)
How it works: Stateless digital currencies like Monero or Bitcoin. Not perfect, but anarchists can and do use them for stateless commerce.
Cross-country? Duh. It already works. No trust network required, just agreement on accepting that coin.
What you’d accept: The specific crypto you chose to trust/use, probably privacy-based or co-op issued.
Real-world example?
You’re in a federated anarchist society where the West Coast uses a labor-credit federation called Red Pacific Ledger, and the East Coast uses Northeast Mutual Trust. Both are part of a federation of federations called FreeCoNet. Their systems talk to each other via open protocols.
You sell a bike part to someone in NY. They initiate a transaction via FreeCoNet. Their mutual aid co-op vouches for their credit, and your West Coast ledger credits your account. You use that credit to get food, healthcare, whatever. No state, no banks, no bullshit. TL;DR
You’d accept:
None of this requires a state. Just trust networks, open protocols, and federated autonomy. It’s already how most long-distance trust works anyway—just without the cops and capitalists taking a cut.
Want me to sketch out a hypothetical system architecture or trust model?
The fact there are none is proof that’s exactly what happens.
Exactly.
I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding. I should clarify that I do not wish that centralized government has to be the case. I wish human nature was not inherently violent and greedy. If anarchism could work, I would be happy to partake. However, I do not believe that it is possible for a sustained community to exist as an anarchy because human nature eventually pushes us to organize. We are a species dictated by game theory.
No, that is proof SOMETHING prevents them, not at all the thing you’re describing, proof the thing you’re describing would be a primary source saying that happened.
That means none of the problems with anarchism are internal, which is a significant blow to the notion that we shouldn’t be doing anarchism.
It doesn’t, considering the only thing that stops anarchism is external forces destroying it, it’s completely possible.
This premise has nothing to do with anything, it doesn’t matter how violent or greedy people are, anarchist philosophy has no bearing on these ideas.
Anarchism is not disorganized, it’s actually HIGHLY organized, because it’s democratically managed.
I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
So, first, you acknowledge that the only reason anarchism is destroyed is due to external forces, not internal politics, then, you say, see? anarchism is fundamentally flawed.
No, the world is setup in a way that destroys peoples movements in general, this isn’t a flaw with anarchist ideology, this just means it’s difficult to create an anarchist society while the US is a world superpower.
Thousands of years of human history is enough for me.
As long as people are involved, there’s the possibility for something to wrong. Although, when there is no central government, there isn’t as much potential for severe internal political turmoil. The stakes are much lower because the communities would be much smaller.
I do appreciate how much hope you have.
Dude stop wasting all this effort on a willing idiot, save the energy for something useful.
when you can type at 160wpm it’s not much effort, and if it helps even one person (not the idiot) it’ll have been worth it for me!
That final belief is part of the problem. “If Jimmy cheats then so will I” is all I hear out of everything you wrote. I read it all. I’m going to reply to your snarky reply to me here. You’re putting a lot of effort into being an ignorant asshole. It’s lame.
There are millions of Jimmys. Self-serving, power hungry people end up in positions of power because they are willing to do whatever it takes to get there. It’s ok if you think I’m an ignorant asshole.
Read the material before you continue to make an ass of yourself. Like the person trying nicely to educate you said, if you think the folks who spent their lives thinking about and practicing anarchism didn’t think about this, read further.