[Al Khabir]

A question which I'm sure many have wanted to ask for a long time.

How does Anarchism maintain a state of statelessness? Without organised police forces etc, how does anarchism prevent the rise of charismatic individuals, who will go on to create states of their own?

[Al-'Alim]

It doesn't...its impossible. I've pondered on it for a while after reading the entire Anarchy section in the Ideologys book I recomended to you...its totally impossible.

[TROI]

A stateless society does not necessarily mean getting rid of Police, etc. The essential organs of the state will remain e.g. police, fire service and hospitals, etc but those that the borgeosie use for the oppresion of the masses will be smashed or reformede.g. Armed forces and secret police forces.

A country doesn't have to be a 'state'. It really depends what you class a state as. Don't anarchists use Marx's definition?

Matt

[Deicidus]

The police is supposed to exist to maintain law and order. Only they maintain laws that were imposed on the people by the bourgeoisie and the State. It wasnt the people who choosed to go to war, to ban drugs and prostitution, to bash pacifist protests, to impose the Patriot Act.

It is to the people, to society, to choose by what laws, principles or moral codes, or whatever terminology you want to call it, it wants to live by. And if that society dosnt reflect your aspirations, dreams, culture, language or religion, you are free to leave this society. Because when you accept to join a society, that is free of its decisions and choose with a majority to live a certain way, or by certain rules that you dont agree with, why would you want to live in this society ? Because thats what society is supposed to be. People regrouped by culture, language, religion and, most important of all, a same goal or same aspirations.

The State uses fear to impose its will. It imposes its own vision of morality, good and bad, right and wrong, progressist or conservatives. We are not free individuals, nor a free society.

As to how law and order is maintained in an anarchist nation, it will be up to the people to decide how they wish to do it. do they want permanent police officers, temporary, a seperate justice system... a system dosnt apply to everybody and for all eternity. People evolve, change and progress. It will be up to them to decide of their destiny and of their way of living. No fucking party or political commisars to tell people what to say, what to think, what to do or where to live.

As for charismatic individuals who seek power, people will decide what to do. Why would you want to trow away your freedom ? just because some guy asked you too. Why would you want to put bosses back in their ivory towers ? Why would you want to put back the army in the streets ? If the people really wishes to be slaves, then so be it. They'll have to live with that choice. States are maintained because the people obeys it. When the people refuse to obey, or at least a vast majority, what will the tyrants do, shoot them all. What would be the point of that ? whats a tyrant without the people to control, whats a capitalist without the proletariat ? Nothing. Leaders, parties, armies and militias need the people behind them to maintain their power.

The arch-enemy of power is organisation. ``They are tall because we are on our knees`` The people organise themsleves. Sure some people have more ideas than others, does that mean the people have to follow him, and follow every order, however rediculous ? The public system is maintained, but instead of working for the State to starve and opress the masses, the public system will only anwser to the will of the people.

Anarchy is flexible. it can be changed and improved. It dosnt rely on the good will of a few man, or of a single party dictatorship. Crime will never be tottaly erased, unless they change the definition of a crime. No matter how good someones life is, is work, is house or his fucking car are. It wont stop him from going bersek when he catches his girlfriend in bed with another guy. It wont stop rapists from seeking to enjoy their sick fun on women they grab in the streets. Crime will never be eliminated. We can at least lower it down by eliminating circumstances that create crime.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

But how does the police get its jurisdiction to enforce laws if there is no governing body to set rules and regs. And also who is to say what can be justifiable and not.

[Truth-a-naut]

Don't anarchists use Marx's definition?

Do you mean what a state is and what it is not?

[enLight]

A country doesn't have to be a 'state'.

Correct. The notion of having a "state" didn't appear untill around the time of the Renaissance.

[CCJ]

Actually, it doesn't have to be a country either. It could just be a loose confederation of communes, OR independent communes that have nothing to do with each other. In a time of (common) need they could quite possibly band together (like the Native Americans, though the only reason that this didn't work was that the colonists had a tech advantage)

[Comrade Joseph]

The state (as in, military, police) only exists to keep one class in power (either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie). So if you eliminate class differences then you have no need for a state. However, the problem with anarchists is that they believe that class differences can be eliminated in the course of a few years, which would result in a "direct transition" to a stateless society. That is of course, impossible (for example, there would be no way to prevent imperialist invasion). It is a nice utopian thought however.

[Ocker]

It's a shame DF isn't still around, he seemed to be very educated in Anarchist theory.

Here ais an interesting thread with a topic similar to this:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8973

Anarchism doesn't mean no laws, it means to physical authority to be set upon the community. Why would you kill and rape if you understand that killing and raping is harmful for you?

The foundations of anarchism are in education. You have to start from the educational system to aim towards an anarchic state. Once you've got a state in which all the citizens are fully educated (I don't mean school education here) all your citizens will be able to comprehend what is useful and what is harmful, and thus will be able to live in harmony without the need of a police, or other.

If you want to read the "manifesto" of Anarchism you'll have to read the chief works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Stirner. There is no one piece of work as such.

There are some good posts in there by Anarchocommunist, Deicidus etc. too.

This thread http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7952 also has a very interesting discussion between DF and Viv on Anarchism in general.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Al Khabir, to your original question; very simple answer... Through education.

[TROI]

Al Khabir, to your original question; very simple answer... Through education.

Aka through full indoctrination?

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Al Khabir, to your original question; very simple answer... Through education.

Aka through full indoctrination?

No, that would go against the basic foundations of Anarchism.

[Kamil]

How does Anarchism maintain a state of statelessness? Without organised police forces etc, how does anarchism prevent the rise of charismatic individuals, who will go on to create states of their own?

In my soon-to-be released essay, "The Communist-Anarchist Juxtapose," I address the fact that anarchism is inherently what Noam Chomsky described as "a historical tendency of thought and action." These historical tendencies, throughout time, in their latent forms, have underwent incessant manifold gradations prior a such a consolidation into ideological form. The reason why they took the form of an ideology is due to the arisal of the state. This period of statism, like capitalism in Marxist theory, is a necessity in the objective development of things. Following Peter Kropotkin's scientific determinism or perhaps Marx's social determinism, it is inevitable that world-wide proletariat revolution will be prompted. Such evils as the state and capitalism are needed only for the reason that the people must realize their confinement with such a lifestyle, must emancipate themselves, and will learn that such hierarchical and authoritarian means of life should be put to a stop. Once all forms of exploitation of man by man are abolished, it is only logical that social harmony will develop. This is where the answer comes in to your question. I have addressed these issues to point out that after free association is implemented, the people will know better than to submit under the rule of others. It would need multitudes, consisting of a majority in society, to somehow, suddenly adhere to statist doctrines, and fight to impose them, or, perhaps, it'd take a minority with a massive amount of armaments such as bombs superior to that of what the people have got. These scenarios are obviously unlikely. Discluding such scenarioes, if one were to step up and attempt to persuade the people into imposing him/her as a ruler, the people would not follow. The people, after the epoch of statism should realize that the state or any means of exploitation are immoral and should be done away with, unless, for some unlikely reason, the anarchist or communist milieu turned out to be chaotic, disorderly, and dysfunctional.

The police are an epitomy of the problem with society, we do not need to administer special warfare and authoritative prerogatives whatsoever, rather, the entire people of the anarchist society would be obliged to prevent such hostile attempts for takeover. As you can see, hopefully, organized police forces are not a requisition for preventing systems of exploitation from arising amongst the people. Anarchists, instead, implement equality and order through free association. The way I see it, if someone's a threat, the people will annihilate them, simple as that. What else will you do to such threats? Anyways, if the society works, we can safely say that the vast majority of the Earth's residents will be in accord with the society and with each other. The people are the defenders of the society, they will not allow the exploitation of others to be done with.

As I just mentioned in my previous post. After the anarchist conditions and way of life are permeated throughout generations, the crime rates, according to what "crime" is defined within the society, will gradually diminish.

A stateless society does not necessarily mean getting rid of Police, etc. The essential organs of the state will remain e.g. police, fire service and hospitals, etc but those that the borgeosie use for the oppresion of the masses will be smashed or reformede.g. Armed forces and secret police forces.

If you're referring to the theory of anarchism, then you are wrong. Anarchism entails an entire belief system going beyond "no laws" and "no state." We abolish all forms of exploitation, namely, any sort of organized police force as you have mentioned will be abolished. Notice how in anarchism, there won't be any sort of privilege. Instead, like I have mentioned, the entire society constitutes the police.

The state (as in, military, police) only exists to keep one class in power (either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie). So if you eliminate class differences then you have no need for a state. However, the problem with anarchists is that they believe that class differences can be eliminated in the course of a few years, which would result in a "direct transition" to a stateless society. That is of course, impossible (for example, there would be no way to prevent imperialist invasion). It is a nice utopian thought however.

Oh you silly Commie's make me laugh. How can you reach a stateless society after a single revolution? You can't, firstly, one must prompt global revolution. Also, Communists go on about all the transition that is needed, which is utter bullshit. Anarchists do advocate a transitional period, just not one in both political and economic aspects. Let me explain:

Political Transition: Anarchists, unlike Communists, advocate working class power. We do not feel the need to implement a bourgeoisie revolution prior to attaining a class proletarian milieu. The Communists are stupid for thinking that a revolution of bourgeoisie nature will engender a free egalitarian milieu. Of course it won't, a bourgeoisie-run revolution will only engender a milieu in its own reflection. Surely, I do not speak of all Communists when I say this. Pannekoekists, Luxemborgists, non-Leninist Marxists, and council communists are all discluded from the equation of co-ordinating a bourgeoisie revolution. Unlike these proletariat-oriented branches of Communism, Marxist-Leninism, Leninism(Stalinism), Trotskyism, and Maoism are all bourgeoisie ideologies. If you fall under the first category that I mentioned, you are a supporter or proletarian-run revolution, if in in the second, you're an adherent of bourgeoisie revolution. Knowing that the majority of Communists are Marxist-Leninists and do advocate an epoch of party dictatorship, I can turn the polemic against Marxist-Leninism and deem it utopian since its adherents are stupid enough to believe that good can be implemented with evil, and, a proletarian milieu can be created through bourgeoisie means. Marxists, however, just exactly like Marx advocated it, too, do not advocate political transition, since, Marx himself was a vehement centralist, and believed that the state, manipulated by the entire proletariat class, directly, would be the decision-making method for the Marxist ideology. So, Marx, prior to communism and during communism believed that the working class should maintain power, just like anarchists. If you're adhering to Marxism, the central polemic consists not of transition, but free association or authority.

Economic Transition: Anarchists, like Communists, thought slightly different, believe that the period following a successful insurrection is the time for economic experimentation. Note that communism is not implemented "overnight." Communists, have it pre-determined in their theory that the economic epoch of socialism will precede the time after successful insurrection. Anarchists, however, communally, in referendum, vote on disparate economic capabilities and options, and implement such economic structuring within their community. Anarchists, not believing in coercion do not impose or force anyone to adhere to such an economy, but, regulate the central economic affiliation within the community to make it easier to organize and co-ordinate economic affairs. The majority of anarcho-communists believe that once counter-revolution is subdued is the time that communism should be planned to do in Spain. Unfortunately the revolution didn't work out, but hey, it was efficient, and was brought down by something the anarchists could not stop, therefore, there were no theoretical flaws. Communism on the other hand underwent several revolutions and each and everyone fell due to theoretical and internal problems. Whether you're a Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Leninism, Maoist, or Trotskyist, all of your revolutions were already over in their embryonic periods.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I just don't buy it, really.

It seems the general anarchist line: the revolution, the education will be so good that people will *never* want a ruler.

Well, it is theoretically possible that everyone will be educated to think that having a ruler is a bad thing...

But how do you stop people forming alliances of self-interest and promotion? And isn't it necessary that all such cartels, favoured trading agreements etc. exist? Because, if you get a dominant cartel, then you get people exhibiting de facto rule due to their influence, and pretty soon you have state type institutions developing.

So, my problems are two-fold:
i) you make a mockery of anarchism as a practical possibility by trying to define current problems out of the debate through education. I mean I could easily argue for a society that would worship spoons. And it would all work, provided everyone was constantly 'educated' well enough to believe in spoon deities ... which, some might say, would be as easy as convincing people that they should never allow others to speak on their behalf or form worthwhile discriminatory relationships with others.
ii) even with this utopian society, I fail to see how the 'rot' of compacts and cartels, beneficial societal groupings and trading relations can be stopped. And once this rot starts, pretty soon you seem to have a proto-state with institutions on your hands.

[Kamil]

But how do you stop people forming alliances of self-interest and promotion? And isn't it necessary that all such cartels, favoured trading agreements etc. exist? Because, if you get a dominant cartel, then you get people exhibiting de facto rule due to their influence, and pretty soon you have state type institutions developing.

"After the anarchist conditions and way of life are permeated throughout generations, the crime rates, according to what "crime" is defined within the society, will gradually diminish."

If thise does not work, or if such attempts of forming alliances occurs in the embroyo of the anarchist society, we can, with ease, get rid of such threats. The economic scenario that you have proposed would most likely arise in an anarcho-capitalist society, of course, it may occur within other economic infrastructures within the anarchist society. In anarchist economics, the economy is worker controlled, is not hostilly competitive, and provides equal opportunity for all. What Marx described as commodity fetishism will disappear. If a group of individuals formed such alliances to further their self-interest, they would not logically not constitute a majority due to the facts. If this group creates an alliance, there's no problem. If they feel that working together is fine, then by all means they can, but, if they impose and exploitative and oppressive methods upon others, they would be decimated. They would not be able to gain control over society since society would not subordinate to such a minortyu. Hypothetically, though its intangible, imagine that this alliance did somehow take control of the society. Would it last? No. You're forgetting that in order for anarchism to exist, world-wide proletarian revolution must be prompted. Another thing that you're forgetting is that the dominant economic trend in anarchism is communism, which will likely be the central economy implemented. Everything which you'd need you'd be able to take. With your proposed situation, if people would need to exploit others for their products in order to fulfill their self-interest, which I explained, would not happen. If you need don't comprehend yet, I'd be happy to further elaborate myself.

i) you make a mockery of anarchism as a practical possibility by trying to define current problems out of the debate through education. I mean I could easily argue for a society that would worship spoons. And it would all work, provided everyone was constantly 'educated' well enough to believe in spoon deities ... which, some might say, would be as easy as convincing people that they should never allow others to speak on their behalf or form worthwhile discriminatory relationships with others.

It's only logical that in an anarchist milie, anarchist ideals and ways of life would be fostered. The same can be applied to communism, capitalism, socialism,etc... Prior to establishing the anarchist society, the people have already realized that a world without bosses is not only unnecessary, but that it's a workable reality that they will fight to make happen. There'll be no proselytization or indoctrination, I'm sure that kids in school will learn much more about why rulers ruin society.

I thought you were a Communist, you'll have the same situation in your hands. Plus, if you're a Marxist, I can say a lot worse about you authoritarian tactics, or if you're a Leninist, I can definately say a lot of worse concerning its bourgeoisie affiliation.

ii) even with this utopian society, I fail to see how the 'rot' of compacts and cartels, beneficial societal groupings and trading relations can be stopped. And once this rot starts, pretty soon you seem to have a proto-state with institutions on your hands.

Trading relations will cease? Uhhh, really? There'll be plenty of trading, both nationally and locally. We're not isolationists, we don't close our "borders" and deny and international trading. Also, we do not antagonize bartering or perhaps the utilization of some sort of monetary units. Perhaps you should study up on anarchism, I guarantee that it'll be worth it. Also, if you're actually a Communist, in which I suppose, and you question how a stateless and moneyless society will function, then I doubt you really are a Communist. I suppose that you are a Communist since I've seen you defend Communism and that you have a avatar of Nikolai Bukharin.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Kam:

First off, I'm not a communist. I have communist (and anarchist) sympathies, for sure, I study Soviet history and wrote a thesis on Bukharin. But I'm not a Marxist.

Second, while you give me the standard speil on crime (it will decrease almost automatically because people will adopt a new way of life), I feel your approach to exploitation doesn't take full account of how institutions (and hence, institutions that exploit) develop.

You assume that if people are just in an alliance then that is 'no problem'. But as soon as that alliance becomes 'exploitative' then they would be decimated... So, what happens, for instance, if in a community of 10 people, 7 of us decide to pool our resources and enter into a trading bloc with each other? The other three are being economically disadvantaged, we are stopping them from getting a fair price for their goods, because we control the market. If this situation isn't stopped, then exploitation continues. Yet, they are three and we are seven. And why should we abandon our mutual self-interest just because the few say so, I do not know. And how the minority can 'decimate' the majority, I do not know.

And it is through similar processes of self-interest that leaders grow, that bureaucracies grow, that governments grow, that pretty soon the majority exploit the minority, or (even worse) vice versa.

So, what I'm really looking for is a better reason WHY people in an anarchist community wouldn't act in their perceived (economic) self-interest. Do you just have to postulate that they'll be "educated" into altruism, or is there something concrete stopping this descent into a state of exploitation? Because relying on 'education' for us to simply 'know better' is, I think, naive. If you could 'educate' people in such a manner, we'd just educate them now to be nice to each other and... Voila!

Take another example - if we have formed a coal miner's combine - we decided that the only way to extract coal, and do so efficiently, is to work together. Now we find that coal is very valuable, because there is a high demand for it. Do we, as a group, not try to take advantage of this, by raising our standard of living to the detriment of others?

I'm not talking about 'trading' being stopped, but non-fair trade. Because I have been talking about the simple potential for standard 'trading relationships' to develop into tools of exploitation.

I don't quite see the same problems with Communism (in development), because Socialism can allow for a strong state apparatus and doesn't advocate the abolition of the sole body which could be responsible for 'enforcing' principles of non-exploitation.

[Kamil]

You assume that if people are just in an alliance then that is 'no problem'. But as soon as that alliance becomes 'exploitative' then they would be decimated... So, what happens, for instance, if in a community of 10 people, 7 of us decide to pool our resources and enter into a trading bloc with each other? The other three are being economically disadvantaged, we are stopping them from getting a fair price for their goods, because we control the market. If this situation isn't stopped, then exploitation continues. Yet, they are three and we are seven. And why should we abandon our mutual self-interest just because the few say so, I do not know. And how the minority can 'decimate' the majority, I do not know.

The minority, of course, is not obliged to participate, and keep in mind that commodity fetishism will be done away with in most cases. Those in a critical or bad economic position are free to leave behind their previous economic structure and go out on their own, gathering whatever goods they need, and keeping it for themselves.

Before we devise an approach for tackling these kind of issues, we must first put some things into consideration. From the situation in which you have proposed, it can be applied to anarchist economics, but generally, in anarchist economics, in some economic structures, worker and consumer co-operatives and assemblies are implemented with designated functions to protect worker rights. For the purpose of having a viable arguement, let us dismiss such cases and focus our issue towards market-oriented economic structures in anarchism without a counter-strategy to your scenario. Ok, so your scenario is the following: In a commune consisting of ten residents, seven form a trading bloc regulating fair prices on their products between each other, while either discluding the remaining three residents or charging them unfair or less fair prices in comparison with the other fellas.

In terms of exploitation, it depends upon whether these actions are coercive and deliberate or indirect and not imposed upon anyone. I have already dealt with what would happen to any threats to the society or oppressors, they'd be decimated, but, if the exploitation was of indirect nature and not at all deliberate, what can we say? We can say a matter of things. In anarchism, unlike capitalism, we do not impose requisitions for survival. The minority, of course, is not obligated to participate, and, keep in mind that commodity fetishism will be done away with. So, the minority is free to leave behind their previous economic structure and go out on their own. This minority can gather whatever goods it needs, and keeps it for itself. One must not trade to survive, of course it is helpful. But does this mean that all trading relations for that person are put to end? No, of course not. That person can easily relocate to a commune that fits their needs, or can stay where they are, gather whatever they like, and use it for whatever they need. If they must trade, they can go off to other communes where others might be interested in their bargain.

What's unrealistic about your case is that the dominant economic branch of anarchism, communism, does not revolve around markets, rather, barter and the 'take whatever you need' situation which can also be applied in any other economic branch affiliated with anarchism.

And it is through similar processes of self-interest that leaders grow, that bureaucracies grow, that governments grow, that pretty soon the majority exploit the minority, or (even worse) vice versa.

Oh really? If you can, put yourself in the position of being a resident among an anarchist society. Things are not chaotic, relations among the people have bettered, commodity fetishism has drastically diminish if not completely obliterated, and things are better. The people all adhere to anarchist ideals. Althought some individuals are indirectly exploiting others in their commune by not rendering fair economic relations, they won't be deemed as a threat and won't be decimated. Anyways, how on Earth do you propose that a state grows out of this? Things are good. Do you actually think that people will magically submit to these exploiters who are merely discluding others from their economic relations? No. Will those people even try to form a state above the people? I really doubt it. If they tried, they would not succeed.

This is not Marxism, majorities will not oppress minorities. What's the incentive? Not only must you not even labour for long periods of time, you labour when you feel like it. People with a fetish for goods will take what they need, they won't need others doing that job. One must not at all constantly labour to live. I really don't see the incentive.


So, what I'm really looking for is a better reason WHY people in an anarchist community wouldn't act in their perceived (economic) self-interest. Do you just have to postulate that they'll be "educated" into altruism, or is there something concrete stopping this descent into a state of exploitation?

I'm not implying that in anarchism, everything will be perfect and that people will always act in the interest of others, no. Individualism will definately be a major and prominent factor. From what I have noticed, many anarchists are social individuals which is an idea that consists of a concoction of both ideologies. All in all, like I have said, it depends on what form this exploitation will take. Whether it's coercive and deliberate or indirect and not at all imposed. Like I also have mentioned, this won't be capitalism, it's not like it'll be an obligation to earn money and trade with others to survive. Not every commune adheres to the same economic preferences, anyone is free to relocate or just go out on their own.

I don't quite see the same problems with Communism (in development), because Socialism can allow for a strong state apparatus and doesn't advocate the abolition of the sole body which could be responsible for 'enforcing' principles of non-exploitation.


Communism is even worse. Not only are minorities unprotected, the rule of the majority can lead to big problems. What will you do if your neighbout doesn't comply with the pre-established and enforced regulations? Will you shoot him? Will you turn him in so he can be hung? Do you kill people that have trading blocs between each other and are not oppressing anyone else, just making it easier for themselves by working together? In Communis, the majority can impose very harsh laws that are a necessity for the society to abide by. A whole bunch of whites can rule to kill all blacks which may be a minority. Another thing is, if a majority rules to impose a set of certain conditions and rules for the society to abide by, and it causes major discontent, and the results were almost 50-50, a civil war can easily break out. Not only this, but who makes sure that the majorities' decisions will come into being. You can't have all the people, extremely dispersed, tuning into a single assembly voting on what shall be done. Either a minority will take power since the people would need to struggle just to get their vote in. If things are to be tallied communally, having each commune submit their wishes to some central committee which count all the communes' votes and figure out what the total is. How do you know that such people will not manipulate the results to be in line with their wishes?

[Maxim Litvinov]

But, here's my point -- what might START as a pact of mutual economic self-interest, develops into a series of institutions and a proto-state which runs on exploitative principles.

I can theorise right now a state where everyone is altruistic and does everything for everyone else. And it sounds cool. I'd love to live like that. But when the question of practicalities arrives, I don't see much merit in that as a system...

You, on the other hand, make three assertions about how this system would operate:
1] People would be so well educated, that everyone would support the system.
2] If people didn't support it, they'd move away.
3] If it was exploitative, it would be decimated.

I think the idea in 1] is Utopian. It sounds good, but I can make a fine-sounding society on paper also.

Well, for 2] people might move away, but just like the exploited worker can be dependent on what little income he receives today, so too would the minority.

Finally, I am entirely unclear about 3]. Who's doing the decimating? God? The minority could try, but wouldn't get very far, and it is in the interests of the majority to preserve the status quo - which is preserving their economic advantages.

This is why Communism - although not my favourite system (I think I'd prefer anarcho-syndicalism or similar) - seems to make more sense. Because, even though there is a state which has the potential not to listen to the minority, in pursuit of the interests of the majority, at least there is some means of regulating power. Without any means of stopping patterns of minor exploitation and pacts for mutual self-interest, these relations develop over time to more exploitative and vicious ways of asserting superiority and to state-type institutions. Which seems to be anarchy paving the way for the most exploitative of class dictatorships.

So, my central problem is - what *stops* the majority from asserting their self-interest? WHO stops them?

If your ideas were applied in a commune, then I can imagine it pretty much working -- because people have an opt-out possibility. But, applied to society in general, it just seems to employ no safeguards against exploitation.

[Pongetti]

I had heard that the idea was that communities would just naturally decide how to run themselves. It wouldn't be like the movies where basically the idea of anarchism is lots of guiltess killing because people would just be at the judgement of those around them. A community of people living near each other and interacting with each other aren't going to stand for you chopping people up, so they will punish you as they see fit and that would of course be in line with the morals of your community. So if you removed the government I suppose you'd just naturally end up with extremely localized "governments" I guess. It would be like the olden days. Joy.

Though, one country wouldn't really be able to do it. It's neighbours would just invade. With no organized military there wouldn't be a chance.