Sounds a lot like a bunch of small states to me.
Comment on How would an anarchist society work?
JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 11 hours ago
‘Basically no one in charge’ is not exactly correct. Heirarchies are allowed to exist, but ideally should be as brief and flat as possible.
My best understanding of the end-goal is an intermeshing alliance of small democratic collectives working together to provide for one another. This type of system has existed previously, such as with the various tribes across the Americas which often traded and collaborated with one another. In contrast with previous times, there is vastly more understanding of how the world works now, and thus many more possible projects to strive towards.
There is also no expectation of some supposed utopia from this, as i understand - conflicts are still expected to flair up every now and again. The main aim is for equality and the absence of a single constant power structure which oppresses and dictates the conditions of all, but instead that there is a democratic collaberation defining the conditions for folks involved.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 31 minutes ago
The original definition of state is different from the western nuspeak one that means government
JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 58 minutes ago
States have governors, towns have mayors, and in anarchist theory none of those heirarchal positions would exist. Usually, heirarchies are formed in order to complete projects and those heirarchies are supposed to disappear once the project is complete. Can’t really have a state without a legislative body dictating it.
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 19 minutes ago
Pretty much describes the US in 1781. The Founding Fathers were essentially trying to create a viable anarchy themselves but kept having to make compromises.