you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 7 months ago (9 children)

It's more that they don't scale well. What works well in a small group of friends will fall apart long before you scale it up even to just a national level, much less all of humanity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    The Zapatistas show that region-scale anarchy can work and remain stable. You need more careful and explicit structures to do things at scale, but the same goes for nation-states, just look at the average state's legal and regulatory codes. Compared to trying not to break the law in a nation-state, participating in local anarchist organizing committees is child's play.

    We've only had the opportunity to apply this at a scale larger than the smallest 30-or-so nations, but in theory systems like sociocracy can nest exponentially, meaning there are applications that are already halfway to a world government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I am not sure if I would call it Anarchism if it has explicit structures

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Maybe you're using some formal or narrow definition of "structure" but in my experience there are lots of things I would call structures in anarchist theory and practice, from meeting templates to the mental flowcharts of emergency medicine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    insert alt-right fantasy about how great ancient Europe was /s

    Jokes aside, the cities model worked because that was the scale a society was able to grow to. Transport was very difficult as was communication. And even in the ancient cities there was a power hierarchy with councils of elders and stuff.

  • source
  • parent