Selecting Anarchism as an example, it defends a state of affairs without coercion or oppression, and it also defends, at least from what I read, the abolishment of prisons. What would one do with the supposed insurgents or people who want to govern the others? They would naturally arise because I think it's part of the animal nature of man to want something for himself and defend it, be it in groups or not? There would be people against the new system of things. So is it possible to live in a world without any oppression or authoritarianism? I believe it's an utopia.

  • 2
    Excellent question. Wonder if we have similar one for libertarianism. – user4012 Jul 19 '17 at 12:35
  • As noted on wikipedia "Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism" Which anarchism do you mean. – James K Jul 19 '17 at 16:33
  • Insurgents may not be the best choice here because that implies a rebellion against an organized society, the likes of which don't exist in anarchism. So the most likely insurgent could be a child looking to take their parents property. Is invaders more towards what you're suggesting? Like an organized government invading a continent of anarchists? – discodane Jul 19 '17 at 16:47
  • You would probably get as many different answers as there are anarchists, but it would differ if it's external or internal. If it's external they would be fought off. If it's internal it would be more like "OK, you go and do that, but don't bother us with it". – liftarn Nov 2 '17 at 11:31
  • "I think it's part of the animal nature of man to want something for himself and defend it". Wanting something and "defending" this something does not sound like a trait very frequent in animals. It sounds actually more like a trait of "modern" human. – wip May 24 '20 at 16:30


1) Both Anarchism and Communism aim for the abolishment of classes, so that there will not be profit generated from human-to-human exploitation. In that sense, people of a classless society will not have the incentive to rule, as they will have nothing to gain from it. In the extreme case, that there are certain people/groups of people that won't leave their ruling positions, wish to remain in the ruling class or seek to have a ruling role for psychological reasons, they will be cast out from this society naturally.

2) Even in an anarchist society it still exists some form of "punishment", but certainly not suspending the freedom of the others, but more focusing on compulsory work for the society. Mainly, anarchists argue against prison system in the existing capitalistic system, which is used not only to protect the society against crimes, but as a political tool in the hands of the ruling class to express and maintain their dominance.


That's just opinion-based, not a scientific fact.


It is possible if the elements that cause oppression are removed. Historically, as an example, you can check the revolution of Slaves/Spartacus, the American revolution, the French revolution, etc.

Oscar Wilde
  • 3
    Compulsory? What makes it compulsory? Who enforces this punishment? You're establishing hierarchies of power and this is no longer an anarchist system. How can you cast someone outside of a society? You're implying that the anarchist system constructs something called 'in society' and 'out of society' both of which imply a governed system within and outside of a state. You are incoherent. – easymoden00b Jul 19 '17 at 14:05
  • 1
    I don't think it is a hierarchy of power, if society as whole has agreed on certain rules. But anyway, that's a very subtle matter and it will get too opinion-based – koita_pisw_sou Jul 19 '17 at 14:08
  • 5
    Your implying that your "society and its rules" supersede another "society and it's rules", your establishing a formal hierarchy that is incompatible with anarchism. Who makes these rules and what hierarchical mechanism are you using to enforce them? By the very construction of a 'society' you're implying an in-grouping and out-grouping formal hierarchy. – easymoden00b Jul 19 '17 at 14:10
  • 1
    Certainly not my society, just pinning out the anarchist views on the subject. Certainly, there is a form of organization (wouldn't call it hierarchy), we agree on that. The thing is, it is not incompatible with anarchism to the extend of my knowledge, as long as society as a whole sets the rules and not the ruling class. The "mechanisms" you describe and the "enforcement" as you put it, is done by the society itself via ex. via local neighborhood meetings/ workplace assemblies – koita_pisw_sou Jul 20 '17 at 6:22
  • @easymoden00b : how would you describe the society of StackExchange (or the one of Wikipedia, or the one of freeware) ? It sure has rules and organisation, but I don't see any "hierarchy" in there. Even moderators are not commanding anyone. So the argument that rules and organisation implies hierarchy is at least debatable, isn't it ? – Evargalo Nov 2 '17 at 8:38

In the Spainish Civil War there existed some of the largest groups ever calling themselves anarchist. They fought effectively against both political incursion of nominal allies and military incursion of enemies for a few years before being disarmed and destroyed.

I understand executions of traitors and spies was not uncommon.

  • 2
    They fought under a Marxist banner and under Marxist leadership and they even took part in forced collectivization. These groups almost nothing to do with anarchism itself nor the answer to this question. – easymoden00b Jul 19 '17 at 16:20
  • 1
    I used the phrase "calling themselves anarchists" to attempt to forestall "no true Scotsman". Certainly towards the end of the war almost everyone on the republic's side was under communist control, but communities with many different organizations existed and fought in the beginning. – user9389 Jul 19 '17 at 16:35
  • 2
    The first months of the Civil War in Catalonia are often shown as the only true event of an anarchist society - until Communists fought and defeated anarchists in May 1937. In that time anarchists killed a lot of people (conservative, religious, burgeois...) in a mix of revolutionary violence and pure looting. It's hard to tell what would have happened in an stable anarchist society after the war and revolution, but the biggest anarchist experiment in history didn't lack the violence needed to deal with oposition. – Pere Jul 19 '17 at 20:27

They wouldn't cohesively do anything because they would need to establish a formal hierarchy in order to act as a singular entity against a unified opponent. Anarchists don't believe in the establishment nor perpetuation of hierarchies and therefore they'd simply roll over one-by-one when confronted by an external threat. Not only this, the anarchist cannot ideologically understand such a thing as the existence of externality / internality would construct a formal hierarchy that is, itself, incompatible with the ideology.

TLDR: anarchism is incoherent.

  • 1
    Anarchists very much believe in self-defense. They would not simply 'roll over one-by-one'. – discodane Jul 19 '17 at 15:44
  • @discodane Sure, self defense one-by-one. Anything else and you get into statist territory. "Those fascist leaders can't tell me how to make a phalanx! How can you privilege an orderly testudo over a testudo of my own design? Get lost statist!" Things would have to spring up amorphously and autonomously and without reference to a transcendental hierarchy they'd quickly collapse into chaos or 'anarchy'. – easymoden00b Jul 19 '17 at 16:09
  • 2
    I think you may be using a very narrow definition of anarchy, it might help to explicitly state what that definition is and perhaps where it comes from. – user9389 Jul 19 '17 at 17:04
  • 2
    The transition from antifascist militias to government controlled popular army in Spin in 1937 was a real example of "estatists" telling anarchists how to forma a phalanx, in @easymoden00b 's methaphore. – Pere Jul 19 '17 at 20:33
  • I could pick each one of the very extensive list of political philosophies and get to a similar conclusion based on any arbitrary idiosyncrasy I might find in their general description. This would obviously dismiss the conclusions of the hundreds of people that actually gave some thought to it and actually made it appear in the list in the first place. There is a point in life were you need to stop and ask yourself if you really know what you are talking about. – armatita Nov 2 '17 at 9:42

In agreement with koita-pisw-sou. Another view is anti-hierarchy not anti-structure. A society of highly educated, collectivist-minded people for example could design horizontal voting systems for policy. Education and social services, would be a worthy start in "de-programming" people from antisocial aggression related to manufactured scarcity. The "ideal" could take generations to get to, and would also be a shift in culture.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .