You can have mutually agreed upon rules and structure in anarchism. "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin explains the theory behind anarcho-communism pretty well. I'm not aware of any form of anarchism that doesn't have rules in some form. At the very least, you'd have the "rule" against hierarchies, otherwise you wouldn't have anarchism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Which makes it sound like anarchy is a concept that can't be applied the the real world as there will always be rules. So without changing the base definition of anarchy, any other offshoot is by nature of the requirement of rules,
Not Anarchism.

Seems it would be best to come up with a system with defined rules that allow for freedoms and just call it what is and not rely on the hype that is "anarchy" to sell. Otherwise please remind me what state charter Peter Kropotkin wrote or what governing body of a state rules with Anarchy as their leading principle? Somalia ended their civil war over this so I can't think of one can you?

And yes I understand that there is sub groups practicing but using the protection that is offered by operating inside of a state should not count.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Anarchism is the absence of hierarchies, not the absence of rules. There are very much thriving anarchist communities and agencies among us, even if they don't use the term "anarchist."

Communism is defined as "a stateless, classless society." This too is anarchism.