Comrade_Spood

No, continental drift is the plot point

This guy's playing both sides so he always comes out on top

From the earth I rise, to the earth I shall one day return

Make me

Good soldiers follow orders

Nationalizing the economy goes against anarchist ideals due to nationalizing means giving it to the government (entirely contrary to anarchist thought). The second one, even after the "trial period", has ended is still taking the fruits of your labor. Under anarchism, there are no companies. They are free associations of workers. The workers who work the capital own the capital. And there isn't money, that's contrary to communism and no matter how you split it money is unegalitarian. A worker keeps what he wants from his labor, and communalizes the rest. And is thus entitled to what he needs from the community.

Edit: Rojava is also not an anarchist project. At best it's a libertarian socialist project. And I've never heard of this "trial period" stuff in anything I've ever read about and anarchist example

I believe people are like this due to the conditions they live in. Capitalism is a system that encourages selfishness in order to survive. I whole heartedly believe that if conditions changed, people would change. Not immediately of course. No anarchist is saying that it wouldn't be a rough transition, or that it's a flawless society, or any of that. But we do think that it would work and that it'd be better in the long run than what we have rn

To me yes, most selfishness is due to the conditions capitalism cause. And I know this because looking at past anarchist revolutions, the society itself functions. But the revolutions fail militarily. And I'll admit the anarchist examples are few so not a real large sample size to go off of. So looking at hunter gather societies can give good insight as well.

Decisions concerning the community as a whole would probably be voted on, or at least discussed and a decision made by the community as a whole. Otherwise the only people that need to be concerned with something is those that are involved.

The whole point of anarchism is free association. If two people agree to something that is their business. There is no exploitation in what you described. If they were to hire someone then that is an example of it being exploitative. Someone could join them in their labor as long as both parties get all that they produce.

They would probably vote. How they'd vote idk, that's not for me to decide.

The community themselves decide. If it's enough of a problem, the community will organize to address it how they see fit. That's the whole point of anarchism. We don't have all the answers and we don't claim to, the people that run into these issues will find the solutions that best suites their needs.