Originally posted by shavixmiri guess you are talking about 3 and maybe 1, below.
Hence you don't understand what anarchy is.
There is a difference between behavioural anarchy and anarchy as a political system.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler"😉 may refer to any of the following:
* "No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty[2] and the minimization or even abolition of the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minarchist to openly anarchist.[1][5][6][7]
All forms of libertarianism support strong personal rights to life and liberty, but do not agree on the subject of property.[8] The most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism[8] by advocating a right to private property, including property in the means of production,[9] minimal government regulation of that property, minimal taxation, and rejection of the welfare state, all within the context of the rule of law.[10][11][12] Some pro-property libertarians are anarchists who call for the elimination of the state.[13] Some call the pro-property view propertarian, and some pro-property libertarians believe a "propertarian philosophy" is a weak basis for libertarian morality.[14] A number of countries worldwide have libertarian parties which run candidates for political office.
Libertarian socialists—the first political activists to adopt the term libertarian in the mid-19th century—are usually anarchists or left communists, opposed to arbitrary structures of authority and hierarchy in personal relations and the larger social order.[15] Most notably they are opposed to state power and forms of private property such as capital, but also oppose patriarchy and racism.[16][17][18] These libertarians often believe in the abolition of private property and may be called non-propertarian or anti-propertarian.[19][20] They do not seek state solutions, instead looking to voluntary and popularly controlled associations.[21][22][23]
Originally posted by zeeblebotLike I said, you just don't seem to understand what anarchism entails. Anarchism does not imply that they have no rules. On the contrary, they have many rules. But the rules are collectively decided by all the members themselves, as opposed to being imposed by a hierarchical governmental authority. Anarchism is the absence of a state, not the absence of rules. And, yes, they do have a weekly labor requirement.
questionable as to whether these communities are really anarchist.
how long can community members get away with slacking off before they're kicked out of the community?
do the communities have NO rules?
are these more like libertarian communities than anarchist?
Because people raised in a capitalist society seem to be physically incapable of grasping what anarchism means, the communities don't use the term themselves. They call themselves an egalitarian socialist community, or a libertarian socialist community. Noam Chomsky himself typically uses the term libertarian socialism as being a synonym for anarchism because of the confusion the term generates.
Originally posted by rwingetti have no problem accepting your definition of the kind of anarchism you're talking about (even though i was raised in a capitalist society, and am a committed capitalist).
Anarchism is the absence of a state, not the absence of rules.
i think i could perhaps cope with living under such a system if the group had a robust constitution that limited to a quite great extent the degree to which majority rule could infringe upon the liberties of individuals. i fear 'the rule of the mob'. this is of course a concern in any democracy not just an anarchist one.
i'm just as concerned about personal liberty as your typical anarchist, i suspect, but to me the tyranny of the state/group is something to be feared, whether this tyranny stems from the power of an individual or small group, or the majority.
also, personally, i wouldn't voluntarily choose to live under such a system. i'm currently better off than the average member of my society, so i could only see my fortunes declining in such a case, where the mob would almost certainly vote to bring about equal distribution of material goods.