Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 23 at 18:11 comment added Brian Z Twin Oaks (which has sustained a population around 100 people) is nowhere near the scale asked about in the question. While it avoids taxation through legal means, it is clearly under the jurisdiction of states and indirectly benefits from state infrastructure.
Jan 29, 2023 at 9:50 comment added Stančikas Exactly two people as you say I think should be able to find a compromise at least sometimes. This is not even relevant to the answer and, I think, too strongly said.
Jul 7, 2018 at 21:09 comment added user4012 @JamesK - I'm making a difference between what Machno called himself vs. what he called the territory he held. (think Communists vs. Socialist Country distinction)
Jul 7, 2018 at 19:01 comment added James K @tim yes, but those are the standards that the OP set "just voluntary, all the time" I think Machno would call himself an anarcho-communist following the tradition of the 19th century anarchists.
Jul 6, 2018 at 18:49 comment added user4012 Now you got me wondering. Did Machno actually claim that his territory was "anarchy"?
Jul 6, 2018 at 14:12 vote accept CommunityBot
Jul 6, 2018 at 12:34 comment added Simon Richter "No rules" would be anomie, not anarchy. Anarchist groups tend to have quite a lot of rules that are enforced by (almost) all group members in the absence of police, and this automatically limits the group size as rules still need to be agreed on.
Jul 6, 2018 at 9:58 comment added tim I think defining anarchism as 'no rules' is a bit simplistic. I also think that eg peasant councils are not incompatible with anarchism (eg anarcho-syndicalism is considered to be a branch of anarchism). But I agree that OPs standard for "stable" is too high. The free territory or revolutionary catalonia eg seem to have been stable and functional internally, but were brought down by external forces.
Jul 6, 2018 at 7:29 history answered James K CC BY-SA 4.0