I think it is best to clarify my terms. Anarchy to me is a structured society built entirely out of free associations. It isn't lawless. Anarchy has rules. A lawless society will naturally take the shape of the people in that society. If all the people are anarchists, they will create an anarchist society, if they are statists, they will create a state. Society is a collection of people living together there is no reason it has to be hierarchical. The people are the ones who make it like that.

What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

An anarchist revolution is the complete transformation of society to use non-hierarchical power structures. If after the revolution the society falls back into hierarchy then that means the people were not willing to let go their addiction to authority.

The link is for an FAQ, technically not a book, since most books are shorter than 3077 pages. However it does contain every question one might have about anarchy and answers it pretty neatly.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

After it happens, and there are no hierarchies or authorities, what stops men with guns from taking what they want?

I don't appreciate your pedantics about my use of hyperbolic verbiage in order to bring an element of humor to my argument.

Also good job dodging the question.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I apologize you couldn't find the answer to your question from my comment, and thus thought I was dodging it. I tried to explain it in the way that I see it. In my eyes I answered your question clearly, but I will try to be even clearer on my second try.
(hopefully this doesn't come off as patronizing)

I would also like to know what were the pedantics that you identified in my comment. If it was the final statement then that was my attempt to bring humor into the argument and wasn't in any way meant seriously. Perhaps I should have used /j

To get to your question (and hopefully answer it more clearly). An anarchist society forms when anarchists come together to create a society. If someone with guns came to destroy that society the anarchists would defend themselves. If one of the anarchists turns their gun against their comrades the others would respond in kind. If they don't the person takes power and the system stops being anarchistic.

Or to put it even more simply: In an anarchist society everyone is policing and protecting everyone else.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The lack of organizational structure for such militias formed by the anarchists and lack of authority mean though that a conspiracy to destroy the anarchist society will always be infinitely many steps ahead of the response of said society.

Furthermore, what stops the ~30% of people (whether nazi Germany or DJT, that's usually the percentage of votes recieved for right wing radicals) that will almost definitely not be interested in keeping the anarchist society functioning from attaining weapons and having their way? Even ignoring the historic context, tribalism seems baked into the human existence, how is that nullified?

Further, people will always be fearful, so it's great to say "their fellow anarchists would take up arms" but how many are truly willing to do that? Revolutions would be much more common if they were.

That's why I think there's significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.

I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse, and have greatly outgrown the small communities in which such a philosophy would be most effective imo.