Ask Lemmy

Assuming you're not just trolling, which, judging by your post history is... Unlikely... I'm going to suggest you read up a little bit about the basics of anarchism. Specifically anarchocommunism, as it is the most common tendency to run into online. There are several foundational texts that are written in English and Spanish. Some authors to consider: Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Pierre Joseph Proudhon. For something more contemporary, check out David Rovics.

For real world examples of actually existing anarchist societies, read about the Spanish Civil War, a good book I can recommend on the subject "The Anarchist Collectives : Workers Self-Management in Spain, 1936-1939" by Sam Dolgoff

Another decent recommendation is The Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde.

For a short read with good explanations behind the principles of anti authoritarianism check out Law and Authority by Kropotkin.

For something to get the heart thumping a bit more, We Do Not Fear Anarchy, We Invoke It by Robert Graham.

The idea that political thought would be repressed in an anarchist society is... An interesting take. Anarchists generally want to function based on some kind of collective decision making process, such as consensus. There are also anarchist adjacent trends, such as council communism that are worth looking into. In a pinch, "Google Murray bookchin" and find yourself somewhere in the neighborhood (or at least the next one over).

And to answer your question outright, if a bunch of anarchists decided to form a society large enough to be viable and self sufficient, one of two things would happen: the US would turn it into a glass parking lot or ... The US would turn it into a glass parking lot.

Anarchism isn't no rules it's no rulers. Even newbie anarchists will be able to tell you that absent a structure making power accountable to the people, power will just emerge in an unaccountable form.

Anarchia Island would probably just govern itself as a direct democracy with a heavy emphasis on equitable management of resources and regular attendance of public meetings to decide any pressing matters.

Picture the way New England townships will sometimes run themselves with everyone coming to the town hall meeting and hand voting on the questions of the meeting and you can begin to get a basic idea what it'd look like.

Some very ideological anarchists might insist that the decision making process would involve consensus democracy which is just a whole other can of worms that isn't really worth delving into beyond mentioning that the Inuit nation apparently makes it work in Nunavut so it's not completely crazy if you're hyped enough for it.

Generally, groups up to around 300 members work well enough with consensus decision-making. If they had more than that, and they could figure out how to coordinate multiple small communities, they’d probably be fine.

The word you're looking for is commune

Yep, they're doomed.

Politics (any kind) is a part of any social order (except anarchy, of course) and is emedded in human behavior. You do politics from a toddler (get candy for being a good boy/girl). So, if you can't even have that, yeah, I'd say they're doomed.

Governments are not necessarily good, but mediators (people who resolve conflicts and help with defense) are absolutely necessary unless you want our impulses to take over.

Pitcairn was once as close to anarchy as you'll ever get. Founded by mutineers, society was peaceful until everyone started a schism over what was considered fair treatment of the people there, and this combined with growing alcoholism to cause infighting until there was one man left to take care of all the women. Today, Pitcairn has an extreme cultural fear of alcohol; one sip of even beer or wine can get you arrested.

After that riot, Pitcairn enjoyed relative peace as people began to restrain themselves a little. However, the British decided to take advantage of the still-existent absence of significant power structures and take the island, and, due to being so far away, handed it over to New Zealand to help control it.

There was also a scandal in the 1990's and 2000's that saw all the men convicted of indecency, but this is debated and I don't really have faith the UK didn't spin anything on this faraway island. But the moral of the story is, if you have nothing in place, even if everyone tries their best to get along, impulse takes over. Yet even this I'd say is better than the "necessary evils" provided by monarchs and presidents.