[insidious]

I mean, this is a really difficult, but intensely interesting question to answer. A purely anarchist society would be very difficult to accomplish, it's pretty much a utopian ideal that is impossible, almost like socialism, except I would say anarchy is even more impossible, if that even makes sense.

So, it's very hard to conceptualize how one would function or work in real life because it's never really been done before.

Anarchy is a concept that I believe comes from a natural human tendency to be weary of authoritarian and centralized power-systems. It's a concept and idea that has it's roots way back in greek times, too, so it's not really very new and certainly, at least in my opinion, shouldn't be associated with the 'punk' movement of the 70's where scenes of angsty teenagers throwing rocks at storefronts, and running around the streets with fireworks come to mind.

It might be worth mentioning that there are also many different forms of anarchy stemming from one central idea. Green-anarchy, anarcha-feminism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.

So, if i were to guess, pure-anarchy could never work in the longterm, especially for large groups of people. It simply...can't. Small factional anarchists groups, however, the likes of maybe island-tribes or african bushcommunities are very possible. And this is where I see pure anarchy leading to.

As @Jiggly said, people would split into factions, most certainly. It's no secret humans work better and have a natural tendency to form communities. Even on this forum, if you are reading this post, cannot deny that. This forum is a community of individuals, if we didn't have a natural tendency to form communities you wouldn't be here reading this, you'd be sitting in the dark fapping (probably).


@"Ender" you mention,
"What about a society where the only law is that everyone needs to have potentially (some people just give up) equal ability defend themselves and to survive?"
I'm not sure this would work, because by definition anarchy is pure radical freedom, so having a lw like this would be putting limits on this freedom IE: you have to have some caliber of self-defense, or whatever.

So pure anarchy is fickle, it can't work. Any way you look at it, I think.

Idealistically and theoretically you have a utopia without any authoritarian or any form of government whatsoever, where everyone works together and sings kumba-ya as their national anthem. Everyone is self-sufficient and provides for themselves and their family. Etc. Etc.

At best, it may evolve into something with some loose-form of government. Freedom still exists, trade is free, workers have absolute control of their work, the world may well still be in countries but seperated by continents. Within those countries there is no government, but hundreds of thousands of tribe-like communities. War would probably take place between these every so often, ofc. This is still half-baked and heavily idealistic, however.

At worst Anarchy devolves into a tyranical government, or everyone kills each other, or nuclear war, or whatever.

And with my opinions, I leave you with a funny WKUK video on anarchy: