>>14877641Anarchism is not about not having laws, it's about not having hierarchies, which is a differnet thing.
With the adequate planning and resources, anarchism is completely effective. See the commune of Paris or the ukranian Back Army. They were militarly defeated, but as long as they lasted, they worked by themselves perfectly fine.
>>14877747>what you propose is the mob beating to death anybody who will not contribute to the greater collective.Look at that huge strawman, holy shit. Where did I suppossedly said that?
>If a person chooses voluntarily to work for a boss that is fine.If there's a bos, there's a hierarchy, therefore it's not anarchy. So what you propose is not anarchy at all.
I a person wants to work under anarcy, they can become autonomous whithout being crushed by taxes, or he can join a cooperative. I they doesn't want to take part in politics, he can refuse to take part of the town's or the cooperative's councils, and voluntarily submit to what the councils have agreed to do. THAT is fine, because there's not any hierarchy in between.
>What you are proposing is just socialism under another name.¿What is "socialism" in the first place? If we take "socialism" by its most extensive definition, it can be any kind of anti-capitalist and/or post-capitalist movement, so anarchism would be one of many forms of socialism.
