TIL about the Christiana commune. Interesting!

I love that story! I tell it every time someone tries to sell me on anarchism.

Christiana was an old military complex that the government gave up on, so anarchist squatters moved in.

Soon they realized, that they needed some way to decide matters that concerned everyone. So they formed small councils, and in these councils they each chose some people to represent them in one big council. These people weren’t elected politicians, just people chosen to represent them. They then voted on issues, and no, that wasn’t a form of democracy. It’s still anarchism.

Then then realized, that the upkeep of common areas and infrastructure costs money, so they required that everyone paid their share. That obviously weren’t taxes. Just mandatory contributions.

When organized crime started to spread, they decided on some mandatory rules (you read right: these weren’t laws, just mandatory rules that you had to keep if you didn’t want to face punishment). Then they chose some strong men that should make sure the rules were followed. No, not police men. Just concerned strong men.

They worked together with Kopenhagen’s police. Basically, they’d call the cops and then drag the offenders outside of Christiania to the waiting cops.

Part of the rules were that it wasn’t allowed to consume hard drugs or to wear motor cycle gang attire.

So in the end, they had no politicians, no government, no taxes and no police force. Just things that where basically identical to these things. The only thing they really don’t have is a prison, because they outsourced that to Kopenhagen.

Anarchism directly leads to a form of government, no matter how you call it.

If you want an opposite example, how anarchism lead to an anarcho-capitalistic nightmare, where the community decended into a rule by organized crime, google the Kowloon Walled City. It’s equally interesting.

The difference is than in an ideal anarchist polity, the minority can secede, even down to the individual. "Majority rule" only happens to the extent that the minority doesn't find secession to be a worthwhile option. Whereas under democracy, the land and resources of the minority, and even the people themselves are considered to rightfully belong to the state. Any serious attempt at secession is met with violence.

Actually-existing "anarchistic" societies may not completely live up to this ideal, but it is what we strive for. Anarchists consider freedom of association and freedom of disassociation to be paramount.

Infinitely dividable secession sounds sort of like capitalism’s limitless growth. There’s only so many square meters of land, how can everyone have their own private anarcho-commune?

Well, it's not infinite. The individual can't be divided, by definition. But also I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that more land would be required? It doesn't mean no more high-density housing. You just shouldn't be forced into an undesirable political association with your neighbors, beyond the practical minimum coordination involved in living in the same building.

If every individual is fully independent and self sufficient everyone needs land to grow potatos and go to bed. You can’t be truly independent. Anarchist society is inherently contradictory because society means having rules and standards we all have to abide by. Is everyone is that independent then who is making the building they’re sharing it. Are they all just sort of taking care of their own corner? And when the boundaries conflict? Major structural damage, who pays to fix that? If the resources can’t be found then some just get wet when the roof leaks? Independence is bunk. Dependency is bunk.Interdependence has a chance of working. Anarchy is just a libertarian wet dream about existing in a vacuum with infinite resources. Instead of trying to create a hypothetical null set civilization we could improve the one that exists, and that allows for MASSIVE changes but they all presuppose that we agree collective society is a good thing.