You're viewing a single thread.
In all fairness, no one actually teaches what communism is because then everyone would be a communist.
Well 90 to 95 percent of us would be. The other 5-10 percent would be afraid to have their wealth redistributed, and would do anything they could to not let it happen. Kind of like what they do now.
I'm just afraid the vanguard will fail the will of the people.
Well then, don't make a vanguard state.
Yep, that would ideal. Having to govern a vast population without leaders seems difficult. You could evoke some sort of democratic communism but that creates weak chains where corruption can take hold like in our current situation.
Ron Howard voice it did
I'd say I am reasonably well versed on what communism actually is, and it's not my version of an ideal system. No argument to anyone who feels otherwise, just saying you can be perfectly well educated on what it is and still not think it's a terrific idea. Some form of well regulated socialized capitalism is more in line with what I'd envision as an ideal system. In all cases, though, it's really hard to prevent even the most idealized systems from going to shit given enough time. Greed and power are like the rust of political ideology.
Just to be clear, when you say "socialized capitalism" you mean capitalism, but with a welfare state?
The system currently burning the world to death with no particular sign of actually changing course.
Not endorsing the system, but I think a certain global superpower seems to have missed the memo on the welfare state part.
It's fair that you'd perceive it this way, but that's not exactly what I mean. The missing word is "regulated". Again, I'll break it down more tomorrow (I am going to bed) but my ideal structure is one that publicly govern, supports, and maintains all of the "means of production" (e.g. highways, police, fire, healthcare, retirement funds, labor law, etc.) so that an actual free market economy can operate, but also do so without monopolistic consolidation. Another way I have referred to it when I was trying to make this case as part of my thesis 20 years ago in college is a "Guided free market economy".
Tell me if I get off course but some bullet points:
Resources are not limitless.
Unrestrained capitalism always leads to consolidation of control over finite resources and exploitaton of other individuals.
Limiting opportunities for individual development is negative to the society.
Individuals in the society are a distribution of variable abilities.
So....
Governments role in a well regulated market would be:
Limit consolidation of resources by any individual providing equal access for responsible use.
Preserve resources by limiting and regulating their use.
Provide equal opportunity for all individuals to engage in the market.
Provide a support network for all individuals to allow them to take reasonable risks.
Pretty much my thinking, but it shouldn’t even be necessary to mandate “limit consolidation of resources”. We do need wealth to be attainable, as the driving factor of capitalism, however the other factors you list would have the limiting affect if they were implemented.
Also, one of the goals of such a government needs to be “for the benefit of its citizens”. Every choice of a well-run government to regulate capitalism needs to be “for the benefit of its citizens”, and most failures in actual governments are when they don’t follow this
The main problem I see with this approach is regulatory capture. If you allow individuals to consolidate resources even slightly then they begin to form 2 distinct classes, the owners and the workers, where one is economically advantaged. Even in a democratic society that economic advantage allows the owning class to exert greater influence and nudge things in their favor. This has a snowball effect until you end up where we are now, a bourgeois democratic government that functions exclusively for the owning class.
It’s all a matter of degree: it’s the excessive inequality that results in excessive advantage. I’m all for reducing the inequality gap (a lot) but there does need to be one for capitalism to work.
As a prime example with income taxes in the US, most people prefer it be progressive.
- Several decades ago, the top bracket was 90%, which surely reduced inequality without removing the wealth incentive, although I don’t know the reality
- Today we do have graduated brackets so it appears to be progressive, however to a much lower degree that does nothing to reduce excessive wealth inequality. More importantly the tax code has become excessively complicated and full of loopholes for the wealthy such that the reality is REgressive. Our current tax system INcreases wealth inequality. That’s just wrong and violates any pretense of being for the benefit of all citizens
I’m all for reducing the inequality gap (a lot) but there does need to be one for capitalism to work.
And that is precisely why capitalism should be abolished. Any gap will grow, the only way to stop it is to close it and hold it shut. Any amount of inequality is injustice.
Several decades ago, the top bracket was 90%, which surely reduced inequality without removing the wealth incentive
And then the wealth incentive overcame the tax pressure and reversed it. The wealth incentive is perverse, there is no reason to preserve it.
what do you mean when you say "communism"?
I don't think it's all that easy to break down communism truly in a comment, but at it's core I would envision a system where all property and means of production are publicly held and workers are paid for their labor either equally across the system, or devised equally by job or job type. Obviously, it's not as simple as that but I'm trying to not turn this into a full blown political theory conversation at midnight on a Wednesday.
For what it's worth, I don't hate communism conceptually. I understand and respect its intended purpose. I believe it's prone to failure, not unlike most systems, over time. I think my biggest concern boils down to how these systems are governed. I may be wrong with respect to this, and you may have something to share that I haven't considered before or may be thinking about the wrong way.
My concern in governance is communist systems typically fall to two ends of a broader spectrum. Either the system is entirely disparate and localized in authority and governance, or it is overly centralized. Both are prone to corruption and challenges in effective decision making to varying degrees. I think either end of this becomes problematic quickly when local governing structures are incapable of making decisions that are critical to wider areas (bottom up), or when an overly centralized system is only able to govern at the macro level (top down) and unable to see the minutiae of what is happening locally, or what impacts macro policy decisions may have down the chain.
you're describing bolshevik/bismarckian state 'socialism', a conservative compromise/trick/ratfucking that generally starts by executing all the communists, like the bolsheviks did. bismarck specifically talks about how he did this on purpose to keep actual communism from blooming out of these huge mutual aid projects that were happening.
the short version is: the workers own the means of production. individually or collectively. so the steel workers own the steel mill. the seamstress owns her serger. the plumber owns his wrench and snake. just that, and it all exists for the good of everybody, with everybody acknowledging that they can't do it on their own, or offering a lot of public entertainment by trying to.
there's a bunch of forks from there, and ways to make this function and eliminate the frictions, but that's all communism is. some proposals still even include markets (though im not a fan), some are regional, some federated in a bunch of different ways, some are centralized, some are radically decentralized, some are 'return to monkey', some require cutting edge technology for communication and collaboration (a cool example of that from the 70s is called cybersyn, which was, like, kick starting the star trek future in chile before everyone involved was hunted down and killed by CIA proxies, except two guys who were out of the country, one of whom was literally taping a debate about it for the CBC at the time, which got REALLY awkward for his conservative opponent)
What you described is socialism; a communist society would also be a stateless, classless, and moneyless society.
I think we're on the same page with the "frictions", and I think you're fair in saying there are likely solutions to those frictions and the concerns I've posed. Honestly, that's what I focus on with regard to most forms of government. It is a very hard problem to solve, no matter what system you employ. I think the discussion is around which are more/less vulnerable to these forms of "decay".
Let me put some more thought into this overnight and happy to keep this conversation going in a more thoughtful reply. Consider this a placeholder for now, but I sincerely appreciate you taking the time and having a civil conversation. Sometimes I forget I'm not on Reddit and not everyone is A) A bot or B) Already angry.
to be fair; I am generally angry, and can't prove im not a bot.
but I think looking at it in terms of 'government' and 'decay'. it may seem pedantic, but 'coordination' and 'adaptability' are much much better ways of thinking about it.
Communism depends on the people on top not being greedy fucks who will just keep the power instead of distributing it. Humans aren't like that. We're greedy for power and we won't share it from the top down.
Socialism is much better as it works within the confines of the established system and just wants to alter it. Communism work on paper but humans are the part of the plan that doesn't work. By the way I say this as a survivor of a murderous, Communist regime.
Communism depends on nobody being allowed on top.
Then who runs things? You can't govern as a committee of millions
The workers run things. The crazy idea is thinking that society can't run without trust fund brats who contribute nothing while siphoning away 90% of the resources.
Millions of people can't run things? It seems pretty clear by now that small groups of people especially can't be trusted to run things. You've got to hear about this thing they call democracy. It's the tits. It can balance precariously, but it's the most free way to live.
The idea isn't to have too many cooks. If management is required, workers elect them from among their ranks. They serve for a term or two, then get replaced and go back to being workers. The workers can impeach them by vote. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to fire your lousy boss? Doesn't that make a lot of sense? The point is that nobody should ever be allowed on top for too long. Management should not be a position considered on top of others. The workers must have the final say in how a company and a government are run.
The only reason a few people are allowed to become fabulously wealthy and powerful is because we never established democracy in the workplace. The workers owning the means of production is the most basic principle of communism. Communism cannot exist as a dictatorship, it's antithetical to it. Communism is radical democracy at all levels.
Correct, which is why communism is a bottom up system.
Sorry you've been propagandized to believe otherwise.
I was raised under a communist regime, so it's not propaganda but reality that showed me humans make communism impossible.
All my socials teachers taught it correctly tbh.
I depends what you mean in particular.
I'll preface this by saying I self identify as a socialist (I say self-identity, as I have not read specific books on the topics of communism and socialism. Think what you will of this), and believe in from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
However, communism has become a bit of a loaded word where I feel myself both defending it from people on the right, and feeling weird about communists calling for communism (well, especially the two things below).
This is because of some of the variants I think are a bit generous in their belief that people won't act selfishly:
Anarcho-communism? Sure, if you believe in fairies and that every single self-governing group will uphold the social contract with every single other self-governing group and not raid their shit. I hate to say, but I think at our current population levels, we need some kind of state to have a monopoly on violence, which the people as a collective have meaningful control over. Anarchism was only possible when there weren't as many people, and let's be real, I'd prefer not to worry that another group might attack us...
No money? I think this is just a recipe for corruption where managers wield influence over the production they oversee for personal gain. Money is just a useful symbol for value which can be exchanged. I'm for "no money" in the sense things which ought to be subsidised should be free, public transport, healthcare etc. However I think it would be truly dumb to make everything free, because it would reduce people's choices, in a world where we have finite resources but unlimited desires.
If we are each given equitable money (i.e. I'm not entirely against people earning more or less, for example if you have to work a job where you necessarily need to be away from friends and family) then some things ought to cost money so that the people who want something most will pay more. And prices could be guided partially by demand, or public policy as appropriate. The profit would be redistributed to the people.
Else you're left with a system where you're waiting years to get a car, it's a lottery, or more likely corruptly given to some over others.
I think I do want communism, in general, but the specifics, remains to be seen. I don't agree that everyone would be a communist if they knew what communism is, because communists themselves also don't agree on the specifics, it would seem.
As an Anarchist I'm irresistibly compelled to respond to this in order to spread propaganda. (Sorry for the ramble I don't know how to write concisely.)
To start I don't use communism, democracy or even socialism to refer to my beliefs. I use anarchy. That's because anarchy in my mind is concrete. no-archy. against hierarchy. Even though anarchy does follow the classical definition of communism, and is socialism, as in worker-owned means of production. These words are unnecessary as anarchy does the trick. And communism has too much bloody history to most people, me included.
Anarchy is not possible in the current cultural space. Anarchy requires a complete transformation of all parts of society, including culture. A lot of your problems come from having underlying archic (hierarchical/capitalist) beliefs. For an anarchist society to succeed these beliefs must be abandoned.
This is because of some of the variants I think are a bit generous in their belief that people won't act selfishly:
This is a comprehensive answer on a popular FAQ: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca215
Anarcho-communism? Sure, if ...
This entire paragraph is based in tribalism. An inherent idea that people belong to distinct groups that compete with each-other. It is one of those archic beliefs that I mentioned. There are many different responses to this but I believe in federation (Thanks to this video: https://youtu.be/lrTzjaXskUU timestamp 36:44). This system envisions the anarchist society not as distinct groups but a large number of intersecting groups. No group would "raid" other groups because they have friends in all those groups. On top of that everyone in an anarchist society should be educated enough to understand that everyone in the society has a role to play and hurting them is hurting the society which is in turn hurting them.
On your opinions on money. It seems you do not understand how an anarchist economy would function. In anarchy you wouldn't buy something, you would order it from the person or co-op who makes those things. Generally used items like food and clothes would probably be available for free, but anything requiring construction would be ordered. This allows you to receive a completely personalized item. Otherwise people would just work for no reason and end up with things they don't need. I don't see any point in producing an item just so it would sit on a shelf somewhere. There might be a small storage for conveyor-produced items in order to reduce order times, but in general retail wouldn't need to exist.
Also due to your usage of "managers wield influence" I can see you haven't read any socialist theory as in socialism and anarchism the managers are responsible to the workers. If they are acting in corrupt ways that's because the workers don't care enough to uncover it and change the manager. And when it comes to "oversee production for their own personal gain" I am left wondering what personal gain would that be. without money there is no incentive to hoard and if that personal gain is abusive then it will be discovered and the manager changed.
Else you're left with a system where you're waiting years to get a car,
The fact that you think cars are a thing in a socialist society again reveals your inexperience. Cars are a fundamentally capitalist construct that have no use in socialist societies.
finite resources but unlimited desires.
The unlimited desires (that I'm interpreting as material as spiritual and mental desires don't need resources) are exactly the thing that anarchy seeks to destroy. It is a poisonous mindset cultivated by capitalism that leads to catastrophe (for example look out the window). It is incompatible with continued existence and the destruction of it in an individual is the first step towards anarchism. It was made with the specific need to fuel the hyper-consumerism of the modern age. You get told from everywhere that you need more stuff. Understanding that you don't is fundamental to all anti-capitalist thought.
I want to suffix this post with a point that if any of this comes across as rude then that was not my intention. The points made reflect my own ideas and opinions and other anarchist will have their own. I hope you consider what I wrote (and again sorry for the rambling.)
I appreciate your response, and will respond fully later. Edit before I post: turns out later is immediately when I started typing. (Again, very much appreciate your engagement)
But just quickly wanted to get in that I very much dislike cars, just a convenient example because of cars being notoriously long to get in the Soviet union.
Which I recognise was not a anarchist project.
I want to preface this, this is all with the assumption that any system has successfully met all the fundamental basic needs of health, shelter and food, and is no longer capitalist.
Your proposed system isn't even anarchy to me though, a federalised system? Smells a lot like a an archy to me. Freely associated groups, who set rules amongst themselves? Doesn't sound very anarchist at all, sounds quick democratic if you ask me, though that might be my bias talking.
Sure, Europeans states are free to do what they want, with certain restrictions they agree to by being part of the EU. This reeeeealy doesn't scream anarchy to me (replacing states for freely associated smaller groups). Plus, I don't really think being able to up and leave it a great way to run a overall society anyway, as sometimes disagreements will not be settled by the groups in question, and the rest of the larger federated group will need to enforce the consensus. Is this anarchy? Really feels like some kind of democracy to me.
(I invite you to correct misconceptions, in your view, as I am cognisant I may be straw-manning you here due to misunderstanding. I have no yet read the long FAQ you linked)
No group would "raid" other groups because they have friends in all those groups.
I would suggest groups wouldn't necessarily need to stay in one place, of course no one wants to hurt friends. Go a couple hundred kms down the road, steal some shit. Yes, most people won't, I wouldn't. Even fewer people would if hypothetically their needs have been met. But there will be people who will. How will we deal with this?
Let's say I accept federated groups are "anarchist", which I don't, what is to stop other federated groups coming to raid your federated groups stuff. (Yes this is tribalism, but let's be real here, if your system relies on everyone letting go of tribalism, and being educated you're never going to achieve it, there will be dumb people, there will be some subset of tribally minded people, or people who have different aims that the majority. A hypothetical: you're from a federated group from an area with fewer natural resources (more on how I think a moneyless ordering system would not work, and would fail to adequately distribute finite resources later), you're having a laugh if you there's no chance they would organise an army to get more resources.
If they do, is your group gonna organise an army in time? Else, you already have standing army? How are you going to play your part as the federated group, by sending someone from your collective? What if your collective has no one willing to be a soldier, hmmm wouldn't it be great if we had some way to compensate people for their time so that you can specialise in a large federated group of people. If you have a standing, paid army, and all the other groups are keeping all the other groups to their word and pulling their weight, this does not feel like anarchy to me. That's a federated democratic state.
On ordering things. I'm not capitalist, it's a stupid system, but supply and demand aren't made up things we can leave behind in a post capitalist world. There will be stuff that is more desirable and people will want it more. How exactly do anarchists propose allocating these things fairly. First in best dressed? That will mean long waits for some things, and none for others. This is silly because people have different wants, and value things differently.
Money is great. It's just accounting, and allows for greater personal choice (in a hypothetical post-capitalist world where amassing wealth is made impossible).
I have $x, I'm gonna spend most it on dance classes, because I really like that, and barely any on clothes, because I'm not a fashionista. Others might spend more on nicer food, but hate dancing.
Some options with moneyless ordering the things you need, without money
- Everyone orders more of something than there is to go around, lots of waiting for high demand stuff :/
- You limit how much someone can order in total value (this is money, in my view)
- Each group decides what they feel like making for others (this sounds like social debt, to me, which ultimately is money without the accounting, it's money by feeling rather than numbers). Sucks, because what if I want something from some random group across the world. Boy, wouldn't it be great if we had some medium of exchange people would accept in place of debt :O
Money also seems necessary, because while there are many jobs (including mine, I'd do mine) which are fine to do, I think there are some jobs who should get paid more. Working unsocialable hours at a bar? I think you ought to get paid more for that. Air traffic control at 3 AM. Yep more money. Working in sewer work? Yeah, I think you should get paid more.
How, exactly, are you gonna deal with that without money? Just hope people are willing to do the necessary jobs? Let people work however much they want, okay, now we have a worker shortage in XYZ undesirable area. Nah, pay them more, enough so there are enough people to do the job. Sounds like your federated group needs to get together and decide how to fairly pay these people hmmmm. Gonna need to enforce that, smells a lot like regulation :O
Small freely associating groups are no longer possible we have cities of millions. And people will disagree, absolutely no doubt about that. Are you suggesting breaking those up into smaller groups to be managed entirely separately? Sounds like a nightmare at city scale. And if you hand wave it away to say, oh we can set up larger structures to freely associate city wide rules, well, again this doesn't exactly smell like anarchy to me, unless any part of the city can just go, nah, we don't want to associate with you, we want our lovely park to ourselves now, if you're then enforcing them to do something when they don't want to (not blocking off their neighbourhood), it doesn't really feel like anarchism, (to me) it feels like democracy.
If you're suggesting keeping groups of millions, are you seriously suggesting not having a police force? Not having courts? Like, I'm not in the US, and I get how bad cops are there (and somewhat generally elsewhere), but what, you think crimes are only committed by people in poverty (which is a large part, sure).
Generally, most people are good, would have little to no reason to commit violent crimes in a socialist/communist world, but, there will be some level of violent crime, for which you would need some system to deal with fairly. And you will need to enforce it on those who don't agree. Else what, dude across the city negligently caused my friends death, but doesn't think it's his fault, and his group also doesn't think so. What are we going to do, politely agree to disagree? Or, is it then gonna have to be taken to some justice system all the groups agreed to. What if the group really decides not to play ball, and they control vital infrastructure? Threaten to leave the federation if they don't get their way?
Hate to tell you, family is a kind of tribe, and you cannot be claiming people won't be tribal in the future.
I would say, it's something to be managed and controlled for, and I don't think anarchy would do it.
This was a ramble, I will get around to reading the FAQ haha, hope you enjoy rebutting my not very well laid out arguments!
Glad to see I'm not the only one having rambling problems. Hope you're ready for a swim (of an alphabetic variety).
But just quickly wanted to get in that I very much dislike cars, just a convenient example because of cars being notoriously long to get in the Soviet union.
the soviet union is the primary reason why I shy away from communism (technically state capitalism but that doesn't matter).
any system has successfully met all the fundamental basic needs of health, shelter and food, and is no longer capitalist.
I'm using the word capitalist the classical (marx) sense of private ownership of the means of production. Companies are capitalist and coops are socialist. one is privately owned, the other collectively.
<sidenote> Yes. Soviet Union was capitalist. state ownership isn't socialism, only collective ownership is, and just calling them collectives is not collective ownership. </sidenote>
Freely associated groups, who set rules amongst themselves? Doesn't sound very anarchist at all, sounds quick democratic
Why? If there are no hierarchical structures, Eg the rules are made collectively, why would it not be anarchism? On the democratic part I would say that without majority rule, which is still rule and thus would be opposed by anarchists, it shouldn't be called democracy as the original meaning of the word is "people rule".
Sure, Europeans states are free to do what they want, with certain restrictions they agree to by being part of the EU.
States are fundamentally archic structures, and the EU is even more archic. They are all managed top-down. You have someone at the top of the pyramid who says what will be done. That's archy. That's vertical organisation.
Anarchy is managed differently, through horizontal organisation. Instead of choosing people who will have power over you, you use your own social potential to build collective power to resist the archic power. I view anarchy as a fluid machine. Like a water bubble in 0g. The parts of the machine (people) can move around and bounce off of each-other which changes the shape of the machine. Every cog shapes the machine to fit them. Archy is a machine made of steel someone comes along, sets up the shape, and if a gear doesn't fit they get ground to dust. Anarchy is chaotic organisation. It doesn't do in-groups and out-groups, instead seeing the world as a single group, and empowering everyone in that group to find their place. In such conditions any harmful activity is completely pointless.
Bad people will always exist. But archy rewards bad behaviour by allowing them to get to the top. Anarchy is nothing more than saying "people are imperfect, so no-one should have the right to rule, as every ruler will make mistakes".
On the topic of defence. There is no need to have centralized defence. decentralized defence forces can work wonders. If someone comes and attacks your group the entire group will defend itself. Why should it fall on anyone specific. There are many ways to defend and an anarchist group would encourage everyone to defend the group in their own way.
supply and demand aren't made up things we can leave behind in a post capitalist world.
Maybe supply and demand aren't, but economics are: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionC.html#secc12. (If you didn't notice the AFAQ has different sections, The complete A4 PDF is 3077 pages)
Money is great. It's just accounting, and allows for greater personal choice
Money is one of the foundations of archy. as soon as you have a concrete number that is associated with a single person those people have power and authority over those with a smaller number. You can't have a fair society with money. And if everyone's basic needs are met then why do you even need it. how can you have an economy if people can just opt out of it.
Small freely associating groups are no longer possible we have cities of millions.
Why? Computers have allowed people to stay connected to hundreds of people. And even though it's currently used to incentivise consumerist isolationism, it doesn't have to be. Why do you think that millions of groups of millions of people can't work without some centralized oversight? I would say they would work better because they won't have the bottlenecks of centralisation. Why can't every apartment block be a commune? Why can't the chef that lives next door make the meals for all of you? Why can't the cleaner clean all of your appartments? Why can't that truck driver bring the chef fresh produce from the farmer he's known for 20 years so all of you can eat and be merry? Why can't that work in a city of millions? If an apartment block doesn't have a chef someone who wants to go to the nearby school and learn. Why does society need to be made up of people who don't know each-other, doing everything they can to screw over everyone else because that's how you get ahead in life? AND WHY SHOULD WE LIVE IN A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES IT? That's all archy is. Means for awful people to screw over others. If not everyone is good then no-one is capable of rule.
are you seriously suggesting not having a police force? Not having courts?
ABSOLUTELY! ACAB! (Originally an anarchist slogan until it's mainstream adoption during BLM) The police are professional bullies, no matter what shape they take. If the responsibility of the enforcement of rules falls on a single group, that group makes the rules. Law enforcement should be the duty of everyone. you see something doing something you think is wrong, go up to them and tell them to stop. If other people are around ask them what they think is going on. no-one else is responsible for your safety but yourself, by keeping others safe. Tit-for-tat. By protecting those around you, you're creating a culture of mutual protection so when you're in trouble that culture will help you. The courts and police were not meant to protect people. They were made to protect property and the ruling class. The only reason they protect people is because the people that threaten the ruling class often threaten normal people as well. (Also the facade of justice gives them plenty of bootlickers) For every person that got justice out of the courts there is another that got screwed over. For every woman that sent their abuser to jail there is another whose life was screwed owner by false allegations.
Justice does not come from books and laws. but from the reactions of people. in a communal justice system the shame of being outed is far more motivating for not committing crimes than fear of jail. Just look at how effective christian rule was during the medieval ages.
Anarchy is about creating a culture that opposes archy. A culture that makes the security of all the people the responsibility of all the people. A culture that ensures everyone has a place in society that they have chosen, not been pushed into. A culture that doesn't assume anyone needs to be governed.
To me anarchy is the society of kindness. Where the power consolidates among those that gain the most respect. Respect that, if abused, will be taken away.
Anarchy is society in it's most complicatedly simple, chaotically ordered, and collectively individual. It's my reason to live. So I hope you can see why these ideas matter to me.
I really appreciate this thread and I feel inspired to reply. I think a lot of why anarchism is difficult to understand is because it is hard for us to imagine anything other than the "capitalist realism" that has spread to the entire world. As they say, it is the air you breathe, the water you swim in, so it can be hard to see.
So if you want to understand how anarchism can possibly work, really what you have to do is look at places where it is, in fact, actually working. Find the edges of society where affinity groups are actually doing real work in supporting the unhoused, defending marginalized and vulnerable communities, feeding and empowering one-another without any hierarchy. Look closely at the actions of Block Cop City for instance, or the Zapatistas, or Rojava. Look at how things worked in the Spanish Civil War, or Occupy Wall Street. As an added exercise, find some other examples of non-hierarchical activities and actions in your own life (you may be surprised how many there are).
Lots of hierarchy-apologists will decry these things always fail, or are only applicable in very specific contexts, but judge for yourself. There are obviously autonomous tactics that clearly work within these examples, but can you imagine them working in other contexts? How are they organizing themselves if it isn't by way of hierarchy? How are they getting things accomplished without rules and punishments? Keep an open mind, use your imagination, and you may just find yourself thinking that anarchy is indeed possible beyond these given examples.