Lawless society

Decentralized authority

Publicly shun people. You're a rule breaker? You've been shunned by society and people who associate with you will be known associates of the shunned.

Short answer: The community.

In small contexts, a mutual understanding is sufficient. There are "Radical Therapy" groups with no central therapist who decides who talks how much but instead have rules like fixed times for each person. I don't think people will break these rules but exclusion is always an option with very intransigent people.

In bigger contexts like the Commons, people deliberate on their own rules. Minor transgressions will have minor consequences and the worst is – again – exclusion. People are more willing to stick to the rules and watch others if they were part of the process that created the rules. If you want to dive deeper, I remember a podcast episode by SRSLY WRONG and a YouTube video by Andrewism about The Commons or The Tragedy of the Common.

free (dis) association

Peer pressure, self awareness, probably a few others I can't think of.

More cancel culture over putting all the power to the military and police.

it's an archipelagic confederation, so yes!

That's a very good question. It's as anarchist as modern social media gets.

The thing is the moderators. In an anarchist utopia, they would take turns, be recallable and have to justify their decisions.

The last point is true for some instances but not all (think of the vegan cat food debate on .world verses how .ml blocks voices critical of China and Russia).

The other two points – to my knowledge – barely happen. This isn't a huge problem, as I said, it's as anarchist as social media comes. But it contains the risk of a centralized power. Sure, you can always leave the instance (even easier than on mastodon where you lose your followers) but this resembles the Libertarian "freedom" to choose your oppressor. Internal equality is very important.

This isn't to criticize Lemmy. It's overall very good and as anarchist as realistically and practically possible. But to showcase the anarchist ideal of councils and to spotlight the minor flaws we should be aware of, even if there is no perfect solution.

Most grass roots societies are like that. It's "self" ruling so to speak. At least from what I have gathered and read. It's been awhile since I did deep dive on it.

No just free association. But having no alternatives to legitimate needs, like participating in our civilization's free speech discourse through the internet, free association doesn't help. So before the fediverse you were "forced" to associate with reddit/facebook/twitter or have little association at all.

I'm not sure how anarchism would work for a social media platform. Everyone is a mod? Everyone can post anything and can delete anything? 😀

I believe generally as a philosophy anarchism only makes sense as all authority should be challenged and needs to be justified or be abolished. The amount of authority justified and needed might be relative to the level of "enlightenment" of the participants.

Well you learned the wrong here, anarchy isnt the absence of authority it's the absence of hierarchy.

Some systems are clearly hierarchical, capitalism, dictatorship, feudalism.

Now I have a hard time imagining how you would enforce certain laws, or rules without authority.

I'm not sure what makes you think of (right wing) libertarians. I specified the absence of authority. Libertarians are fond of the idea of voluntary contracts – or let's rather call it voluntary authority – which in effect is never voluntary. You can choose for whom to work but there is a ruling class you have to work for. All you can do is choose your oppressor.

Free association among equals on the other hand is a very common idea among (left/socialist) anarchists and I think very early on. You can choose and leave the community you belong to.

That's why it's important to keep the rules non coercive

I reject your definition and substitute my own. But I won't tell you!

Well, there is a whole anti intellectual movement within anarchism which stems at least in part from a critique of intellectuals as an elite. That said, there are elitist Marxist and even ML uni professors, but also anarchist ones. I wouldn't draw the line there.

There’s the state neighbouring anarchists who can’t form a state and so probably anarchists exist protected within the borders of some state unless some state respects not a state

However a state cannot acknowledge existence of something that doesn’t exist and has no joint body of commonality. Hence genghis khan moment. A state conquers the ownerless land.

Thus emergents from this Darwinian history are states. Squashing individuality in name of security against genghis khans.

Anarchism remains a purely theoretical thought exercise or a relic of the far past tribes

Well, if you were someone playing a game with them, then you can incorporate this. The point is that it's not obligatory and is based on the people participating

Is it ironic if they play monopoly?

There's no elected leader, but there's an implicit one: the one organizing it, who might just give you the cold shoulder for any number of reasons. Anarchism is best defined in Wikipedia, and isn't really limited to "small scales". It is most validated when it is a movement existing within authoritarian states, out of necessity, which is why Revolutionary Action joined into the Revolutionary Committee among other groups, which is what you are referring to.

By itself and out of context, and specially when it manifests in societies that are actually functional, democratic, and with adequate social policies, I favor my own definition, but it can't really be defined practically and objectively without context. "No (to your Russian) rules except the ones I agree with (Ukrainian national stability and identity), otherwise GFY" sprinkled with a heavy dose of personal charisma is what Revolutionary Action is doing to Russia as it attempts to annex Ukraine, thanks for the example.