Even an anarchy needs organizations to provide security, legal judgment, roads, etc. and to prepare large-scale plans and arrangements. Probably, for the sake of efficiency and harmony, there should also be organizations to coordinate other organizations.

Furthermore, because of the complexity of society, people can't get involved in all the decision making work of these organizations – they don't have enough time and enough expertise. So they need to elect representatives.

Am I right here? If so, what is the difference between this structure and a state?

  • 1
    My understanding is that anarchism is often defined in terms of a lack of people with special legal powers (political lawmakers, judges, police), not necessarily lacking formalized laws. You might take a look at this interesting article on the political structure of ancient Athens which was a direct democracy rather than a representative one (not really anarchistic since they did have slaves, but one could imagine something similar to ancient Athens but where everyone was a citizen and machinery did the tasks of slaves).
    – Hypnosifl
    Sep 28, 2019 at 16:13
  • 1
    The difference is the absence of coercion and of the bureaucratic apparatus of the state, i.e. of "authority". Compliance and participation are completely voluntary, with no sanctions for lack thereof.
    – Conifold
    Sep 28, 2019 at 19:51


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .