Does anarchy necessarily mean NO government?

Question

i know this sounds stupid but hear me out. what if we had small local collectives where all things are decided by referendum, that way we can still organize to make decisions as far as law & order, market systems (marxism, free market, feudalism etc)

Comments

I don't mean to be allegorical but I think the most important thing really is the direction society is going n. whether we are going more towards statism or anarchy. Right now its still towards statism but it seems to be starting to go the other way fast at last.

Answer 1

Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean that there is absolutley no government anywhere, but it does imply that that people are acting in ways that are not restricted by governments or other institutions that seek to maintain "law & order" and "market systems" (bosses, cops, party aparatchiks, oppressive institutions and so on...)

My question regarding your explanation is what happens if someone rejects the decisions made by referendum? What happens when the local collective decides it wants to do something to further their interests that runs counter to what others desire? These things can not be binding to anyone who doesn't agree to them for a situation to be considered anarchic, and that is going to include members of a collective or whatever who change their minds. Free association is a really important part of anarchist ways of relating, so even if a group is horzontal in organizational structure, it is coercive if people are forced to go along with it.

I apparently need to provide "more information (at least 3 characters)" hmm

Comments

also, it should be pointed out that the goal of anarchists is NO government, and my answer is not intended to excuse not acting in ways that will seek to further that end, but rather to acknowledge that we can find anarchy in some places even while still living within the current state of affairs.