Asklemmy

I think "more developed" is not great here. It's assuming because it's the most common currently and supplanted more anarchist methods that it is better. States and capitalism have benefits that anarchy does not. You can not engage in an anarchist invasion. You can not extract value from a country using colonialism in an anarchist society. This enables capitalist and state control to expand and eventually control the land that anarchist, chieftain led, and other pre state communities once controlled [1]. Capitalism and the state conquered and coerced until it held an almost universal control [2] but that doesn't mean it's better to live under.

One of the agreements I have in mind is trading what a farm's workers need: insurance in case of bad harvest, tools, infrastructure, education, labor, etc for what a city or town needs: food [3]. The "punishment" for breaking such an agreement is not violence. The result is the end of the agreement. That is not coercive control because the other can go to someone else for the same need.

It probably wouldn't be efficient at large scales [4]. That's why you make small decisions among those the decision effects. A group might elect a recallable representative for their watershed council and the meeting notes would be distributed to everyone who wanted to read them. However, most decisions about a workplace or neighborhood could probably work by assembly [5]. It is a kind representative democracy but the purpose of anarchy is not ideological purity. The point is creating a society that eliminates as much oppression as possible and enables the most freedom possible.

Bartering, as large scale economic system, is a myth. Gift economies, slavery, stateless communism, and more were far more common. Barter between communities existed but it was the minority of economic activity. The economy I suggest has more in common with Anarcho Communism. To borrow a phrase, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

1. The exceptions are legion but they don't exactly control a lot of land. The San are an example.
2. Worshipping Power does a good job examining the transition if you're interested in reading more.
3. Each of those line items could be spread across a miriad of organizations and communities.
4. The current system is only efficient at funneling money to the top so I'm not that worried.
5. These are just possibilities but I think it's a workable structure that I would describe as non-heirarchical.

See Democratic Confederalism. https://youtu.be/BKRHyF78j2I?si=5tHIXPtGNI0jW5Jq

Anarchy is liberal in the sense that it pursues individual's freedom not only from oppression but also to act in ways that enrich themselves. It does not require total chaos as it's detractors have tried to characterize it since the term was coined.

Anarchy is social in the sense it accepts human beings are almost always better off in groups and that society's goals should be for the betterment of all.

It is democratic in the sense that people come together to make decisions; although, consensus is perhaps a better descriptor. Democracy has an association with first past the post voting and decisions that bind those represented.

It is not a liberal social democracy as that tends to be used to describe a capitalist society with strong social programs, a beauracracy, and police state. They also tend to be supported by colonialism abroad or petrochemical extraction but I suppose that's not necessarily a requirement. I would agree that such a society is not anarchist.

Structure is not heirarchy. A collective farm is a structure just as much as a factory farm. An agreement where a farm exchanges food for labor, infrastructure, medicine, education, and tools from a city does not preclude anarchy. Either side breaking that agreement when the other begins acting in bad faith is not oppression or a police state.

I'm not very political or versed in the science about them, but does anarchy exclude guidelines and collaboration? I'd have thought it would enhance those things.

If there isn't anything enforcing rules and laws, a government would be informational, making guidelines based on what people found to work best. Like a giant kickstarter paired with Wikipedia.

Many guidelines will be followed. Like, boil your chicken before eating it. Good to know, and most will do it. Some won't, for whatever reason.

Think village assembly, fund-raisers, donations.

I might be completely off here. In my mind, people work great together, until there are rules to exploit. The best of us always comes out despite enforcing structures.

Libertarians just want the person with more money above the ones with less. It's a very hierarchical system in favour for assholes (people stealing or inherit a lot of money).

It is true libertarianism in the older socialist sense. It assumes most people will act in their own self interest. It assumes that most people are at their core social. It asserts that the structures of capitalist control: isolation, bigotry, corporate media and more have convinced people to act in destructive ways that neverless enable their survival. Capitalism also enables unempathetic narcissistic people to gain unjustified control over all of our lives.

Power vacuums demand to be filled. Anarchism leaves no openings. When early states began encroaching into stateless societies they had an easy time with patriarchal and other heirarchical societies. Bureaucracies and tyrants were easily subsumed by dethroning a leader and implanting a friendly local. Anarchist societies were another story. They were not habituated to authority, they fought tooth and nail to maintain their anarchy. I don't have access to my books right now but in a couple days I'll drop an excerpt from Worshiping Power that goes into detail on a couple of examples.

This is proven incorrect. While many societies throughout history have been heirarchical, many were egalitarian and rejected heirarchy. Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, Worshipping Power, and The Dawn of Everything all talk about various early societies many of which reject authoritarian structures. One still existing group of egalitarian societies in Africa is called the San, by all accounts they've been around for millenia. I'm not aware of a long lasting egalitarian industrial society but the idea that human beings are incapable of living free from some authority is simply untrue.