Anarchism: Authority Skepticism and Visions of Stateless Coordination

What Anarchism Means (and What It Doesn’t)

Anarchism is best defined as opposition to coercive hierarchy and skepticism toward state authority. The core claim is not “no rules,” but “no rulers”: social rules can exist, but they should be justified, revisable, and not enforced through entrenched domination.

In anarchist thinking, a hierarchy is suspect when it is coercive (backed by force or threats), unaccountable (decision-makers cannot be meaningfully challenged), and structural (built into institutions so that some command and others must obey). Anarchists often accept that people will coordinate, lead, teach, or specialize; they object when those roles become permanent power positions.

Two quick clarifications

• Anarchism ≠ chaos: Many anarchists propose detailed forms of organization (assemblies, federations, unions, cooperatives, mutual aid networks).
• Anarchism ≠ “everyone must live the same way”: A recurring theme is pluralism—different communities can adopt different arrangements, as long as participation is voluntary and power is not centralized.

Internal Diversity: A Family of Views

Anarchism is a broad family of ideologies united by anti-authoritarian commitments but divided on questions like property, markets, and the best institutions for coordination.

Key Thinkers Through Core Themes

Mikhail Bakunin: Anti-Centralization and the Danger of “New Rulers”

Bakunin is often associated with a sharp critique of centralized authority: if power is concentrated—even in the name of liberation—it tends to reproduce domination. A practical takeaway from this theme is a design principle: build institutions that make it hard to accumulate power (rotation of roles, recallable delegates, local autonomy, transparency).

Peter Kropotkin: Mutual Aid as a Social Technology

Kropotkin emphasized mutual aid: cooperation and reciprocity as durable ways humans solve problems. In anarchist practice, mutual aid is not just charity; it is peer-to-peer provisioning where people jointly meet needs and build resilience without a top-down administrator.

Continue in our app.

You can listen to the audiobook with the screen off, receive a free certificate for this course, and also have access to 5,000 other free online courses.

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Mutual aid in practice often includes community kitchens, childcare swaps, tool libraries, neighborhood repair groups, and emergency response teams that are accountable to participants.

Emma Goldman: Freedom, Direct Action, and Everyday Autonomy

Goldman is commonly linked to a strong emphasis on individual freedom (including cultural and personal autonomy) and direct action: people acting for themselves rather than waiting for authorities to grant change. Direct action can be confrontational (strikes, blockades) or constructive (creating alternative institutions like cooperatives and free clinics).

Three Major Currents Compared

Anarcho-Communism

Preferred institutions: communes, neighborhood assemblies, federations of communities, shared provisioning systems.

View of property: typically rejects private ownership of productive assets (factories, large landholdings) and favors common ownership or communal stewardship. Personal possessions are usually distinguished from capital property.

Allocation idea: meet needs through shared provisioning, often aiming for decommodified essentials (housing, healthcare, food basics) organized locally and coordinated through federations.

Anarcho-Syndicalism

Preferred institutions: worker unions and workplace councils as the backbone of social coordination; federations of unions across industries.

View of property: productive property should be controlled by workers collectively (workplace self-management), not by private owners or the state.

Allocation idea: production and distribution coordinated through union federations, negotiated plans, and workplace-to-community agreements.

Individualist Anarchism

Preferred institutions: voluntary associations, cooperatives, mutual credit networks, and contracts among individuals; often more comfortable with market-like exchange (depending on the strand).

View of property: tends to emphasize possession, use, and voluntary exchange; skeptical of property claims enforced by state power. Some individualists accept markets but oppose monopolies and privileges created by the state.

Allocation idea: decentralized exchange among individuals and associations, with strong norms against coercion and domination.

At-a-glance comparison

Practical Scenarios: How Stateless Coordination Might Work

1) Community Safety Without Police

Anarchists typically argue that many harms are worsened by armed, centralized policing and that safety can be improved by prevention, community capacity, and accountable response. Models vary, but a common approach is layered:

• Prevention: address drivers of harm (housing insecurity, untreated addiction, isolation) through mutual aid and accessible services.
• De-escalation first: trained community responders for conflicts, mental health crises, and domestic disputes, with clear protocols and oversight.
• Collective self-defense (last resort): if violence is imminent, a community defense team may intervene, but with strict limits, transparency, and community control to prevent becoming a new police force.

Step-by-step: A community responder model

1. Create a safety assembly or committee open to residents, with rotating facilitation and published minutes.
2. Define the scope: what calls responders handle (noise disputes, public intoxication, crisis support) and what requires escalation (active violence).
3. Train responders in de-escalation, first aid, trauma-informed practice, and disability access.
4. Set accountability rules: body-worn cameras are debated, but alternatives include incident logs, peer review, and community hearings; responders are recallable.
5. Build a 24/7 dispatch rotation using a shared phone line and on-call schedule.
6. Integrate prevention: connect people to housing support, mediation, and mutual aid resources after incidents.

2) Conflict Resolution and Restorative (or Transformative) Justice

Rather than relying on punishment administered by a distant authority, many anarchists favor restorative and transformative approaches: repairing harm, changing conditions that produced it, and keeping decision-making close to those affected.

Step-by-step: A restorative circle for a non-violent harm

1. Intake and consent: a trained facilitator meets separately with the harmed party and the person who caused harm; participation must be voluntary and safe.
2. Safety planning: agree on boundaries (no contact rules, support persons present, location, exit options).
3. Circle meeting: each person describes what happened, impacts, and needs; supporters can speak.
4. Agreement: concrete repair steps (apology, replacement, community service, counseling, restitution schedule) with timelines.
5. Follow-up: check-ins at set dates; if commitments aren’t met, the community can revise the plan or apply non-carceral consequences (loss of access to certain spaces, supervised participation).

Hard cases: For severe violence, anarchist proposals often emphasize survivor-led safety planning, community protection measures, and long-term separation or supervised reintegration—while still resisting prisons as default solutions. The tension here is real: preventing ongoing harm without recreating a coercive punitive apparatus.

3) Workplace Governance Without Bosses

Anarchists argue that workplaces are major sites of hierarchy. Alternatives include worker cooperatives, worker councils, and syndicalist union governance. The aim is to align decision power with those doing the work and affected by decisions.

Step-by-step: Converting a workplace into a worker-run cooperative (conceptual model)

1. Map decisions: list what management currently decides (hiring, scheduling, pay scales, safety rules, purchasing).
2. Create a general assembly: one worker, one vote on major policies; elect recallable coordinators for day-to-day tasks.
3. Set transparent pay rules: e.g., narrow pay bands, published compensation, clear criteria for different roles.
4. Build teams with mandates: finance, operations, HR/mediation, safety—each with limited scope and reporting requirements.
5. Adopt conflict procedures: mediation first, then peer review panels; protect whistleblowers.
6. Link to community needs: agreements with local assemblies or customer-members about pricing, service priorities, and accessibility.

4) Local Provision of Services (Food, Housing, Health, Infrastructure)

Anarchist proposals typically replace centralized bureaucracies with polycentric systems: many overlapping providers coordinated through federations and shared standards.

• Food: community gardens, cooperative groceries, shared kitchens, regional producer-consumer networks.
• Housing: community land trusts, housing co-ops, resident assemblies for maintenance and allocation.
• Health: community clinics, mutual aid funds, networks of practitioners with sliding-scale norms and peer review.
• Infrastructure: municipal-style utilities run by user/worker boards; maintenance crews accountable to local assemblies.

A key practical idea is subsidiarity in practice: handle issues at the smallest level that can competently solve them, and federate upward only when necessary (e.g., watershed management, rail networks, epidemic response).

Feasibility and Scale: Common Concerns and Anarchist Responses

Concern 1: “Without a state, how do you coordinate at large scale?”

Anarchists often answer with federation: local groups send delegates (not permanent representatives) to councils with specific mandates. Delegates are recallable and must report back; decisions are made as close to the ground as possible.

Practical coordination tools include shared standards, interoperable systems, and negotiated agreements among federated bodies—similar to how independent organizations coordinate today, but with stronger democratic control and less centralized coercion.

Concern 2: “What stops free-riding?”

Responses vary by anarchist strand:

• Communal approaches: strong social norms, transparent participation, and designing systems where contribution is easy and meaningful; some propose work-sharing expectations tied to access to scarce goods.
• Syndicalist approaches: workplace membership and collective agreements; peer accountability inside worker-run institutions.
• Individualist approaches: voluntary contracts and mutual benefit; refusal to subsidize exploitative behavior through enforced monopolies.

Across strands, the emphasis is on reducing incentives to free-ride by meeting basic needs reliably and making governance participatory, rather than relying primarily on punishment.

Concern 3: “How do you handle serious violence or organized coercion?”

Anarchists typically argue that centralized forces can themselves become organized coercion. Proposed safeguards include:

• Decentralized defense under community control, with rotation, transparency, and strict limits.
• Federated mutual defense pacts so communities can support each other without building a permanent standing force.
• Prevention-first institutions (housing, mental health support, anti-abuse networks) to reduce violence drivers.

Concern 4: “Won’t informal hierarchies replace formal ones?”

This is a central self-critique within anarchist circles. Common responses focus on institutional design to surface and limit hidden power:

• Rotation of roles (facilitator, treasurer, spokesperson) and term limits.
• Skill-sharing so expertise doesn’t become domination.
• Clear procedures for meetings, budgets, and decision records.
• Recall and grievance processes that are accessible and protective against retaliation.

Concern 5: “How do you make decisions efficiently?”

Anarchist practice often mixes methods depending on stakes:

• Consensus for high-trust groups and foundational decisions.
• Modified consensus (e.g., consensus-minus-one/two) to avoid paralysis.
• Supermajority or majority votes for time-sensitive operational choices, paired with strong minority protections and the ability to revisit decisions.

Efficiency is pursued through delegation with mandates: small teams handle day-to-day tasks, but remain accountable to the broader group.

Putting It Together: A Stateless Coordination “Blueprint” (Conceptual)

Different anarchist strands would assemble the pieces differently, but a composite model often looks like this:

• Neighborhood assemblies manage local issues (safety protocols, shared spaces, basic services).
• Worker-run workplaces produce goods and services, coordinated through union/workplace federations.
• Mutual aid networks fill gaps quickly and build resilience (food distribution, emergency funds, care work).
• Restorative/transformative justice bodies handle conflicts with survivor-centered safety and community accountability.
• Federations connect local units for regional and large-scale needs, using recallable delegates and limited mandates.