More of both a question and discussion, but, I’ve read that the Ukrainian Free Territory was an anarchist society in the beginning of the 20th century.
Confederation of Anarchists Groups, under the name of Nabat (“The Bell Toll”), issued five main points: suspension of all political parties, rejection of all dictatorships (mainly those organizing over people), negation of any State concept, rejection of any “transitory period” or “proletarian dictatorship”, and advocated the self-management of all workers through free workers’ councils (soviets)…economy was based on free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crop and cattle to manufactured products…
My main question is if there are other sources that go into better detail and clearer detail on what actually went on. Other sources made it sound like Anarcho-communist than anarcho-capitalist. But I question their analysis because, knowing what needs to be done in a community does not equal communism, it’s simply individual taking advantage of supply/demand. My ancestry is Ukrainian and am cultrually active. If I could related something anarchistic that happened in Ukraine, it would be a good talking point.
I don’t have any information on this specific instance of anarchy, but about half of all anarchist experiments were socialist/communist.
Though I would argue that as long as they didn’t go around attacking other people or their property, and simply agreed not to enforce their own property rights, then it was an anarcho capitalist society, even if they didn’t have price mechanisms or markets.
What is with libertarian socialists and their habit of getting killed? It seems like every society socialists want to claim was close to their vision of socialism ends up getting gunned down by other authoritarian groups. Catalonia, Paris Commune, this place mentioned here…
Living in the Paris Commune as I do (no joke, my neighborhood is called the Paris Commune) that’s my take on such silly anarcho-something-else experiment: our good communist anarchist friends always make the same mistake, after a while the socialist fervor is spent and people begin to form a market economy with private propriety. How do our friends react? Do they say, “well, fine that is their choice and we as anarchist must respect it!”. No, they just proceed to gun down everyone and are more than happy to have some statist communists (you know, the ‘proper’ anarchists) take over and impose the right solution. That’s why they always end up in the dustbin of history after months at most: there is just an inherent contradiction in being anything besides an anarchist.
It’s a part of the Russian Civil War, unlike what most people think in that war you didn’t have just the Reds and the Whites. You had the Reds, the Whites, the Blues, the Blacks and the Greens.
These people were the Blacks, they were Anarcho-Communists and they used conscription for example, they were not NAP anarchists. The closest thing to an anarchist force in that war were the Greens. Just local ad-hoc peasant militias trying to steer the war away from their areas.
One source did say they had voluntary subscription, but really wasn’t. It was as brief as that… I don’t know what justifcation they have for claiming it really wasn’t voluntary. For example, i hear people complaining that Nintendo releases too many upgrades for their gameboy. And that people are mad they are ‘forced’ to buy the gameboy with the new look and brighter screen (same tech). Because they have to have the leading edge of tech.
So when I read that it was ‘forced’, i need more information. Physically forced or a change in value scale.