No Stupid Questions

My prediction is that it works for 5 minutes... then a neighboring state is gonna invade and annex it

You'd need some organizing to defend yourself... like a military... counter-espionage...

Oopsie... you've accidentally invented the state...

saving this. It's a good question. I've heard plenty of thoughts on how it should work on a small scale, but nothing about the larger scale.

I really like low scale anarchy (town level) but high scale would only work with strong scifi-level decentralization tools where public goods can be negotiated and developed without massive centralized bodies.

Alternatively society has to enter a post resource scarcity era - as in star trek replicator level of advancement.

Another way it could work if there was a massive population reduction as very few people in the world left but at that point political systems are the least interesting thing to think about.

Unfortunately due to game theory and real life power curves true global anarchism with current technology is simply impossible.

Anarchy is a political structure where there’s basically no one in charge, right?

That's a very literal interpretation of the word. As I understand it, anarchy is more like a class of ideas, rather than any concrete idea. Two people who both call themselves anarchists can have very, very different ideas about how society should run.

So the answer is: it depends what kind of anarchy you're talking about. Your question is asking how a broad category would work but it's so broad that I don't think you can give a concrete answer. You'll need to be more specific.

When we say "in charge", it can mean two very different things : either in charge for anything (like a leader), either in charge of a specific thing (like a worker). Most anarchist theories aim at getting rid of the former, arguing that only the latter produces anything directly. So there would/could be people in charge, but for specific tasks : that could be handling a single repair, managing a field of crops, or organizing the shipment of food across a region (depending on the anarchist system, some may or may not make sense). Those people would be chosen by various systems, mostly direct "democracy", where assemblies of most people mandates them. The main difference between mandating and voting is that mandating is limited to a predefined task to accomplish. Also, in most anarchist systems, it has to be short and/or revocable, though that could be applied to voting too. A common point is also federation : most system advocate for little communities where you can establish rules as close as possible to what people desire. And then those communities can federate together for purposes that require or work best at large scale. This principle of little communities getting together for bigger problems is what has been established in anarchist Ukraine and autonomous Chiapas, though in two different ways.

So, there is no necessary power vacuum, as in the lack of power does not imply chaos which would imply need for power.

Now, of course there is the risk of power-hungry people aiming at recreating power : but I'd say if you managed to get rid of a state, you have the militant basis and strength required to get rid of mafias or other states, right? And if need be, anarchist armies existed with anarchist principles : elected officers, self-discipline, etc.

To be honest, I've read a lot of fictional representations of 'anarchist' or 'libertarian' societies and they all fall apart if you look at them too closely.

"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is a science fiction classic and a fun read, but the 'free' society it envisions depends on everything being controlled by a single giant computer. It's set on Luna 200 years after the Moon became the prison of choice for all Earth nations. No prison gangs for 'reasons.'

It could only truly happen if everyone was enlightened to the point where crime and prejudices cease to exist. Where corruption doesn't exist.

it doesnt, in TNG star trek there was a species that was totally anarchically but they were advanced enough to encounter other alien species, they originally were "civilized" race, but they are totally disorganized as a race/people. and i beleive the race is kill the way to the top, or until someone deposes you.

Best working descriptions, with difficulties encountered are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neozapatismo

My feeling is they don't?

It wouldn't.

If you read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein that may give you an idea.

Otherwise, I attended Porcfest, the libertarian Porcupine Freedom Festival, back in 2016. Although it’s labeled libertarian, most folks I talked to discussed anarchy. One of the presentations I remember asserted that 8 is the optimal number of individuals in a decision making group. In his ideal anarchy individual people would assemble in groups of 8, who would then gather their groups or reps from their groups into a higher group of 8, and so on. Effectively higher level group decisions, if needed, would be made by a council that could be traced back to any individual.

I don’t know that that’s a good plan, but it may get your mind going on how to think about the topic.