No Stupid Questions

It wouldn't.

Anarchism (and communism) live and die by the idea that ALL people would have a completely unrealistic level of cooperation and selflessness. As fucked up as capitalism is, it can bend when people don't play nice and there's at least a theoretical possibility of anyone gaining power (money) to impact change in the system. Money itself doesn't inherently have preferences or moral opinions on what should be. Anarchism however breaks the moment someone behaves selfishly. It can work fine in small, like-minded communities where people can always leave (or be excluded) to find other systems that better fit their ideals. However, Anarchism on a societal level would demand that there is basically no other type of society available - which would lead to Sen's paradox. The reason we don't have true anarchist (or communist) countries is that they get wiped out by powers that function in sync with people's natural inclinations for self-interest (like capitalism). People like to argue that these attitudes are DUE to capitalism, not inherent in human nature. Even if I were to entertain the idea that that's true, we currently live in this world of self-interest. Unless you can press a reset button on humanity, this is what we are working with. Solutions that rely on the idea that we can just fundamentally change how ALL people in the world currently are, are not solutions. They're idle fantasies. The "argument" that "if the world wasn't shitty, we could have an amazing utopia", is not an argument at all, it's just a tautology with no power of utility.

The way db0 handled their defederation from feddit.org is a great example of how Anarchism fails even on small scale. They espouse ideals about democratic voting and rational discourse, but the moment the organizing body of the instance had opinions on how they think things "should" be, they used propaganda and political theater to get the result they wanted. Anarchist ideals couldn't function in a low stakes online space, it has little hope of functioning where people are driven by actual survival needs (and desire for power). Whatever ideological purity drove the db0 admins to present the "democratic vote" the way they did, will be the exact same drive people tend to fall to on larger scales as well.

Same thing can be seen in the Communist instances: they rely heavily on propaganda and people sticking to the "correct" narrative. Which also brings up the conflict: there has to be an organizing body that has opinions on what is "right" and what is "wrong". This organizing body will be the authority, no matter how people try to use rhetorical slalom to get around it and trick people into thinking the spade isn't a spade.

People can start to build small grassroots communities with these ideals. Please do, and once they gain enough power (money) in the system we are currently living in, perhaps they can impact policy changes etc. that are more humanitarian. That would be wonderful. But always be aware that the ideals are fragile and break under any corruption. Capitalism works with corruption (not merely despite of), which is why it's extremely effective at being the might that makes right.

(And because I'm aware how these discussions go: I'm absolutely NOT saying "capitalism good". I'm saying it has more functional power than Anarchism. And I find Anarchism to be far more ethical and appealing in theory.)

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.

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...

I mean we have the UN which doesn't have any one nation in charge. Geopolitics tends to be anarchistic.

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.

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.

Simple: It wouldn't

Unless you magically invent a completely new protocol that reconciles incentives of all egoistic parties without devolving to violence it's not going to happen.

And millions of years of evolution failed to produce it naturally, so good luck

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.

Best working descriptions, with difficulties encountered are:

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

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