Ethics and morals = Law
Their is no organization in anarchy, to have organization you need a ruling party which would contradict anarchy.
True anarchy is impossible, even animals arent anarchistic.
At the heart of your claims is a deep misunderstanding and lack of awareness of political theory and its various applications. To remedy your immediate ignorance of anarchist theory, I would recommend that you take a look at
Section A.1 of the Anarchist FAQ,
What is Anarchism?
I can also comment on anarchist theory to some extent. As I have explained previously, anarchism is based on a highly organized society, not on any form of "chaos" or "disorder." Organization would come in the form of federations of decentralized, non-hierarchical collectives or communes that were governed through direct democracy. Though the state would be abolished, public control would be maintained through decentralized means.
As public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers council, this would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.
Instead of a top-down, centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a bottom-up, decentralized governance system.
Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.
Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action, though they are not strictly libertarian socialist themselves.
Workers councils would be specifically intended to address workers needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)
If the communitys industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.
Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.
Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.
Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern. Participatory committees would be freely joined and democratically managed, as opposed to the current situation, when all are forced to either work or die, because of the system of wage slavery that exists. An ideal commune would grant the minimal means of life even to those who were able but not willing to work. They would not grant them nonessential public services, however, unless they chose to participate in the work and management of the commune. As for those who were unable to work, they would still be granted full public services, as well as be permitted to have some degree of participation through community assemblies.
In the workplace itself, hierarchical authority structures would be dismantled in favor of direct democratic management. Policy creation would be given to the workers councils, and specific delegates and workers would be assigned to manage specific policy administrations, as is the case with the community assemblies. No longer would a separation between labor and management exist. The laborers would be the managers. Separate groups of order-givers and order-takers would no longer exist, and positions that solely emphasized management would not exist, as they would be useless and unnecessary. Through these methods, the workplace would not only function more democratically, it would function more efficiently, as workers are more intimately familiar with the conditions of the workplace than distant, unassociated managers are, and would be better qualified and capable to manage it properly.
The neighborhood and community assemblies would be the other segment of participatory committees to manage society as a whole. Towns and cities would essentially be formed from smaller neighborhood assemblies, which in turn would be federated at the regional and national levels in order to provide collective benefits to all involved. (The participatory committees would remain autonomous, of course, and could secede from larger federations if its member saw fit.) The assemblies would primarily address governance at the local level, and would ensure that all community members were provided with sufficient public services such as food, housing, healthcare, transportation, communication, etc. If there were councils or delegates that managed these assemblies, they would not possess an executive or bureaucratic status, and would primarily be intended to address specific facets of policy administration that would be too cumbersome and inefficient for management by the wider assembly.
Assemblies would be summoned on a regular basis, as often as required or necessitated by communal interests and issues, upon the request of the communal council or the consensus of the inhabitants of the local community. Local inhabitants would deliberate and address local issues and problems, and implement direct democratic management techniques in order to address them, possibly appointing additional councils or delegates in order to address them. Lower levels of assemblies would maintain control over higher levels, thus reversing the unjust infliction of hierarchical, top-down authority structures.
And that is a very basic overview of how anarchism might function.
Now, the most widespread and illustrative example of such a society, (though there are others), would be the anarchist collectives that existed throughout much of Spain during the Spanish civil war between 1936 and 1939. The Spanish anarchist collectives probably the greatest example of the widespread benefits of libertarian socialism, specifically anarchism, in action. The author Sam Dolgoff estimated that about eight million people were directly or indirectly impacted by the Spanish Revolution and the anarchist collectives, and about two million workers directly participated in the collectivization process.
According to Antony Beevor, an author on the Spanish Revolution:
The total for the whole of Republican territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises. . . Services such as water, gas and electricity were working under new management within hours of the storming of the Atarazanas barracks . . .a conversion of appropriate factories to war production meant that metallurgical concerns had started to produce armed cars by 22 July . . . The industrial workers of Catalonia were the most skilled in Spain . . . One of the most impressive feats of those early days was the resurrection of the public transport system at a time when the streets were still littered and barricaded.
Another author, Jose Peirats, writes this:
Preoccupation with cultural and pedagogical innovations was an event without precedent in rural Spain. The Amposta collectivists organised classes for semi-literates, kindergartens, and even a school of arts and professions. The Seros schools were free to all neighbours, collectivists or not. Grau installed a school named after its most illustrious citizen, Joaquin Costa. The Calanda collective (pop. only 4,500) schooled 1,233 children. The best students were sent to the Lyceum in Caspe, with all expenses paid by the collective. The Alcoriza (pop. 4,000) school was attended by 600 children. Many of the schools were installed in abandoned convents. In Granadella (pop. 2,000), classes were conducted in the abandoned barracks of the Civil Guards. Graus organised a print library and a school of arts and professions, attended by 60 pupils. The same building housed a school of fine arts and high grade museum. In some villages a cinema was installed for the first time. The Penalba cinema was installed in a church. Viladecana built an experimental agricultural laboratory.
The collectives voluntarily contributed enormous stocks of provisions and other supplies to the fighting troops. Utiel sent 1,490 litres of oil and 300 bushels of potatoes to the Madrid front (in addition to huge stocks of beans, rice, buckwheat, etc.). Porales de Tujana sent great quantities of bread, oil, flour, and potatoes to the front, and eggs, meat, and milk to the military hospital.
The efforts of the collectives take on added significance when we take into account that their youngest and most vigorous workers were fighting in the trenches. 200 members of the little collective of Vilaboi were at the front; from Viledecans, 60; Amposta, 300; and Calande, 500.
It is estimated that eight to ten million people were directly or indirectly affected by the Spanish anarchist collectives. Author Leval has estimated 1,700 agrarian collectives, with 400 for Aragon, (although other estimates have been above 500), 900 for Levant, 300 for Castile , 30 for Estremadura, 40 for Catalonia, and an unknown number for Andalusia. He estimates that all industries and transportation were collectivized in the urban areas of Catalonia, (and indeed, 75% of all of Catalonia was estimated to have been collectivized in some way), 70% of all industries in Levant, and an unknown percentage in Castile.
The victories and social and economic benefits promoted in the Spanish Revolution through the implementation of libertarian socialist ideals, such as the establishment of syndicalism, voluntary association, and workers self-management strongly suggests that anarchist and libertarian socialist theories and practices are of a practical nature.
So you believe the only way to be a true Christian is to practice libertarian communism?
True Christianity certainly involves more egalitarian economic frameworks, not specifically libertarian communism. But Christian opposition to socialism and communism are misguided inasmuch as they are primarily focused toward the state atheist, state capitalist Soviet Union, which is inappropriately referred to by anti-socialists' in general.
So while "libertarian communism" need not be explicitly espoused by every Christian, it is reasonable to expect that Christians will adopt an economically egalitarian outlook that accurately notes Biblical prohibitions of iniquities that are conventional capitalist business practices. (Usury is an excellent example.) It is also reasonable to expect that libertarian communism in its manifestation was of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as the Acts of the Apostles were truly the Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles.
That really is an impossible task.
