Communism is the centralization of the means of production. To centralize is to form government. All communism is at odds with anarchism. Right? When I think of a anarchist society I think of native american tribes. No tribe is ruled by another. They just learn common customs to communicate willingly. (War happened often though) They just happened to not have a concept of property ownership. Which as it turns out just so happens to align with a communist value ( to abolish property ownership. ) However; with property tax one can argue it has already been abolished. You could argue there is government within a native American tribe by you can always leave the tribe. So the members are participating voluntarily. I've seen people here make fun of anarcho capitalist but capitalism is just free market. Emphasis on free. Isn't anarchism the ultimate freedom from government? Isn't anarcho communist much more a oxymoron? How does everyone else here feel about these things?

A central tenet of Anarchism is having flat power structures and combating centralized authority. However, nothing prevents implicit authority from arising in absence of formal power structures. In fact, it could be argued that this leads to a worse situation since there are no explicit rules regarding who holds authority or why, nor are there mechanisms for recall of such individuals. An example of such an implicit power structure would be the admins of the @anarchism@lemmy.ml community. This group of people decides on the rules of the community and who is allowed to participate in it. Majority of the decisions this group makes are not voted on by the greater community, and most of the participants aren't even aware of what decisions are made on their behalf. In effect, this group holds implicit authority over the community. Research shows that [people who exhibit psychopathic tendencies are likely to end up in leadership positions](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-the-manager/201304/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership). So, it is highly likely that such individuals would rise organically to positions of power. It seems to me that it's better to accept the fact that human organizations tend to form into hierarchies and to create clear rules about responsibilities of individuals in positions of power as well how these individuals should be recalled when they transgress. The alternative results in hierarchies forming implicitly with many members of the group not even being consciously aware of the fact that these hierarchies exist in the first place.