The company would need violence. There's no reason for workers to work in a factory for less money than their goods are sold for, and there's no reason for the company to pay workers more than the goods are sold for. Without violence the workers could just produce and sell the goods themselves and ignore the company.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Is this a society without computers and other modern day electronics? Or do you think workers will be able to handle developing technology on their own?

[–] 10001110101@lemm.ee 6 points 15 hours ago

Well, it's unlikely the entire world will turn anarchist all at once, and the modern supply chain is global, so the anarchist community would trade for what they need from outside the community. Or they may choose to go anarcho-primitivism I guess. I think some remote indigenous tribes we have now could be considered anarcho-primitivist. The most successful anarcho-socialist community would probably be the Zapatistas.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

The factory helps make the goods though

[–] 10001110101@lemm.ee 3 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, that's what I mean, the workers could go in the factory, produce the goods, and sell them, if the company did not use violence. It's not clear where the factory came from in this hypothetical. The community could've built it, it could have been abandoned, or the company could've claimed they "owned" it (which is not possible in the society, so it would be seized).