Anarchist principles—mutual aid, equality, and decentralized decision-making—are not abstract ideals but deeply rooted in the ways human societies have organized throughout history. Far from being anomalies, societies that operated without hierarchies or centralized power were common for much of our past. These communities demonstrated that cooperation and interdependence were not only viable but essential for survival. By examining these early societies, we gain valuable insights into what successful anarchism could look like in practice, revealing the continuity of these principles across vastly different contexts and scales.

For most of human history, people lived in small, mobile groups that shared resources, cared for one another, and made decisions collectively. Among groups like the Hadza in present-day Tanzania, cooperation ensured survival in unpredictable environments. Food was shared freely, and collective child-rearing strengthened bonds and mutual responsibility. Leadership, when it existed, was fluid and situational, based on expertise rather than coercion. Both men and women held significant influence, and there were no rigid class distinctions. These societies challenge the narrative that competition and hierarchy are natural human conditions, showing instead that egalitarianism and mutual aid are deeply embedded in our history.

In the fertile lands of modern-day Ukraine, the Tripolye culture created sprawling settlements of up to 10,000 people, organized in concentric circles. Despite their size and permanence, these communities lacked evidence of centralized authority or elite ruling classes. Communal storage pits suggest shared resources, and the absence of palatial structures or grand tombs indicates a society that valued collective well-being over individual accumulation. Decisions likely arose from collective agreement, with power distributed across the community rather than concentrated in a single figure or institution. The Tripolye people demonstrate that even large, sedentary societies can operate on principles of cooperation and decentralization, scaling anarchist ideals to greater complexity.

In what is now the northeastern United States and Canada, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy—known as the Iroquois or Six Nations—developed a remarkable system of governance rooted in collective responsibility and balance. The Great Law of Peace codified a decentralized federation where decisions were made through councils and required consensus. Chiefs acted as representatives rather than rulers, tasked with listening to and conveying the will of their people. This structure ensured that no single nation or individual could dominate the others, creating a stable yet adaptable political system. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy offers a clear example of how anarchist principles of free agreement and decentralized governance can foster both autonomy and interdependence on a large scale.

The Industrial Revolution brought with it immense upheaval, concentrating power in the hands of capitalists while subjecting workers to grueling conditions, poverty, and exploitation. As industrial capitalism expanded, so too did resistance. Workers began organizing strikes, protests, and revolutions, challenging not only the immediate injustices of their conditions but also the broader systems of power that enabled them. These early struggles not only pushed anarchist ideas into practice but also revealed the potential of collective action to create alternatives to state and capitalist systems.

In Chicago, the fight for an eight-hour workday became the centerpiece of growing labor unrest. On May 4, 1886, a peaceful rally in Haymarket Square, organized to protest police violence against striking workers, turned violent after a bomb exploded, killing several police officers and sparking a chaotic crackdown. Eight anarchists were arrested, with little evidence linking them to the bombing, and four were executed. The Haymarket Affair became a symbol of state repression and a rallying cry for workers worldwide. It demonstrated the dangers of challenging entrenched power but also showed the solidarity and courage of labor movements demanding a fairer world. The event laid the foundation for May Day as an international day of workers' solidarity, embedding anarchist ideals into global labor struggles.

In February 1919, over 65,000 workers in Seattle walked off their jobs in a coordinated general strike that shut down the city for five days. Unlike traditional strikes, this action was not limited to specific industries; instead, workers from all sectors banded together to challenge economic inequality and labor exploitation. Striking workers organized essential services, including food distribution and public safety, demonstrating the possibility of self-managed alternatives to the capitalist system. Although the strike ended without achieving its demands, it provided a glimpse into how decentralized, worker-led organizing could create a functional and equitable society.

During the Russian Civil War, Nestor Makhno and his supporters in Ukraine established a decentralized anarchist society known as the Makhnovshchina. This movement rejected both the capitalist White Army and the Bolshevik Red Army, creating self-managed communes that operated on principles of mutual aid and free agreement. Land was redistributed, and workers managed their own production without state interference. The Makhnovists’ success showed that anarchism could operate as a viable alternative to centralized state socialism, even in the chaos of war. However, their eventual suppression by the Bolsheviks highlighted the challenge anarchist movements face when confronted by authoritarian forces claiming to act in the name of the people.

The Spanish Civil War saw anarchism realized on an unprecedented scale, particularly in Catalonia and Aragon, where workers and peasants seized the opportunity to build a decentralized, cooperative society. In urban areas like Barcelona, anarchists from the CNT-FAI took control of factories, workshops, and transportation networks, transforming them into worker-run collectives. Decisions were made through democratic assemblies, and federations of collectives coordinated production and distribution. The collectivization extended to vital industries like textiles, metalworking, and public transportation, which were run more efficiently under worker management than under previous capitalist structures.

In rural Aragon, peasants collectivized land, abolishing private property and replacing it with communal ownership. Villages governed themselves through councils, using direct democracy to organize agricultural production and share resources equitably. Many adopted systems of free exchange, eliminating money entirely in favor of mutual aid. Social services also underwent radical transformation. Hospitals and clinics were collectivized, providing free healthcare to all, while schools implemented egalitarian and secular education, fostering critical thinking and mutual respect rather than obedience to authority.

Despite its successes, the anarchist revolution faced immense challenges. Internal divisions between anarchists and other leftist factions, coupled with the combined assaults of fascists, communists, and liberals, ultimately crushed the movement. Yet the Spanish Civil War remains the most comprehensive attempt to implement anarchist principles on a large scale, offering a glimpse of what a cooperative, non-hierarchical society could achieve even under the pressures of war.

Cultural resistance has been instrumental in challenging societal norms, rejecting authority, and imagining new ways of living. From avant-garde art movements to music and street art, these expressions of defiance have not only critiqued oppressive systems but also created spaces for collective joy and creativity. As Emma Goldman famously asserted, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.” These movements remind us that revolution is not merely about dismantling structures of power—it is about building vibrant, meaningful experiences that foster freedom, connection, and a shared sense of humanity.

Dadaism, born during World War I, used absurdity and defiance to challenge systems of authority. Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, a signed urinal, mocked the art world’s elitism by forcing viewers to question who decides what counts as art, undermining the gatekeeping and commodification central to capitalism. Hannah Höch’s photomontages deconstructed propaganda, exposing how patriarchal and political imagery manipulated public perception.

By turning societal norms into objects of ridicule, Dadaists weaponized creativity to disrupt power structures, forcing audiences to confront the arbitrary nature of authority and value. Their work transformed art into a tool for rebellion, paving the way for future movements to critique and dismantle oppression.

Cubism, led by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque, shattered traditional art by representing subjects from multiple angles simultaneously. This fragmentation mirrored anarchist critiques of centralized power and rigid hierarchies, challenging the illusion of singular, imposed perspectives. By breaking down forms and reconstructing them in dynamic compositions, Cubism critiqued the fractured nature of capitalist society—alienation, commodification, and social division—while offering a vision of interconnectedness and diversity.

Picasso’s personal connection to anarchism deepened the movement’s radical potential, as he sought to deconstruct not only artistic conventions but also the social and political structures that constrained human creativity. Picasso’s Guernica exemplifies this dual role. Its fragmented imagery conveys the chaos of war and condemns the violence of fascism and the state. At the same time, its overlapping perspectives challenge viewers to adopt a more multifaceted understanding of reality. Cubism’s embrace of fragmentation symbolized the anarchist ideal of decentralization and complexity, presenting a creative lens for reimagining a freer and more harmonious world.

The rock rebellion of the 1960s was nothing short of a cultural earthquake. Psychedelic rock and countercultural movements like Woodstock disrupted the rigid norms of mid-century Western society, championing freedom, pleasure, and radical self-expression. Bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, and Jefferson Airplane defied conventional notions of music, pushing creative and political boundaries. The psychedelic movement encouraged individuals to reject societal expectations and explore altered states of consciousness, breaking the stranglehold of capitalist consumerism and patriarchal norms.

These gatherings, unmediated by consumerism, showed how people could create good vibes for one another through music, shared resources, and mutual care. Woodstock, for example, was an unplanned utopia for half a million people, where food and shelter were improvised through collective effort. Such spontaneity was deeply threatening to elites, who responded by co-opting the music industry, commodifying rebellion, and stifling artistic freedom. Corporate labels began controlling production, while festivals became increasingly commercialized and fenced off by security. Still, the rock rebellion demonstrated that cultural freedom and collective pleasure could be revolutionary, offering a glimpse of a world where joy was not a commodity but a shared experience.

Hip-hop emerged from the streets of the Bronx as both a rebellion and a celebration of community. It provided marginalized communities with a voice to confront systemic racism, police violence, and poverty while also creating spaces for collective joy and expression. Breakdancing crews turned street corners into stages, graffiti artists transformed urban decay into vibrant art, and block parties united neighborhoods in a spirit of fun and resilience.

What made hip-hop revolutionary was not just its defiance but its spontaneity. DJs like Kool Herc and Grandmaster Flash invented new techniques, while rappers turned storytelling into a defiant art form. This communal creativity couldn’t be purchased or packaged—it was born from collaboration and mutual inspiration. As the movement grew, corporate forces sought to commodify it, sanitizing its messages and turning its aesthetics into marketable products. Despite this, hip-hop remains a testament to how communities can create spaces of joy and defiance, proving that cultural resistance is a cornerstone of revolution.

Jean-Michel Basquiat’s rise from street art to international acclaim encapsulates anarchist ideals of defiance, creativity, and cultural synthesis. His early work in graffiti as part of SAMO (Same Old Shit) critiqued consumerism, capitalism, and systemic oppression, transforming public spaces into canvases for resistance. Later, his paintings merged African, Caribbean, and Western cultural symbols, juxtaposing historical references with contemporary critiques of race, power, and wealth.

Basquiat’s work echoed Picasso’s assertion that “great artists steal,” drawing from a wide range of influences to create something entirely original. This synthesis of ideas and cultures mirrored anarchist principles of interconnectedness and mutual influence, breaking down cultural and intellectual silos. Basquiat’s art also served as a platform for amplifying marginalized voices, challenging dominant narratives, and exposing the contradictions of capitalist society.

Movements like the UK’s free festivals and the punk DIY ethos took the countercultural spirit further, explicitly rejecting state authority and commodification. The free festival movement, including events like the Windsor Free Festival, created temporary autonomous zones where participants experimented with anarchistic living—organizing food, shelter, and entertainment collectively and without hierarchy. Punk bands like Crass championed anarchist ideals in their music and daily practices, using self-published zines and albums to bypass corporate structures. These movements reinforced the idea that resistance could be creative, decentralized, and deeply personal, showing how culture could serve as a vehicle for anarchist experimentation.

The late 20th and early 21st centuries witnessed a surge in movements that embraced elements of anarchist praxis, such as mutual aid, horizontal organizing, and direct action. These movements aimed to challenge systemic oppression and create spaces of resistance and autonomy. However, their successes and failures reveal the importance of grounding movements in theory, practicing decentralization, and transitioning from protest to prefigurative politics—building the world we want through direct action that models new social relations.

The Black Panther Party (BPP) was perhaps the most theoretically rooted movement in the United States that directly aligned with anarchist principles of mutual aid and community empowerment. Founded by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in 1966, the Panthers emphasized the necessity of understanding revolutionary theory as a foundation for action. Prospective members were required to read works by Karl Marx, Frantz Fanon, Mao Zedong, and others, fostering a deep understanding of the systemic nature of oppression and the need for collective liberation.

The Panthers’ survival programs epitomized anarchist direct action. These included free breakfast programs for children, health clinics, sickle cell anemia testing, housing initiatives, and education programs. These efforts went beyond protest; they were acts of prefigurative politics, building systems of care and solidarity that bypassed the state and modeled what a liberated community could look like. These programs fundamentally altered social relations in the communities they served, proving that people could meet their own needs without relying on hierarchical systems of governance.

Yet, the Panthers’ centralized party structure became a point of vulnerability. While their leaders, such as Huey Newton, wrote and disseminated groundbreaking revolutionary theory, the concentration of power in leadership roles left the organization susceptible to state repression. The FBI’s COINTELPRO program exploited these hierarchies, infiltrating the movement, sowing divisions, and targeting key leaders. This repression, combined with internal struggles, ultimately weakened the Panthers. Their experience underscores the necessity of decentralization and the dangers of relying on centralized leadership, even within movements rooted in mutual aid and revolutionary theory.

In the 1990s, CrimeThinc emerged as a decentralized anarchist network emphasizing DIY ethics and radical independence. Through zines, books, and actions, it promoted personal liberation and collective resistance, urging people to reclaim their lives through direct action, mutual aid, and creativity. CrimeThinc rejected traditional protests and campaigns, advocating everyday rebellion—quitting oppressive jobs, squatting, and rejecting capitalist norms. It reinvigorated anarchist counterculture by blending lifestyle and philosophy, inspiring a generation to connect cultural resistance with broader liberation movements.

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in Chiapas, Mexico, provides one of the clearest examples of anarchist-inspired prefigurative politics in action. Declaring autonomy from the Mexican state in 1994, the Zapatistas built self-governed communities that continue to operate through consensus decision-making, mutual aid, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. These communities demonstrate how decentralized systems can sustain autonomy while resisting external pressures.

However, the Zapatistas faced challenges due to their initial reliance on charismatic leadership and the militarized nature of their resistance. While their autonomous zones are remarkable, they remain geographically isolated, limiting their ability to scale their model or influence larger systems. Still, the Zapatistas’ longevity highlights the importance of grounding movements in both theory and lived experience, providing a powerful example of prefigurative politics in practice.

Occupy Wall Street began as a protest against economic inequality but quickly evolved into an experiment in horizontal organizing. General Assemblies modeled direct democracy, and encampments provided free kitchens, libraries, and medical care, creating temporary autonomous zones that reflected anarchist principles.

Despite its potential, Occupy’s focus on protest rather than production limited its impact. While it popularized the language of inequality and inspired movements worldwide, it failed to establish enduring systems that could challenge or replace existing structures. Its lack of theoretical grounding in anarchism meant that "direct action" often defaulted to demonstrations rather than building sustainable, prefigurative alternatives. Once encampments were cleared by police, the movement struggled to maintain momentum, highlighting the need for deeper strategic thinking and infrastructure within decentralized movements.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) began as a decentralized movement in response to police violence and systemic racism, with local chapters organizing autonomously around shared principles of equity and justice. This decentralization allowed grassroots activists to address community-specific issues, reflecting anarchist values of horizontal organizing. However, over time, elements of the movement became vulnerable to co-optation, particularly at the national level.

High-profile leaders of BLM began engaging with politicians, endorsing candidates, and participating in reformist frameworks. This shift undermined the grassroots base of the movement, as politicians co-opted BLM’s rhetoric while maintaining the very systems of oppression the movement sought to dismantle.

Additionally, reports of financial opacity and mismanagement at the national level created internal tensions and highlighted the risks of centralized structures within a movement that initially emphasized horizontalism.

BLM’s focus on protest as "direct action" also limited its potential to transition into prefigurative politics. While it successfully drew attention to systemic racism, it rarely established enduring systems or institutions to model alternatives. This reliance on symbolic action rather than tangible systems of mutual aid left the movement vulnerable to burnout, repression, and co-optation, demonstrating the need for deeper theoretical grounding in anarchism.

Extinction Rebellion (XR) mobilized thousands worldwide to demand systemic action on the climate crisis, using nonviolent direct action and decentralized organizing. XR’s autonomous local chapters reflect anarchist principles, while its mass actions disrupt "business as usual," drawing attention to the urgency of climate change.

However, XR’s focus on symbolic disruptions—such as blockades and occupations—often falls short of building prefigurative systems that address the ecological crisis. Additionally, critiques of its lack of intersectionality and overrepresentation of middle-class participants reveal how internal hierarchies and blind spots can limit a movement’s inclusivity and effectiveness. XR’s experience underscores the need for decentralized movements to move beyond protest and actively model sustainable, community-led alternatives.