Original post by AnarchistNutterYou see the problem is not so much order (as we want society to organise itself to maintain the "law" - well they are not so much written legislations rather ethical codes, namely that man must not infringe upon the civil liberties of others) we are more afraid of hierarchy: that is, within these organisations we want each member of society to have equal power.
To keep these organisations as egalitarian we propose electing delegates (those who are appointed to solely administrative tasks and carrying out the will of the masses. They do not have a particularly higher income than anyone else - wealth does not become power) who may be instantly recallable at any time if they are deemed to be exercising too great a power. We would hold assemblies in which important decisions are carried out. These assemblies (known as free associations) are entirely voluntary: you may leave at any time in favour of forming your own assembly/joining another or being entirely exempt from assemblies [though you must oblige to basic ethical codes - i.e. not harm another citizen].
Members of free associations submit their labour to the free association in exchange for their fair share of the goods and services that the free association has to offer (i.e. communism). You cannot expect anything from a free association that you are not part of though these free associations would co-operate with one another if they desired.
Free associations are bound to each other on a national and international basis not by coercion (like with a state) but because they have similar economic and social goals: that is they desire to keep civil order, they desire to form trade links with other associations so that they may provide for all citizens at said free association.
The free associations are also appointed to the tasks of organising the distribution of labour. Labour is mostly self-managed and the means of production (factories, warehouses, transport, etc.) are owned by the workers who work there and they are joined together (with other worker owned firms) by free association. Smaller shops and farms do not count as they are owned by "small family units" - that is literally a family, a group of friends or a self-employed individual. However these small family units will need to co-operate with the commune (another word for free association) in order to obtain what they need. They may join said commune or they may simply want to co-operate with it (in which case they get no say in how the commune is run, they merely get to trade their services with the commune).
In a free association you do not get away with not working but how they deal with laziness is up to the individual association. For instance, anarcho-communists (Kropotkin was a notable anarcho-commie) believe that the lazy and unproductive should be asked to leave the commune. Anarcho-collectivists (e.g. Bakunin) believe that the commune should directly reward productivity. I am an "anarchist without adjectives" and believe that the best system (which I personally think would be collectivism) would be the one to naturally "catch fire" around communes.
If people want to set up a system of capitalism or statism that is up to them (provided they are not forcing anyone to join in which case other communes would intervene to keep peace) but we believe that after having seen the benefits of anarchism, few people would desire to live under hierarchy (that is be exploited as a wage labourer for a boss or live under a tyrannical regime).
This of course, is an extremely narrowed down format for an anarchist society. Anarchism is extremely open to flexibility, spontaneous new ideas and to just "go with the flow" in general. All I have mentioned in the above is the rules of thumb.
An excellent example of a society with anarchist principles would be Spain in 1936. Of course, we cannot describe the society as an anarchy as anarchy is the end result, the ideal but we can describe it as a sort of transition phase to anarchy or a major anarchist social revolution.