Semi Autonomous Places
CHIAPAS (Zapatista-contolled zones).
Pros: nearly 25-year autonomous zone, foreign capital excluded, many areas outside control of Mexican state, self-sufficient.
Cons: very specific kind of Maoist-inflected indigenous anarchism, too many lifestyle regulations, don't seem to accept visitors or migrants to the rural areas.
Pros: large areas are virtually stateless, subsistence economy, non-state traditional (xeer) law.
Cons: civil war, US drone strikes, Islamists and other gangs active, very poor, shit gender politics. Possibly more ancap than anarchist.
Pros: according to David Graeber, rural areas are de facto autonomous zones, outside state control.
Cons: poor, and not overtly anarchist.
EL ALTO, BOLIVIA.
Pros: 700,000 strong self-governing city, squatted but tolerated, run by ayllus (participatory neighbourhood councils), informal and subsistence economy.
Cons: poor, social conservatism can be a problem, lynchings of criminals are also a problem.
NAGALAND, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, etc.
Pros: strongly autonomous society, strong social movements, constant protests and shutdowns, weak state presence, subsistence/informal/handicrafts economy.
Cons: Indian state is an occupying power - weak but brutal; these areas are hard to visit or settle in due to Indian laws; constant intergroup conflict. Conservative and low in GSRM and women's rights.
Pros: anarchic hunter-gatherer and horticulturalist ways of life still prevalent; tribal culture fiercely defended; hostility to the state; social movements and armed opposition.
Cons: brutal Indonesian occupying army, many of the local cultures are patriarchal and violent, it's difficult to visit let alone move there due to Indonesian laws.
Pros: traditional society with little influence of capitalism, excludes major chains such as McDonald's, uses "gross domestic happiness" instead of GDP, high standard of living, beautiful terrain, great for off-grid.
Cons: unelected monarchy, lots of restrictions on foreigners (including Nepalese minority), assimilationist ideology, police checkpoints etc.
Pros: subsistence economy, nonviolent Buddhist culture, gender equality, de facto village-level self-government, ideal for backpacking etc.
Cons: part of Kashmir and hence under Indian emergency rule.
Pros: largely unregulated, local peoples are anarchic hunter-gatherers, wilderness area.
Cons: requires high-end survival skills, locals unlikely to take well to visitors, the area is severely at risk from deforestation and climate change. Foot-long spiders, spiny fish which swim up your pee, aggressive giant guinea-pigs and other delightful flora and fauna.
America is relatively sparsely populated and there are vast areas of wilderness where hardly anyone sets foot - forests, desert, mountains. Thousands live in off-grid communities in the US, some fugitives have vanished for a decade or more, and there were maroon and triracial isolate communities throughout US history.
Pros: higher chances of finding somewhere with no existing human presence than most of the world, some untouched wilderness areas still left.
Cons: only an option with a lot of survival skills, US wilderness constantly destroyed by capital, also American police etc.
TRI-BORDER AREA (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay).
Pros: largely lawless, ability to evade laws through multiple jurisdictions.
Cons: more capitalist than anarchist, lots of gang activity.
Pros: large subsistence sector, sparsely populated, low regulation, may not have extradition treaties.
Cons: post-communist state, creeping neoliberalism.
See at /w/Intentional_Communities
Pros: large vibrant anarchist scene, regular riots, lots of squats. Catalan nationalism means relationship between population and state is strained. Spain is a good place for off-grid and suchlike, both legally and environmentally.
Cons: brutal police and Spanish state with extremely repressive laws.
Pros: large vibrant anarchist scene (though downturn lately), regular riots, squats, armed groups; left-leaning government; limited state penetration of everyday life compared to other rich countries; universities are off-limits to police (this was restored recently).
Cons: brutal police, context becoming more repressive, austerity policies, fascism is on the rise.
Pros: the government is giving away free farmland; very sparsely populated; becoming more fertile due to global warming; very easy to disappear and live off-grid.
Cons: Putin; post-Soviet pollution; it's very cold.
LE ZAD, France.
Pros: explicitly anarchist, occupied, part self-sufficient, just scored a major victory over the government.
Cons: at risk of eviction; France has become much more repressive since the state of emergency.
Pros: Green, pirate and independent activists do well in elections, are currently in government; small country, sparsely populated; Scandinavian-style welfare state; lots of wilderness; doesn't have most of the repressive crap which is common in Europe.
Cons: conservatives periodically in power; no jobs; development projects eating into the environment; whaling.
James Scott's name for a large area of upland Southeast Asia in Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, and southwest China.
Pros: still largely lawless, anarchic culture, informal and subsistence economies, porous borders; great for backpacker trails.
Cons: mostly ruled by repressive states which have increased their power recently; lots of gang activity.
People, often ancaps, periodically try to set up new nations, such as Sealand, which was an occupied oil rig. There's talk of a new floating nation being launched on old oil tankers, and another being created in space.
Pros: possibly outside government jurisdiction.
Cons: often remote and isolated; usually suppressed by states; usually organised on state-like model (but with extensive civil rights).
Pros: Large number of anarchists. Very decentralized for a state. Most regions autonomous. State is a Libertarian Socialist one.
Cons: Literally always being bombed. Fighting actual ISIS and other fascists. Locals are either negative to neutral on Queer issues, and likely conservative in other ways.
Pros: Autonomous, often left alone by the state. Usually communal in nature.
Cons: Literally helping a settler state settle. Often very religious in nature. The state sometimes doesn't leave them alone.