Yeah there are. But the examples I have in mind are/were micro-communities, based on ecological balance and underproductivity (for rational, survival reasons : limiting the waste and the direct surrounding environmental damages), and while the local balance of power was terribly baffling for European colonists who couldn't find a "leader" to talk to, and struggled even more to get an "order" applied unwillingly, it had its contextual limitations. War campaigns, for instance, were organized around a leader, even if that leader lost all autority during peace time or inbetween raids (a bit like 19th century pirate captains had rank at sea, but absolutely none on shore). Also, while conflicts were solved by moderation through some respected figures, the cohesion was kept through some peer pressure that could also be felt as oppressive (especially under ethnocidal pressure and cultural transformations). Lastly, this system being opposed to material accumulation and waste production, it doesn't favour innovation and technological development, hence its vulnerability in front of our industrial civilization.
These examples are mostly south-american. You get other hybrid forms in Africa, which aren't that "acephalous" (they are organized around a "king"), but also small, and also cultrally oppposed to material accumulation and wealth differential : the "king" isn't rich, as his accumulated goods are used up in vast redistribution rituals (or sacrificial rituals, where the goods are destroyed), and his status precisely depends on the thoroughness of this distrubution (or waste). In such systems, material accumulation is seen as antisocial, a moral defect, and can lead to dangerous ostracization (and dangerous accusation of sorcery, which is more about moral mindsets than about magical activities). So, again, cultures that clash with ours, as, on the opposite, we admire "rich" people, we see them as models, as "success story", as opposed to suspiciously antisocial evils. We pride ourself though material distinction (look at my expensive watch) which is a matter of shame elsewhere.
Now, for various reasons, one could love or hate to live in such a society, especially when socialized in another. And, as our society values innovation and technological development to a fault, others are deemed "failures" by that metric. All systems have ramifications and positive ad negative consequences, humans haven't manufactured any paradise. But when you assess the actual immense diversity of systems around which humans have organized (and lastingly, through generations and generations), you lose the illusion of "natural" determinism. Weighting the pros and cons of cultural systems, speculating on the interdependancy of its components (can a society have this quality without having that flaw, etc), are one thing - a legitimate discussion, a worthy endeavour. But denying that humans have organized around such different values is anthropologically false, and artificially limits our peceptions of absolute possibilities.
We have strongly internalized the value of material accumulation, and it leads to terrible problems. The reality is, other humans have also strongly internalized the value of equal distribution, which certainly leads to other problems. What makes it all very complicated is that the object of anthropological study can't be placed in a lab, an can't be experimented on. We're left with descriptions of what is, of what has been, but with pure speculation of alternatives. Could we craft a "best of both worlds" system ?
Some could argue that communism was an attempt. All would agree it failed miserably. Are there other attempts, in other conditions, to be made ? Some have very good personal reasons to discourage this line of thought.
Maybe there are solid causes that prevent such success (like our cognitive difficulties to think and care beyond a small local circle). But still, awareness of the issue, and of the fact it's an issue, somewhat contradicts that. Whatever the response, the question cannot ignore the experience of mankind. And this experience shows that, for better or worse, individual selfishness, as a motivator, is cultural. What people look for is, above all, gratification in the mirror of society. Pride and shame, which can -and have been- attached to very different sets of things, through very different sets of values.
www.rand.org
spectrumlocalnews.com
www.psychologytoday.com
