Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the thing I don't understand about (a superficial interpretation of) anarchists; while governments are often not ideal, a lack of one wouldn't be better. And trusting people to self-organize is idealistic, but in practice it'd mean we go back to tribalism and "might makes right".
> This is the thing I don't understand about (a superficial interpretation of) anarchists I think most superficial interpretations of anarchists are based on edgy LARPers rather than real political ideology. Fun fact: Anarchy means "without rulers", not "without laws" or "without social order". There's a wide diversity of political thought under this umbrella, but the key underlying common denominator is (on some lev…
Recommend reading "Against the State" by James Stout, wherein he describes history of various Anarchist societies, including Barcelona during Spanish fascism, Myanmar where they are very successfully fighting the junta which wrested control from their civilian government, and Rojava where he personally visited and gives a firsthand account.