such a childish, irrational, ignorant and clearly uneducated view of what an anarchist society would involve.
Enquring minds should first of all grow up then read a book.
As it keeps having to be said anarchism doesnt mean taking a step back in the technological advances of the world and have people "rationing lentils" and producing "iron lungs from recycled materials in a squat". Its another alternative system of social order mainly concerned with balancing the huge inequalities in wealth and power in the world. A system which has examples of working such as Chiapas and the Makhnovist movement in Ukraine, if you want to go by wikipedias list (which i actually wouldn't) but interestingly enough they have Celtic Ireland down as an example of an anarchist society...thats off point anyway just thought i'd share http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
I've missed a lot of whats been said in the last few pages but it seems to be going in circles anyway just thought i had to address that point.
The irony of starting a post suggesting people "read a book" before commenting and finishing it with an admission of not having bothered to read the last few pages is not lost on me.
edit: actually, that wikipedia page is comedy gold
In recent history there have been numerous instances of the collapse of state authority, sometimes prompted by war but also often due to implosion of the state. In some cases, state collapse is followed by lawlessness, rioting, looting and, if disarray lasts long enough, warlordism. Although such societies are often described as anarchy, they are not organized according to anarchist principles.
I guess that rules out using Somalia as an example of the beauty of a stateless society.
It is often difficult to find and research past anarchist or semi-anarchist societies, since, as Murray Rothbard points out, "The lack of recordkeeping in stateless societies — since only government officials seem to waste time, energy, and resources on such activities — produce a tendency toward a governmental bias in the working methods of historians."
Oh please.