I've read up on it and while the ideas are interesting, the wording is incorrect, you should not use a word that means exactly the opposite of what you intend. The moment you want to impose a system of any kind, you stopped being anti-system. But I guess that's the essence of anarchism, using confusing terminology to a degree reminiscent of doublespeak.
Not really. It's usually twenty somethings that somehow think the world wouldn't devolve into chaos if there wasn't a structure to organise society and secure it.
That's as close to a correct description of anarchy as using North Korea to describe Communism. Or a republic for that matter.
Ah yes, because all these concrete implementations of anarchism are able to disprove my description. Classic dogmatism.
There's no need to devolve into Reddit commenting style. My comment is not defending any *ism and I won't reply with anything worthwhile when the tone is mudslinging.