Essays could be nice, but I don't know any off-hand. That said, I myself am an anarchist thinker. I don't have to be published or be considered "great" in order to know anything.

It's not a fallacy. I'm not side-stepping; I'm confronting your concerns directly. I'm not saying that anarchist groups never disintegrate because of petty issues, nor am I saying that anarchist groups are always immune to these problems. What I am saying is that it is possible for such groups to do well, depending.

It's just simple logic. If you've ever experienced a successful negotiation and compromise situation with another human being, with whom you had some conflicting interests, you're aware that it can be done. Extrapolate it to more people, who happen to be anarchists, and there you have it. It just depends on how able and willing everyone involved is, in connection with the particular problems that they're having.

You'll have problems in literally any and every group of people, but how good people are at dealing with them varies a great deal.

I understand your cynicism, given the state of the world, but it's inaccurate and also discouraging to others if you go about stating things like "But petty small-scale little shit where it’s managing annoyances and small grievances, I don’t think non-authoritarian decision making can solve." It's not always, but it can, sometimes. You know what I mean?

While there should be highly coordinated groups like organizations, I think there should be something in between an organization and completely uncoordinated atomized autonomous action. These in-between groups should subsidize cooperation across social distance and difference to make people cooperate and keep the group from disintegrating.

With respect to managing collective property, I have made a post linking an article that I think would be of interest

https://slrpnk.net/post/11712599

Feel free to ask questions here.

Literally on the sidebar.

I don't think my behaviour in this thread has been smarmy or antagonistic, as your cartoon implies, but if it has, I apologize.

I got my answer from Flora, so I'm thanking good faith responses and I'm outta here, glossing my eyes and back with the other nonanarchists. Checkmate, I guess.

This seems kind of unnecessary. They've been pretty reasonable and polite, and after a quick look at their post history I didn't see any sign that this was asked in bad faith.

I get that anarchists probably get tired of answering questions, but it also seems like an important part of getting people who aren't already 100% onboard to better understand anarchy?

It may be a lack of imagination on my part, but I had trouble understanding most of the answers they got too, so I guess I sympathize.

It is true that children don't necessarily take on the convictions of their parents, but communities are build around structures of common purpose (and not primarily family bonds). What you seem to have in mind is a typical modern suburb with no shared purpose, which is pretty much the opposite of what anarchists think of as communities.

Just to clarify that I talk about randon people in contrast to people who consciously want to be part of a community with horizontal organization principles.