You do not explain your reasons and it is my fault for not knowing?
My reasons for what? I have explained what anarchism is in this thread and when you come in here saying that I'm not a real anarchist and that I'm just some kid who doesn't know what it really is isn't going to make me want to explain it again.
As is Anarchy. Have you ever wondered why there is no Anarchic "state" in the world?
18th century: "As is Democracy. Have you ever wondered why there is no democratic state in the world?"
I have. An Anarchist would not even recognize an authority such as the UN, let alone send someone else to represent him. Anarchy refutes State, Representation, Laws and even the principle of majority's will (Direct Democracy). All things you have talked about and apparently supported till now. So I wonder what concepts of Anarchy have you absorbed by the anarchists you have quoted.
When did I support the state OR representation? And no, anarchists do not refute direct democracy it has been a principle part of the theory for centuries now. That's just how it is. You don't have to do what the majority say, but you also lose a lot of benefits for doing so.
The more people involved the less Anarchy can work because the needs and opinions will vary too much and there will be so many splits that it will be impossible to define such political entity unitary, or even a single political entity. Another big problem with Anarchy you didn't even mention is that it requires that all people support it, but at the same time it refutes imposals. So someone should be free to set up a party but they actually can't; someone could try a "coup", what Constitution will prevent this from happening when in the past it has happened even with a Constitution in place? Did you study the Spanish Civil War and how well did the social-anarchic syndicates end?
With this, I'm not saying Anarchy can't ever work, but not as a state-wide entity and not in a world where it is for the largest part missknown, missunderstood and generally frowned upon.
If you think I'm advocating the whole word turn anarchistic today, then again I have already said otherwise. Everyone needs to be involved in the process.
The point is, once the society is created, there's no reason that it would revert back. How many people do you know that advocate the return to monarchy? Society is always pushing forward.
And there would be different kinds of anarchism that could co-exist, the greatest being whether or not a free market would exist, and to what degree(which is what seperates individualist anarchism and mutualism from forms of social anarchism like anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism).
And anyone could argue their points in this kind of society. We aren't afraid of ideas. In Catalonia there were all sorts of organizations for Trotskyists, liberals, etc. All expect fascists, but I'm not really going to cry over that little imperfection.
Well, my point is hypothetically if I could live on government dole, I would likely still work to buy stuff.
Same for my kind of society. I don't have any objection to "wages", just someone using the need for those wages to gain authority over somebody and in turn stealing from them. As well as a whole host of other negative effects that you would be better off asking about in the Ask a Red thread imo.
All the stuff I mentioned is because the company pays me money to work for them, something you seem opposed to and equate with slavery.
No, people would still get "labor credits" as a symbol of their contribution to the society, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." Anarcho-communists argue that there would be no wages or any money, everything produced would be free and people would take as they needed/wanted. They argue that people would continue to work a) because they enjoyed it and b) because they would see that their way of life could not continue unless it was done. While that's the end goal for me, I think it's a bit too idealistic to start out with.
