but they don't work... humans get jealous, because people like other people better than others, people might insult the way someone walks or talks or mates... it doesn't matter... people do bad things no matter what.

of course they don't! But that's the ideal. In the 60's there were a lot of drugs involved - that makes people a little more mellow. I get the impression that the anarchist of today isn't that big into drugs, they're just angry homeless kids who are mad at the government. They'd NEVER do well in the woods together! Way too angry.

of course people will always kill and rape and steal, thats human nature. always have and always will. I'm not a utopian.
I just think that those problems are dealt with better in anarchism than communism or capitalism or representative democracy or trheocracy or any other system created by this culture.

I think anarchists have the most powerful working example ever.
millions of years of human existence.
and more recently native american indians, or more recently, the kung! tribesman of africa, or more recently amazonian tribes.
there are always examples among these of violent authoritarian cultures/tribes, butt he overwhelming evidence supports anarchism. call it tribalism or primitivism or what you want, its anarchism. yes there were chiefs but people listened to the chief because they thought them wise, not out of fear of repercussions.

honestly though, I cant tell you what anarchy looks like. I just know that the culture of violence we live in now is unacceptable, and I at least have the audacity to try something else. a perfect society doesnt exist, but is this really ther best we can ever get?

Native American Indians are not anarchists, unless you're going to expand the term anarchy to include anything without a theoretically spelled out system of government. If actual practice counts, they're far from it.

I know you'll insist you have, or accuse me of condescension, but maybe read some Maus or Durkheim or god knows, any sociological thinker in the last 200 years and tell me that Native American society constitutes 'anarchy'.

I will assume though, for future reference, that you mean an actual STATE of anarchy, not one made deliberate through theoretical directive (i.e. implementing Bakunin, or something similar) since otherwise you couldn't even cite natives.

Ironically, that means you have to accept that Somalia is an anarchy. Shit.

Native Americans have always had a heirarchy of power. There was always someone at the top to make the rules and enforce the laws.

Yeah, called a chief. Every group has a strongman who leads. In an Indian band they were governed by consent, not anarchy. If anything, it was a beautiful democracy.

"yes there were chiefs but people listened to the chief because they thought them wise, not out of fear of repercussions. "

Some did, but others obeyed because if they didn't the chiefs followers (the tribe) would exile or kill them or some other reprecussion.
Also, not everyone today follows our leaders only because we fear them. Some of us might happen to think they are wise as well. Maybe that's just me though.