I thought the whole idea is that the state is also "owned" by those working in it, just as everything else. Isn't waiting for the perfect Utopia to sprout out of thin air and instead focusing on infighting kinda useless and beside the point? I'm confused whether it's me who doesn't understand or "them". So I wan't to ask a guestion here as I did there: how is any of this supposed to work if no state (no ruling authority) can exist? Say maintaining infrastructure in areas where no natural resources, industry for refining or skilled labor for extracting, refining and maintaining naturally exist? I don't believe that any human society can function without some level of authority (thinking legality in disputes and such) and in order to provide everything needed for infrastructure maintenance some authority must tell others where to go with everything.
Anarchists see state control as no different than private ownership control. Obviously this is not true, but we as communists know there are dangers to this kind of unchecked power. Ceausescu in Romania, for instance, and Pol Pot, we’re both different kinds of horrible for their people, although I’d argue that Pol Pot and his regime were communists in name only and did not really understand what Marxism was, and Ceausescu had no intention of being anything but a dictator who had insane ideas about building cheap televisions for the west and being the Romanian Mao Zedong.
That being said, anarchism is not a coherent ideology for the reasons you said. There needs to be hierarchies for dispute settling and a system for managing the economy and the direction of it at large. Also for things that are not profit motivated (or shouldn’t be) and are necessary in our society.
Indeed. The original question wasn't as coherent as this one so I edited it to maybe get ananswer, but as of yet there are no answers to my question. We'll see what happens. Thank you for the reply though