Anarchy

Can anyone give a coherent explanation as to why anarchy is apparently the solution to all the current systems?

I understand why anarchy might be attractive in that the individual is ultimately free of such thing as rule of law and therefore local as well as centralized government but there exists a major problem with anarchy: bandits. Bandits appear to be the downfall of anarchy in that they will fuck you in the ass until you get organized, delegate some duties to others in the organisation and form a... governing body of some kind with a branch that enforces good morals... and you see where the problem is.

And no, this thread is not an excuse to go on about why you think capitalism or socialism or communism has failed, I want to explore the possibility that there might actually be something I hadn't considered and anarchists aren't just in it because going smashy-smashy on private property is fun.

>>5
In any group endeavour you generally need to elect someone who knows what they're doing to keep shit organised. The major distinction in anarchist societies is that leaders are granted power from the bottom up, and they can be removed again if everyone decides they're not the right dude for the job. This is by contrast with traditional militaries/corporate hierarchies where you acquire greater authority by gaining the approval of the higher-ups.

What voting system you use depends on the community - most people are capable of talking issues like this out and finding a generally acceptable solution.

>Also, how does an anarchic territory respond to an invasion?
Well to be honest I can't see an anarchist society developing a military-industrial complex that could compete with, say, modern day America. And of course any country with nukes could wipe them off the map. I could see the anarchists being pretty effective at guerilla warfare - they did well enough in Spain - but realistically I imagine their best chance for survival would be to demonstrate and publicise their commitment to living in peace with their neighbours, so that to invade such an inoffensive society would be politically untenable for even the most militaristic nation.

>>6
>An armed group with a democratically elected leader sounds like the foundation of a democratic government whether thats what its intended to be or not.

Not really. The people you elect to lead a military unit aren't going to be the people distributing supplies or arbitrating disputes or anything. And again, in anarchism power is derived from consent. If the military stage a coup, then it's not anarchism any more. And that's not likely to happen when your 'military' is just every able-bodied citizen who has a gun - one more reason not to have a professional military class. Nobody needs to dedicate their lives to defence unless they're actually fighting a war right now.