Telluro:
I don't think we're disagreeing on anything, except that I think that there are some historical developments which cannot be overturned. Once you have civilization, once you have power relations working on that level, the anarchic hunter-gather nomadic lifestyle that existed before becomes one the one hand redundant and on the other hand subject to the whims of nearby encroaching civilizations. Once civilization develops, it's not to say that anarchy is no longer possible, but that anarchy takes on all the qualities of a power vacuum, and "nature hates a vacuum". For anarchy to make a comeback, we'd require an earth-shattering disaster that makes us forget civilization. But given time, some hunter-gatherers will slowly develop agriculture, they will be dominated by other hunter-gatherers, and civilization will re-emerge. It's not to say that this is a necessary development - it's merely that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is a dice-throwing affair and eventually, given enough time, even over huge improbabilities, the 'correct' sequence of numbers always crop up.
Me:
I think we disagree, but our view of the world is reasonably in agreement. Most of the variations of anarchy that I see here aren’t really anarchies at all. You have delineated some of the fundamental problems of anarchism. However, I think you perceive civilization differently that I do. Civilization is coercive. It replaced the persuasive societies because it was better able to wage war. That is why social evolution of civilized social orders is based on the ability to wage war. The social order which can do that best, wins.
In addition, whether inevitable or not, civilization has created the industrial plague which leads to the technological acceleration. The consequences of this may be survivable, but I fail to see how. Most who have examined the problem either agree or are in denial. By denial, they can’t give a reason for survival, only hope.
Civilization domesticates man. That is why the Spaniards in Mexico and Peru had it so easy. The Spaniards in Chile didn’t have it so easy, the Araucanians were not civilized. Neither were most, if not all, of the North American Amerindians, which made it a bit harder for the United States. However, our goal was not slaves but land, and genocide and incarceration were the tools to that end.
Domesticated animals prefer the farm to the wild, even the steer. The same for domesticated man. “Death before slavery” has a nice ring to it, but men line up to sign themselves into slavery. Of course, they don’t use the word slavery.
So, yes, the path back to the wild won’t be easy. The Inuit and the Bantu proved that you didn’t need civilization to develop technology. The Bantu were civilized, but they had technology before they were civilized. The technology of the making of iron and steel. They made steel before the Europeans did. They did this be using termite domes as furnaces. A technology requiring nothing that a primitive society didn’t have access to.
To me, anarchism and technology are not mutually exclusive. Pressure flaking flint is technology, and agriculture was practiced before civilization. I think it is possible to build an interstellar anarchy. Not easy, but an anarchy could survive to reach the stars. I can’t see civilization doing that.
I realize that anarchy is an almost impossible goal. I think I have devised a possible way, but the implementation is beyond my means. However, the choice, as I perceive it, is not between civilization and anarchy, it is between extinction and anarchy. Either Humanity will learn to be free or it will die.