In less idealist terms, and in reality "anarchy" would be similar to what would happen if we let Middle Schools be run by the students. Cliques, bullies, daily beatings and the "most popular" and physically strongest of the group ending up making all the decisions (and yes, it would be worse than what we have now.)

Socialism is actually a very goverment intensive form of social order, while anarchy is the lack of structure and goverment. I know it's all cool and hipster to "identify as anarchist" but the only actual places where anarchy thrives is after natural disasters (the Dome in New Orleans after the hurricane, for instance? Sound like a nice way to run a country?) or after gun totting "strong arm" men overthrow a goverment.

NO anarchistic goverment has ever lasted more than a few years, and none have ever benefited the downtrodden and the poor. To say otherwise is simply being idealistic.

We won't have rainbows, peace, love and co-operation and everybody taking care of everybody else if we have real anarchy. We'll have bully run, violent non-working society. See Somalia, Uganda or other sub Saharan African nations to see what happens when real anarchy is allowed to thrive.... fear, death, rape, food shortages, hoarding, violence etc. We aren't going to all "take care of each other" in anarchy... or in a Libertarian structure for that matter. Humans, as a rule, are selfish and self absorbed. They usually need to be required to contribute in order to have the majority of the population "take care" of those who can't do it themselves. Most won't do it on their own. And in society, you can't pick and choose who gets to live in your country.

Read Lord of the Flies to see how Anarchy works in action.

I used to think differently, until I learned and realized reality.

I gave up listening to Punk Rock and the Sex Pistols when my brain matured in my mid 20s, my illusions about "Anarchy" went with my love of unstructured music and scream laden lyrics.... less