Val

I apologize you couldn't find the answer to your question from my comment, and thus thought I was dodging it. I tried to explain it in the way that I see it. In my eyes I answered your question clearly, but I will try to be even clearer on my second try.
(hopefully this doesn't come off as patronizing)

I would also like to know what were the pedantics that you identified in my comment. If it was the final statement then that was my attempt to bring humor into the argument and wasn't in any way meant seriously. Perhaps I should have used /j

To get to your question (and hopefully answer it more clearly). An anarchist society forms when anarchists come together to create a society. If someone with guns came to destroy that society the anarchists would defend themselves. If one of the anarchists turns their gun against their comrades the others would respond in kind. If they don't the person takes power and the system stops being anarchistic.

Or to put it even more simply: In an anarchist society everyone is policing and protecting everyone else.

I think it is best to clarify my terms. Anarchy to me is a structured society built entirely out of free associations. It isn't lawless. Anarchy has rules. A lawless society will naturally take the shape of the people in that society. If all the people are anarchists, they will create an anarchist society, if they are statists, they will create a state. Society is a collection of people living together there is no reason it has to be hierarchical. The people are the ones who make it like that.

What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

An anarchist revolution is the complete transformation of society to use non-hierarchical power structures. If after the revolution the society falls back into hierarchy then that means the people were not willing to let go their addiction to authority.

The link is for an FAQ, technically not a book, since most books are shorter than 3077 pages. However it does contain every question one might have about anarchy and answers it pretty neatly.

I most certainly do not mean men with guns taking whatever they want. That is authoritarian. The revolution is an ongoing process to redefine society as a non-hierarchical. I see it as non-violent: only defending against violence, never inciting it.

Between writing that comment I read through the anarchist FAQ on revolution.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secj7
And I agree with it wholeheartedly.

We as a species are far enough for anarchism to work, people just have to stop believing in authority, and we have to help them.

I also do not think anarchism is a utopia. There is nothing about it that couldn't work. Non-hierarchical societies have existed, and their dissolution just means people aren't ready yet.

More specifically, yes. It is collective anarchism, but in this context I think it is obvious enough that I don't need to clarify it further.

Also I think that any type of anarchism allows for collective anarchism, and by extension could be used to mean collective anarchism.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full

At least for anarchism there does exist a comprehensive faq.

What's annoying is that we probably would be a whole lot closer to actual communism and anarchism if the bolsheviks never took power and destroy all the communism that was happening during the Russian revolution.

That is why for any such society to exist there must be a widespread cultural belief in opposing authority. All of the members of society need to call out those who try to consolidate power. The entire community must be opposed to any individual power grab. They must not be given the opportunity. That is the only way to sustain the system.

That is why I use anarchist instead. It means all of that while also making it clear that authoritarianism is not ok.

Actually an entire state made out of democratic worker unions sounds pretty good. Although I personally would prefer no state.

I do it in order to understand my own viewpoint more clearly. It is a lot easier to figure out what you believe when faced with things you do not believe.

Okay, I agree. LLMs might be useful for education. But they should not replace practical experience.

I just am skeptical to everyone that says we should replace something with AI, because most of the time these decisions seem to be motivated by profit and aren't actually better.

The biggest problem about Saharan solar farm is how are you going to get the power to where it needs to be?