[quote=@Buddha]
[@Vilageidiotx] then that definition of anarchy is, per definition of the word, not correct and they should change it. Anarchy =/= super democracy. Though I do think you are right. But again, there are many anarchists that do believe governments should fall and we should return to city-state esque governments.

Furthermore I'd like to highlight that this kind of naive thinking will follow the same chronological order of events as communism. Communism is great and all, but when you give power to the people, people that are good at tyranny and mobilizing people will end up taking power, greed takes over, and you end up with shitty shit.

We're just replacing one set of shitty people (modern politicians) with other shitty people (I mean, lets face it, do we really want an anarchist running the country?) The context for shittiness changes (so instead of shitty economical progress, we'd have shitty cultural progress, FOR EXAMPLE, I'm not sure what the anarchists would suck at but it'd probably be something). 

When I was at the 1% protest shits here in The Hague, I ran into some anarchists and they said we should get rid of governments, and every local community should govern themselves. These are the people I understood are the hardcore 'real' anarchism anarchists, where as every other stream of anarchy is more for a removal of governance in a certain area, i.e. economics or private capital and shit.
[/quote]

Dictionary definitions usually aren't a good place to go for government philosophy; they are usually waaay simple, worded from the perspective of the writer and his society, and besides that they get mixed with other definitions. Anarchism in the dictionary doesn't mean that because the dictionary gives a very basic definition of political anarchism, but if you talk to anarchists themselves you'll get a version of what I described above. 

I will say that, yeh, Anarchism is a helluva uphill battle. I completely agree there. I think most anarchists would probably agree. They are also difficult to talk about historically because, though we've had anarchist societies to judge, they usually don't last more than a generation. Not because they crumble, so far they've usually done pretty well economically, but rather because they tend to happen in civil wars and they almost always get crushed by the end of the war. It's difficult to judge a system of government entirely by the generation that formed it, because the first generation is usually the dedicated one. But from what we have seen, Anarchists are pretty good organizers when it comes to economics and culture. What anarchists suck at is military organization. They'll usually keep their area the paradise of their particular war, where it is the place you absolutely want to be if you have to be anywhere, but their localized militias squabble and refuse to cooperate efficiently, and they get swept off the board. As far as I know the only exception is the modern one, Rojava, that's been pretty good at not only holding their ground but also gaining ground.