I really think you need to do some reading on what anarchism actually is before writing criticisms. It really isn't the thing you think it is.
> unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it.
Yes. Anarchism is about putting in place those constraints (via systems design rather than external enforcement since the latter requires amassing power in order to act as enforcer).
> Things like Democratic Structures...
You lost me here. Anarchism is democratic.
You seem to think anarchism is something emergent that existed before rules. It isn't. Anarchism is rules without centralising enforcement, not absence of rules. Feudalism in particular is the direct opposite of anarchism.
Please at least Google the term before you go and further.
Well, before my first post I reread the Wikipedia article.
I will mention there's a bit of a dance with definitions with some ideologies which I find irksome. This is true here. Yes, there is some definition which can dodge any specific criticism, but those definitions aren't mutually coherent or consistent. You either get problem A or problem B. You can't use one definition to address one and another definition for the other.
This is common of many ideologies. I've found this to be especially true when talking with feminists. They bounce between a push for equality (for example, abolishing employment structures which favor men), and a push for changes which favor women (for example, feminists in divorce law push for policies which favor the mother). When they get caught in a contradiction, the definition changes like a squiggly fish. That lack of rational, critical conversation translates into ineffective tactics, and a failure to achieve change.
Ya' gotta pick one definition. Then we can talk about it.
Since, ironically, you'd like me to find authoritative references before I talk more, here's one I found on Google:
anarchy
1a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a : absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the war zone
b : absence of order : disorder not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature— Israel Shenker
> unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it.
Yes. Anarchism is about putting in place those constraints (via systems design rather than external enforcement since the latter requires amassing power in order to act as enforcer).
> Things like Democratic Structures...
You lost me here. Anarchism is democratic.
You seem to think anarchism is something emergent that existed before rules. It isn't. Anarchism is rules without centralising enforcement, not absence of rules. Feudalism in particular is the direct opposite of anarchism.
Please at least Google the term before you go and further.