My point is that in Europe there are other options. — thewonder

I am from Europe, specifically the United Kingdom, and more specifically England. We have a multiparty system here, and more so than the United States, but there's still only two realistic options to choose from, those being the two main parties, Labour and Tory. I'm a member of the Labour party.

The Labour Party is alright, I guess. I honestly don't even really believe in political parties. I like what Simone Weil has to say about them in On the Abolition of All Political Parties, but, as far as political parties go, they're probably, at the very least, better than the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has begun to shift further to the Left, though, and, so, that may not always be the case.

I've heard a lot of Anarchists imply that creating society is somehow sort of Fascist. I think that it's ultimately a means to dismiss an argument without really having to debate it, but do think that whatever form of society there is that would be should spontaneously arise. I state such things for the sake of being brief, but perhaps I should do more to suggest that it is that there is a society which spontenously arises.

I find articulating what I parcel out in Anarchist terms to be somewhat difficult. The words that you need to use just simply aren't really there. I want to say something like "the spontaneous organization of society", but it would ultimately be the case that it wouldn't be organized. You don't want for there to be a formal structure in the form of a heirarchy. So you could say "the spontaneous configuration of society" which means what you mean more expliitly, but I wonder if whoever it is that you are speaking to any longer gets what you're driving at.

I think that "the spontaneous configuration of society" should be used as its meaning can be adequately discovered, but I don't think that there's too much to see in being unintentionally obscure.

It's a way of evading certain questions by cherry picking poor word choices so as to level an ad hominem. When you ask someone "What do you think Anarchist should society be like?", a common response is, "I don't think that Anarchist society should be like anything because I'm not trying to impose a structure upon the world." They're basically implying that the person asking the question is doing so and are not actually adressing what is meant by "What do you think Anarchist society should be like?" All that you're asking is that ey clarify eir position concerning eir endgame.

They may not be compensated monetarily but woul be rewarded for their merits in so far that it would be in keeping with free and equal society to do so. I don't think that people necessarily need something like a profit incentive in order to motivated to achieve great things. Because an ideal society would be, well, ideal, people would actually want to partake and contribute to it. — thewonder

Whatever their compensation would be, if it is not given to everyone it would lead to inequality. And what about those freedoms that would unavoidably take freedom of others? For example, a strong individual intimidating or overpowering a weak individual? Forbidding such things would inevitably impede the freedoms of the strong.

I could imagine a hypothetical ideal society, with an ideal and enlightened humanity, in which the strong would not require compensation, but unless this sacrifice is voluntary and never forced through the perpetuated norms of the society, it would still be an impediment on the freedoms of the strong.

Maybe not impossible, but, given humanity's present and past state, definitely belonging to the realm of fantasy, as far as I am concerned.

Suggesting that Anarchism fails because it never went anywhere is like suggesting that because the Gnostics were never able to overcome that most of the Christian faith regarded them as being heretics that they must've been wrong. — thewonder

I do not like this comparison, since anarchy is a lifestyle that can be and has been practically implemented. Gnosticism as a spiritual or religious movement cannot so easily be put to the test, if at all.

There are bound to be ways of rewarding merit without producing some sort of structural inequality.

The positive freedom to intimidate an other impedes upon the negative freedom not to be intimidated which should have precedence. That such situations arise would give rise to that they are dealt with by communities. Intimidation would, perhaps, not be formally forbidden, but generally sanctioned by whatever social configuration there is that would arise in each and every given situation. That a person should intimidate another does not benefit anyone as it creates a situation where the intimidator will have to deal with that such actions are justifiably rebelled against. They could go about convincing others to go along with whatever there is that is good about whatever it is that they want to do without creating any social plights whatsoever. As it places even them in a perilous position, there is no reason to regard such a freedom as being valid as engaging in intimidation does not place a person in a position where their capacity to actualize upon their potential for freedom will be maximalized.

I don't necessarily agree with the invokation of "the strong", but think that people would voultinarily sacrifice monetary compensation given a genuine Anarchist society. A better world has more to offer a person than the gains that they can make under Capital.

I don't think that we can really say anything meaningful about humanity in general. All and none of it is all simultaneously 'true'. While there may be inherent qualities to human nature, they have yet become possible to know. I would posit that it is impossible to know them. The human experience is too complex to reduce to a simple adage concerning its nature.

I do not like this comparison, since anarchy is a lifestyle that can be and has been practically implemented. Gnosticism as a spiritual or religious movement cannot so easily be put to the test, if at all. — Tzeentch

Well, I have never been to an Anarchist commune, and, so, I can't give you a concrete example of what one should be like as I do not know what the existing Anarchist communes are actually like. I could pick a commune off of the list of Anarchist communes on Wikipedia so as to put forth an example, but, as I have no experience of being in any of them, I couldn't say as to whether or not I think that they are exemplary of what Anarchist society should look like.