the fundamental problem with the world is that not everyone is an anarchist. Of course, i only think that because I am an anarchist. If you're a communist, the fundamental problem of the world is that not everyone is a communist. If you're a conservative, the fundamental problem of the world is that not everyone is a conservative. If everyone agreed with you, it would be easy to get things done. Unfortunately, this is not the case, there are differences in vallues accross the population, whether because of culture, individual prefference, material conditions, geography, technology etc. What we seem to be trying to do is build a "game" that everyone likes to play. Chess is a well constructed game, but not everyone wants to play chess. And even among those who like chess, not everyone wants to play only chess forever. What we're trying to do is make a game that everyone wants to play forever. Once you think of it like that, it becomes obvious how missguided this goal is.
Anarchists kind of understand this, they know that centralisation is a bad deal, and generally they want people to live in their little anarchist federations run on a local level. However, I think they're going about it the wrong way, by trying to first dismantle the state and capitalism, then hoping that in the chaos that follows, everyone will simultaneously agree to organise themselves like that. A better idea is this, we should splinter the state into ever smaller and more specialised nations, to micro-nations, to nano-nations, where everyone can play their own games.
The "state" then, is relegated to the role of an industrial process which manages international relations, because everyone in any particular nano-nation will already agree on How To Do Things, and thus the system runs itself without intervention. Why? Because if someone doesn't agree, they can simply move to a place that does things the way they want them done. No one is going to let you change the rules of their game, if there's already a game just over there that sounds like what you want. It would be like complaining that runescape doesn't have enough first person shooter mechanics. Well yeah, obviously it doesn't, go play another game if you want that. It becomes an absurd proposition. Once everyone in the nano-nation agrees on how to run things, the state becomes irrelevant, what is there left for it to do? The only thing it can do is talk to other states, organise trade, sign treaties etc. EZ game, gg, solved politics for you