Sign into an existing account

Anarchy is not realistically sustainable in the long-term, it's nothing more than a transitionary phase in societal organization. A state of anarchy can only occur when there's a power vacuum event, during or immediately after which-- people will immediately start re-organizing, most likely into smaller factions.. until one or two of those factions absorb or murder the rest of the competing factions-- and then we're right back to square one.

An anarchy-type lifestyle is a unicorn fart fantasy, just like real communism, or the libertarian NAP bullshit. If you want a decentralized government at the lowest form humans are capable of tolerating, you're looking at gang-level organizations led by people who will act like tribal chieftans, basically block-by-block, territory-by-territory, and they will maintain themselves through violence, period. Even if you were on an empty planet with a thousand colonists, it'll either immediately centralize, or factionalize until the stalemates are broken (absorption or death of the other factions) so greater centralization can occur.

Even if you could maintain an 'anarchist-type' society in a large enough area, your lack of organization/centralization will be your greatest weakness. As it will almost certainly attract the attention of other human beings who don't give two shits about some faffy anarchy philosophy and will roll on your asses until you are all dead or conquered. At best you're looking at a faction-level society like DR Congo is right now (and it is still not free of foreign meddling), or you'll be dead like all the innumerable tribes the Romans stomped out.

Technically you can leave the West's organizations without (much) violence, they just don't let you stay if you do. No sane leadership is going to allow competition in their own backyards, because if they do, they're not going to be leaders for long-- one way or another.

A sustainable anarchist society is not realistic in any shape or form.

You are correct.