Not at all, anarchy is governance without hierarchy. Feudalism is a socio-economic system with a complex hierarchy that derives from a monarch.

I didn't ask what anarchy is, I pointed out where it would lead...

Feudalism is a socioeconomic mode of production specific to a time and place in history; an evolution out of the collapse of the Roman Empire. To suggest it would re-emerge out of anarchy is to ignore the historical materialism of how feudalism came to be, not to mention that left-anarchism is founded upon the abolition of value form and the commodity.

Human history shows that whenever possible, a small group of people will do anything they can to gain as much power as they can over as many other people. It's obviously true in the capitalist system that we currently have. If you abolish value and commodity and governmental rules and all that shit, things may be pleasant for a generation or so, but slowly some folk will accumulate power. Because there is only local community organisation, old-school feudalism will inevitably return.

And the ironic thing is that men will continue to retain as much power as possible, even when the planet that hosts him is dying under his own feet. We are consumed by greed, until death. And this will lead us to tragic eras, like the Middle Ages.
Anarchy is just a quick way to resolve all problems, but its consequences would lead to more chaos eitherway. It's not the best solution.

Yes we have historically had ruling elites on one scale or another since the neolithic agricultural revolution, that was the easiest method at the time to ensure that nascent city states producing surplus food could maintain control over their resources. It's likely that a warrior elite slowly formed simultaneously, and then over time that elite morphed into a ruling class. From that moment on--without going into any detail--if we hold historical materialism to be true, the material conditions of existing societies was the driver of how we have progressed as a species, rather than merely that history is a result of periodic ideologies.

I think anarchism has it's own issues, it's not my personal ideology although I flirted with it for a year or so, however the fundamental end goal of anarchism is the same as communism--a society devoid of class, value form and the production of commodities fundamentally. There are greedy people on this earth, because the potential for greed exists. In a hypothetical scenario where communism is established on a global scale, the ability to act on any greed (supposing that greed is human nature and not a learnt trait, which is not what I believe personally) will be diminished, if not abolished. Communism is founded upon a planned economy until such a time as we can abolish work itself and automate production (that's something for another discussion). We will produce what we need and no more. There will be no incentive to be greedy because everyone will be comfortable. There will be nothing to take because everything will be given. It is a fundamentally new mode of production, and all the ways in which one can excel through individualism in capitalism will simply be ineffectual under communism.

The biggest threat to a stateless society will come not in a generation after it has been formed, but in its nascent stage, when reactionary behaviour by those who benefitted the most under capitalism seek to return us to the status quo. That is the reason that every communist revolution has--to date--failed. Either the regime tasked with protecting the revolution has crumbled under external pressure (as in Burkina Faso), or the vanguard has consolidated power and formed a new bureaucratic class to disestablish the old capitalist elite, which in itself causes a degenerated workers state (as in the USSR and China).

What you say is true, but in the longer term any society must have a process in place to maintain itself while also allowing gradual changes to keep up with social mores. An anarchist society won't have those rules, so it will be impossible to maintain.

Anarchy isn't a society devoid of rules; it's a society where rules are made by consensus and authority comes from the civic, rather than hierarchy.

I........ think you just described democracy. How's that working out?

Nah, in a democracy the authority comes from the hierarchy, it just pretends not to.

This, basically. Democracy as we understand it is not how democracy was envisaged in classical Athens (hell, Athenian democracy only extended the franchise of voting to propertied male citizens). Representative demoracy is a farce, indeed, to say that the USA or the UK are anything other than oligarchies is laughable. A communist society is antithetical to bourgeois democracy. Marx was pretty definite in his later theoretical works in his belief that pursuing bourgeois democracy is farcical.

But isn't the point that this is what it will always become?

what the fuck is this? OANST is....... on topic? unironically?

this isn't right. unless the four horsemen of the apocalypse are flying around with squadrons of pigs, and the seas are boiling, and my dick reaches my knees, then this isn't right.

it feels wrong. feels dirty.

That was Nate's point, mine was that it's not possible.

Sure, but your idealism mixed with your readiness to condemn everything capitalist has somewhat skewed your approach to these ideas. I've seen you on facebook, my dude. You say "comrade" a lot. Like, a lot. You're not exactly approaching this from a realistic platform.

Right?

You're just jealous because I've never called you comrade.

My true motives all laid out again.