Thanks for addressing at least some of the points I was making. If you prefere to read, you should check out “Debt” by David Graeber and “The Dawn of Everything” by David Graeber and David Wengrow. Or shorter essays by Graeber you can find in the anarchist library

And obviously we will never know what would have happened if the USSR didn’t destroy Makhnovshchina in Ukraine or the anarchosyndicalists in Spain. But reading your comments I see why they did… and the future of Rojava is still open. Let’s see. And obviously anarchists never build a state, that’s in the name…

Because all syndicalists are evil. Do you really believe this statist propaganda?

The video has some. Maybe most best known is the CNT which was a network of free association. A modern example would be Rojava which is not democratic centralism but democratic confederation and therefor decentralized. Of cause, all these are suppressed by all states and therefore it is difficult to implement. Arguably, quite a lot of (but by far not all) organizations before modernity were hieracy free and some still are. the famous anthropologist and anarchist David Graeber once said that anthropologists have a affinity to anarchism because they know it works. He himself did research in Madagascar where, according to him, the state does very little in the rural areas. You should read his work or watch this interview from arround 2005.

I’m German myself and I consider myself a central European and a western European alike. If I had to choose I’d go with central European.

Decentralized can still mean that there is a big system of councils. The difference is that these are bottom up organized. If there is a consensus to build something big, there will be a way to make it. Maybe a committee that’s only for this specific task and will dissolve afterwards and can be desolved by the council earlier.

Zoe Baker made a good video about anarchism and democracy. You should check it out. It’s also about decision making in big scales within the anarchist tradition.

The concept of mutual aid laid out by Kropotkin is very much applicable to international relations. Many anarchist organizations are internationalist, eg indigenous struggles supported the German occupation of Lützerath. True, this isn’t about the infrastructure needed but anarchism isn’t isolationist

I don’t even see the problem. If workers collectively come to consensus about the design, what hinders them from agreeing on a schedule and working on it?

I’m not entirely sure how to read your comment but anarchism and international trade aren’t mutually exclusive either.

Anglosphere is the English speaking world which isn’t the same as the western world which also include for example mainland Europe

You are aware that the anglo sphere is smaller than the western world, right?

Edit: since I’m downvoted, I guess you don’t. Angloshpere is the native English speaking worlds, which excludes for example continental Europe.

many of these animals produce extra products as a result of the genetic manipulation.

I would argue that breeding these animals to produce more than they need is a form of exploitation. Sure, on an individual level you can look at a modern cow and say she doesn’t need all the milk she produces. But zooming out, you see a millennia old process of exploiting animals to produce more than they need. Breeding of defects is a thing that exists on a spectrum. Sure, we can’t let these animals into the wilderness, but we can stopp breeding them.

But than again: killing spongebob would demoralize the whole free world

Reminds me of the “watch for children” signs which sound like a better deal tbh