You could argue that we're already in an anarchy. Its non-controversial to say that the international stage is an anarchy. All governments are just simply local entities working inside that global anarchy.

Hans Hermann Hoppe has written a book (popular in the ancap community) on the anarcho-capitalist ideals. The dilemma you present has been addressed by the scholars in the field. If you are genuinely intrigued by these questions you might find it interesting.

Democracy: The God That Failed https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/980031.Democracy

Anarchism is traditionally another word for communism. Anti-hierarchy. So but reading about seems the term is loaded and can mean many things: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

How this got downvoted is beyond me, if you see the link you will find how intertwined their histories are.

> Major schools of thought of anarchism sprouted up as anarchism grew as a social movement, particularly anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and individualist anarchism. As the workers' movement grew, the divide between anarchists and Marxists grew as well. The two currents formally split at the fifth congress of the First International in 1872,

Lenin and the Bolsheviks killed a bunch of anarchists.

But yes, there is anarcho-communism. Most folk don't know of libertarian socialism. See also Murry Bookchin and the Kurds.

Anarchism and Stalin wouldn't jive well, so I wouldn't say it's "traditionally another word for communism"

Nestor Makhno, on the other hand, is generally recognized as an anarchist, and yet he too had argued for centralization of power.

Well I think traditionally to indicate a period before the Cold War. While Stalin was leader of the USSR he was hardly a communist as Trotsky himself would hove told you, I believe his term for it was "degenerate worker's state"

There is libertarian communism, and some actually outright reject authoritarian communism as actually being socialism.