That doesn't answer the covert hierarchy problem, which is what plagued all those 1970s anarchist communes. Some group would arise within the commune, it would work to control resources or exclude 'undesirables' and so on, leading to a lot of cult-like situations with a charismatic manipulative individual gaining control and authority.

Consider also the enforcement of contracts between parties issue. Now, I understand that the anarchist position would be that if someone fails to deliver on a promise, then you can simply stop associating or doing business with that person - fine. Then they come into your workplace at night and steal everything you've made. You can say, I'll take my goods back by force, but then it's just a question of who has the greatest capability for violence, right?

Para 1: If this refers to “Tyranny of Structurelessness” (maybe that was just feminism) then modern anarchism has plenty of structure. If not: I guess it doesn’t work.

Para 2: It would be great if we would get to a point where we have to live up to these high-minded ideals. Like if pacifism is possible.[1] Meanwhile these “what if an unstoppable anarchist met an immovable anarchist” thought experiments aren’t interesting.

[1] Not that pacifism is an anarchist position. So relevance?

There will always be issues with human nature that any system will struggle with. Isn't practically every country today capitalist? Is everybody now living in a kind of paradise, if we are assuming that capitalism is the ideal system?

Isn't it a bit strange that we are always trying to force everybody into the same system, regardless of personal preferences? But the "system" of course is domination by some people over others, and what else would they want? Would they ever accept that some people may want to be left alone, free from their domination? The usual mainstream political discussion is only over what form of domination is preferable.