It's been said already that anarchism is not an end, rather a process by which we make what we have better.

Anarchy as a system will never be a thing institutionally, as that is contrary to the very nature of anarchy. The author points this out, that anarchy isn't organized in the traditional sense, but rather organically. I think he actually illustrates this well by using examples of friendship. People don't generally take well to a forced friendship; they would rather happen upon it organically--if it happens, it happens. Anarchy supposes this as a universal good. If life can thrive organically without a dominant, that life is better for it.

I don't think anyone could successfully argue that anarchy in its purest form, without any dominant, is possible. Rather, how can we remove the most pervasive dominants that we no longer require to thrive?