You can't say "never" work when humanity evolves and changes with time. I would agree it can't work right now.
fenrif, I am calling your position a straw man because you are making claims against 'anarchists' that the majority of them do not believe in, and arguing against those claims. That is not a misuse of the word, that is a completely accurate depiction of what a straw man is. If I said "I would prefer anarchism", and what I meant is the well accepted political definition that's been fleshed out by philosophers, political anarchists, and even the Webster's dictionary, the most commonly used dictionary in the United States, then you shouldn't try to attribute something else to my statement and argue against it. That is as straw man as they come.
Are you simply going to claim Webster's is wrong, that the political philosophers are all wrong, that anarchists that self-identify as such are all wrong? What you seem to be ignoring is the fact I am not calling your definition wrong by any stretch of imagination. I am saying it is not the only one. "Gay" used to mean only one thing. Now it means more than that. Anarchy and anarchism have two clearly distinct (though similar in nature) connotations. The connotation I am talking about is the one the vast majority of political anarchists (as in, they believe in having anarchy - the absence of a compulsory government) use. To take the other meaning (the absence of any group control or order in any form) and argue against it, as if even a sizable portion of them hold that position, IS a straw man. Do we need to debate the nature of a straw man now?
Basically your argument is boiling down to "anarchy is X position, if they don't follow it, they're not anarchists" even though the concept of anarchist is the best description for these types of people and for all intents and purposes has a clear meaning in political discussion, like this topic. Maybe you should suggest to the general political community a new word for them, but as it stands now, anarchist is what they use and there's no point in ignoring their actual opinions in favor of what you and the Oxford dictionary want to call them.