OK, as there hasn´t been anyone so far who really supports anarchy, I would like to clarify an important distinction: anarchy generally means there´s "no souvereign authority" that could command other people even against their will. It does not mean, as most people think, that there should not be any kind of social and political organization at all! Anarchy, as proposed by its main theorists (Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.) seeks a social organisation, that provites satisfaction to all (not only basic) needs of the people. But as Anarchy defeats oppression and hierarchy, this is achieved through mutual exchange-networks of small autonomous groups, which take their decissions by consensus. A political principal also known as subsidiarity. Actually the socialist Russian revolution also was planed to install such a kind of political system - a union of councils (russ.: sowiet) - this is where the former name of the russion state comes from: the Sowiet Union. But as a violent revolution always brings up violent leaders, this system was corrupted by Lenin, Stalin and Trotzkies red army ... actually simply killing all the real socialists ...

And historically it is exactly this understanding of revolution that divided Marx and his supporters, the authoritarian socialists, from Bakunin and his supporters, the libertarian socialists, or anarchists in the first international labor federation. The anarchists thought there could not be a successfull revolution, if it would not keep its principles of equalness and non-hierarchy even during revolutionary violence. And as history shows, they where right!

But still, for sure, it remains an open question, wheather people would be able to interact socially efficient, if they were left without any repressive government, giving them obligatory rules and punishing thouse who breake such rules. But again: Anarchry does not propose a total lack of any kind of rules! - Just the rules would have to be generated by the people themselves.

To come to an end: As most anarchists would have called themselves socialists as well, the question should be rather: livertarian socialism vs authoritarian socialism?