and here is a very good comment from another friend that clears up alot of the mis-conceptions:

"Infoshop has the best FAQ work on the subject possible, but it's draw back is that you can't get a good ideal of anarchism from it quickly. Infoshop FAQ is geared for the new anarchist that wants to sit down and really study in length, where as the Question Everything page and the anarchist leaflet is for those that have no introduction to anarchism at all. The Question Everything page is serves a good purpose other than an introduction too - it clarifies the most basic questions that people need answered before they can relax enough to study the Infoshop FAQ. Who can concentrate on hundreds of pages about hard core political change and human rights if they are still thinking this is JUST about "not wanting to follow the rules and co-operate within a society" as portrayed by the current system (and the social anarchist's)?

Also whenever speaking about anarchism you ALWAYS run up against one basic confusion, the massive difference between politcal anarchism and social anarchism (which is roughly nihilism). Nothing has caused more confusion about political anarchism (libertarian-socialism) than social anarchism. They are both lumped under one heading, but are radically different. Probably the easiest way to understand social anarchism is to picture the Sex Pistols and that attitude of *uck everyone - others DON'T matter etc. On the other hand you have The Clash that were political (at least Joe Strummer)..... But I digress. Political anarchism is not about a loss of order and chaos etc - it is more complicated than all those generalities. It seeks to break down external conventions of power that prevent the individual from self representation WITHIN society. It also very much focus's on co-operation and direct democracy within society in order to see that everyone is helped, listened to and respected. None of this s*it like with our present day external mobsters and corporate investors running the show without the people. The people have the "power" with political anarchism - no pyramid structures of oppression are protected. It's also important to mention that a lack of oppression structures is not the same as giving violence towards children and others free reign. Within a co-operative society personal rights do NOT extend to violation of another. So the term oppression is something that needs careful understanding in order to understand anarchism.. Social anarchist's define oppression as anything that prevents them from acting like ass's. Political anarchist's are careful to define oppression and likewise can easily spot when authentic oppression is occurring..

Anyway, that does not provide any condensed information about the differences between the two camps, I just wanted to say that the two camps are distinctly different. However I will add this - Obviously social anarchism can not be applied in a society in any real way without it setting up extreme violent and failed structures. This is NOT what the political anarchist's want at all, and they certainly don't believe in chaos. The ONLY thing that might be remotely attributed to the political's "wanting chaos" is that they ARE more than willing to fight a CLASS WAR in order to bring down the structures of oppression. But their views on society are all about community, mutual aid and co-operation, direct and consensus democracy (much like the religious Quakers even). Along a different note, "hippie passivity" is also all good and well except they that also stand by and allow madmen to rule the world. 30,000 children die every day because people have not learned to stand up and protect them! In the meantime there is a war already in progress. "

Nice video by the way, i like what he says.