[Iv]

To be fair, anyone claiming to be an anarchist and not strongly opposed to neo-nazis would be in a weird ideological spot.

Historically, anarchists have always fought authoritarianism. Anarchism often seems vague as an ideology because its foundation is not an ideal, but the rejection of the values that are at the core of the fascist ethos.

[DyslexicAtheist]

I'm an Anarchist. I hate neo-nazis (or any kind of Nazis really), though that doesn't mean that I hate the left any less than I hate a neo-/Nazi. In fact I despise (hate is a strong word, feeling sorry is more accurate) anyone, stupid enough to align themselves with any form of organized politics and power structures. Depending on how hard core you are you probably be forced to run against the law in most places (or in the more fucked up places you might even be labeled a terrorist). These labels (Anarchist, Atheist) aren't helpful. They are designed usually to demonize an outside group. Also if I were to gather with other Anarchists even it's just to play chess it's probably no longer Anarchism but some form of grass-roots political movement. The point of anarchism is not taking part like the Jawari or Andaman people, or the hill tribes in South East Asia.

see also James C. Scott: "The Art of Not Being Governed, An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" https://libcom.org/files/Art.pdf

[LifeLiverTransp]

Or the family-clans in somalia?

[DyslexicAtheist]

yes those too, basically anyone refusing to integrate and having to resort to what civilized places call "crimes". The Burmese/Laos/Vietnamese hill tribes were in fact refuges from the encroaching power of their original homeland China. Highly recommend the book that I've linked. To reduce the hyperbole every discussion on Anarchism should start with heaving read JC Scott.

YN Harari also makes that point by the way in his book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO__r8Q0bmU