aren't various strands of anarchism already abstractions of tendencies, rationalizations/'ideas', some people share with some other people, more or less?
i tend to see the various anarchisms as complicated only as much as they inhibit the process of anarchy for each person. this doesn't mean anarchy isn't complex, though, in more fluid, ineffable ways.
edit for added thought.
funky@, my own use of 'anarchy' and 'anarchist' as self-descriptions really only rooted themselves after a playful, very intimate, and un-premeditated, encounter with a wonderful sunflower who, to nearly anyone else, would look so bent and broken, but whose flowers shined forth in such a way as to beckon me toward a sense of marvelous joy. in this instant, for me joy and anarchy became synonymous.
this will sound corny as hell to some of the more serious anarchists perhaps, and that's ok. i'll repeatedly embrace this encounter anytime over what i've gleaned through my more academic pursuits. there remain so many layers i've scarcely touched which i intimate will occupy a lifetime.
i just read the post that squee linked to in another thread, regarding existentialism. to me, that post is a perfect example of what i am talking about. there is much mention of famous names from history, and lots of use of the terms being addressed (existentialism, (post)structuralism, psychoanalysis, ...), but i could not for the life of me come away with any better understanding of the actual ideas being discussed. after reading that, i still have no idea how squee would define existentialism, or (post)structuralism.
and believe me, squee is someone i have much affinity with, at least based on discussions elsewhere.
"hearing what my world was saying to me was impossible as long as i remained locked in abstruse chatter"
this is a good question.
my initial answer:
no, the concepts behind anarchy (even anarchism) are relatively simple, even to me (a simpleton). one might say they are a (not the, but a) "natural" way of being and relating in the world.
however, what makes anarchy complicated where the rubber meets the road - living our lives - are the multitude and magnitude of indoctrinations and ideologies that the world we currently inhabit imposes upon us, from the moment of our conception/birth. all (or most) of which are intended to ingrain in us principles and desires that are completely contrary to anarchy.
so, we have this kind of innate sense of wanting to be free, yet we are constantly told that we should want something else; authorities, social contracts, law and order, etc. and of course, those things are imposed on us regardless.
add to that what human mentioned above: the different flavors and ideological leanings of anarchism, and the tendency for those talking/writing about it to be overly verbose, intellectual, and reliant on historical writings (which adds yet another level of mediation due to language and style differences between timeframes).
then, yeah, i can easily understand how one might see it as complicated.
in general, i think people tend to complicate things rather than simplify them. and when it comes to communicating ideas, i wish people would more often aim for conciseness and simplicity, rather than verbosity and complexity. and i know that ain't always easy. especially for those that attended the academy.