If people think we need a government to get along, they really need to think outside the box, because anarchy is as inevitable as government -it's all a part of the social cycle. For centuries, we've needed government to facilitate growth, but with development in transport and communications technologies, the government is not only unnecessary, it's becoming more of a threat than anything else. If we can't understand the world around us without looking to someone else, then we have no business deciding how others should live. I understand why people think government is necessary, but if you don't understand how anarchism is a useful political ideology... you're not thinking for yourself.... and that's what's wrong with the world.
Anarchism wouldn't mean gang warfare or war of all against all. It would simply mean there wouldn't be institutionalized crime and aggression and that multicentric defense and communal institutions would be allowed to form. The general conception of anarchism as chaos seems to be largely based on Hobbes' overrated conjectures.
Yes, I think we need the principle of anarchy, chaos, or the absence of coherent unity to stand as the antithesis to cohesive states of being or governing. Chaos loves a vacuum and anarchy thrives in the absence of guidance and leadership, so it serves an important lesson, demonstrating the outcome when leaders abdicate their leadership role.
Friedrich Nietzsche says, "From chaos comes order" and I do agree. Many times in our history, it is from lawlessness that we come up with laws. It is with disorder that we come up with processes. Anarchy serves as an alternative path, which we try to avoid; hence, we do everything to steer clear from it.
Frankly, all of these arguments that the decentralization of power would lead to abuses of power are dumbfounding to me. At what point are we going to take an intellectually honest perspective on the issue, and stop parading institutionalized violence as a means of reducing or minimalizing violence without so much as a shred of supporting reasoning?
Certainly certain services are necessary for any civilized society to function such as mutual defense, dispute arbitration, commerce regulation, and basic infrastructure. But at what point does it make sense to entrust these services to a monopolistic institution that can compel payment?
Everyone knows that monopolies are abjectly expensive, unresponsive, and abusive towards their customers as well as employees. So why must we assume that social power must be monopolized for any reason in the first place?
It seems to me that statist ideologies are just a hold-over from the notion of the "divine right" of Kings--that centralized, absolute authority was not only possible but ordained by God and no other earthly power was legitimate. I don't see how the divine right of numerical might(ie an election, and that is making the dubious assumtion that votes are counted in the first place) confers legitimacy any more than some appeal to divinity.
I've heard arguments that say anarchism will lead to widespread murder because no one's there to stop them: who would be there to jail these criminals? If anarchy means a world without government, then there won't be police or any sort of commerce regulation. However, isn't that saying humans have a natural tendency to kill each other? Are we really that violent? After converting to anarchism, would not common sense and justice exist, just as government has? In addition, without government, there would be no reason to become a 'criminal,' and in fact, crime wouldn't exist because there would be a lack of rules. Without rules, there would be less limitations and more freedom. If someone or a gang of people were to, for example, steal something from someone, other more logically minded people could step in and put an end to it. We as a society don't need to rely on a government: we don't need to rely on police to stop 'bad' people. We can rely on ourselves.
Ultimately, in the process of a civilization we inhabit, creativity is suppressed in order to secure power and stability. This security revolving around authoritarian repression of the social being in human nature can logically be stopped in favor of more creativity without being subjected towards being a mere subject of civilization. Allowing that anarchic sensation of freedom to throw any immediate tyranny into the past by simply living in the present without subscribing to tyranny. Anarchism as a terrain of interaction internally/externally towards human nature and the natural world could mean justice is passion as material condition, not "ideology" as it is a phenomenon of following dormant instincts of egalitarian conduct from outside alienated reality, imposed by those anarchy arise from in to eventually leave for good, revolution as creative process. Useful for finding truth by organic means of decentralized revolution , not an artificially constituted means of resolving social conflict tied to interests outside of emotional response or intellect. Bring resistance to everyday life, not that controls life.
I believe in anarchism on a much smaller scale than as a total political state, such as the independence of children in a school yard without relying on adults to solve all of their problems and such. I know that the point is "As a useful political ideology" but honestly I think that politics does not just restrain itself to national governments. It is a fact that politics are used in all ways of life, and I think that anarchism can be a useful method from time to time.
I probably sound like a dimwitted high school graduate writing this, but I think that the seed of anarchy has rooted much further into the ground than as a simple political state. As with all other forms of political system, anarchism not only changes the way the government acts, but the way the people feel, think and act daily. Democracy gives a much more free approach. Dictatorship or other forms of total rule provide total control.
I know I sound like a total hippy here, but I would like to quote something that I wrote for an essay about anarchism opposed to other systems once.
"Families would earn their survival, instead of loathing it everyday."
I don't think I need to really explain that.
I understand that anarchism wasn't meant to last, but I see it as the start of the rebirth. The burning away of bush to make way for more fertile ground. It was used like this often in ancient Greece, even if they didn't realize it.
So to all those people saying it isn't meant to last long, of course it isn't. It is only a method rather than a form of government, but nevertheless, is a political ideology.
Also, to those people saying that anarchism is a bunch of blokes pissed off at the current system, just think - If nobody ever questioned the system, where would we be now?
No matter what you believe in, in regards of religion and science, the human civilization began on the basis of anarchy. Government was made by tyrants who fell to temptation to greed and power. Government has become better in today's world compared to the past, but the real purpose of anarchy is equality. The true sense of equality. The American people are the most equal of all other nations. It would fall under an anarchist side, as opposed to controlling, "Big Brotherish", of North Korea.
politics have created factions and partisanship which in essence stalls progress, the old adage "if you want something done you've got to do it your-self" holds true. all Republicans and Democrats do is fight and argue about how things should be done, yes its true that smaller groups and factions would likely break out but all of the same mindset, and most likely moving forward, and with these smaller groups they'd be more able to deal with corruption, as well as each member having more of a share in each item of interest.
I understand that there are various forms of anarchist thought and indeed, some anarchists are actually closer to libertarian, meaning that government should only exist for the protection of the individual. However, for the sake of this particular argument, I have stuck to the philosophy of pure anarchy, which is the total absence of a state.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that 99.9% of humans are neither greedy, violent, nor amoral. In an anarchist state, the greedy, violent and amoral 0.1% would be highly likely to conflict with each other and also with the 99.9%. This would force a societal evolution in which on one extreme the 0.1% completely wipes out the 99.9% and becomes the new 99.9%, or the original 99.9% seeks out some way to protect themselves from the 0.1%.
Methods of achieving some form of safety might include arming or isolating yourself from others, as well as seeking safety in numbers and with alliances. These alliances are the beginnings of what would evolve into government. Thus, increasingly large and powerful groups would form, resulting in increasingly complex forms of organization from families, to clans, to more structured feudal societies and republics. This evolution would largely follow in line with Maslow's Hierarchy, so that initially humans would form government for the purposes of safety and later the evolution would shift towards governments that provide for the other higher needs illustrated within the hierarchy.
Two of the most popular television shows on cable, do a fairly decent job of illustrating such an evolution. The society represented within The Walking Dead is an exaggerated one, but one that might exist in a lesser form in which humans seek larger groups in isolated places for their own protection. Game of Thrones illustrates a nearly anarchist clan based society in the form of the Wildlings who choose to band together for a similar purpose to that seen in the Walking Dead. In each case, these alliances form solely for the purpose of protection and are facilitated by the dangers of the "Walkers" and the "White Walkers" which represent the 0.1% I mentioned earlier. These stories lay within the world of fantasy and exaggeration, but they are fairly honest representations of how society may evolve from anarchism into a more evolved and stable state. In Game of Thrones, the more evolved feudal state is still highly unstable and oppressive, yet there are those that seek a society in which the weakest among us are protected and individuals are able to fulfill higher needs.
The point is that government does not just exist. Government evolves and is as natural of a state of organization as the atom is. It is the result of individual needs and it's structure is not just necessary for us to live the lives we live, but it is the natural result of our own human needs.
Let us suppose that 99.9% of people are not inherently violent, greedy, or amoral. That 0.1% would still be a very large number, so that conflict would likey occur between increasingly larger groups of individuals seeking to protect themselves through numbers. Conflict might start only within the 0.1%, but would eventually move into the 99.9% because these people would not survive without protecting themselves in some way. Thus, you would have a social evolution in which either the 0.1% become the 99.9% through destruction of the original 99.9% OR the original 99.9% are able to successfully push back and protect themselves from those that are inherently violent, greedy, and amoral. Again, this protection would arise with numbers and a willingness to do violence.
It is important to recognize that our current state establishment evolved out of an anarchist state, which evolved from families, to clans/tribes, to more organized feudal types of societies and republics (simplistically speaking). This evolution sprang from an initial need to seek protection in numbers and once a general state of safe living was achieved, this evolution came more from the individual seeking to regain some power and freedom back from an authoritarian state, which had been accepted solely for the purpose of safety and survival. One only needs to look at Maslow's pyramid to see that we seek safety before we seek other higher needs.
I understand that there are various forms of anarchist thought and indeed, some anarchists are actually closer to libertarian, meaning that government should only exist for the protection of the individual. However, for the sake of this particular argument, I have stuck to the philosophy of pure anarchy, which is the total absence of a state. Government does not just exist. Government is the result of individual needs and it's structure is not just necessary for us to live the lives we live, but it is the natural result of our own human needs.
Without the governmental authority, the world would be horrible and the disputes will increase. In addition, the production will decrease.
They claim that the production will increase with the liberty, although the biggest production in the world in China which is not democratic country. On the other hand, the economy is very weak in the countries which have weak governments like African countries.
Thus, for Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls republic.
As summary Kant named four kinds of government:
A. Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
B. Law and force without freedom (despotism).
C. Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
D. Force with freedom and law (republic).
Without a stable government, business cannot thrive. And without a regulated currency business cannot even exist. Assume we where to go to anarchy, who then would be running the car manufacturers? Or Apple? Or Microsoft? No one. If a currency does not exist (which it wouldn't in an anarchistic society) then the ability to mass produce goods would be lost. Simple bartering wouldn't be able to make up the difference in people's lives. Think about it, all your company makes is shoes...How do you compensate your employees for time given producing shoes? Eventually they will have enough pairs of shoes to last ten lifetimes and then what? You cannot eat a shoe, a car, an ipod, and on and on. Anarchy can only exist as something to judge our current system, not an all together political difference. Or think about it in a completely different way...The basic electricity we use to do anything would not exist either. For 99% of what we have today comes from corporations and government. Remember when you read about the feudal system, France used back in the dark ages? That is what anarchy would turn into. Each family would be responsible for themselves, which means no facebook (oh no), no organized sports, no television, or anything. The human race would be set back literally hundreds of years of progress. Think about that.
If you get rid of the government and replace it with "the people" soon there will be a government that arises out the various "negotiations" between groups of people. News for you pal, but "multicentric defense and communal institutions" would be a form of government.
If you get rid of t he government and replace it with "the corporations" such as in anarchocapitalism then the corporations are basically "the government" in all but name.
There will always be a government, recognized or not.
Political ideology, no matter what your views, must be well thought out and defined in order to be sustained by the original thinkers and expressed in a way that would lead others to want to follow the same strategy. Anarchy creates confusion and unrest, something that will not serve as a useful long-term set of beliefs.
I think government's primary role is to protect the people and enforce the rule of law. Anarchists believe that competing security firms can take over that role. But, they do not consider that each of those agencies will fight for control, as in the old west, and we would end up with gangs of powerful agencies ruling over us, and no rule of law to protect us. The government is there to protect us, as laid out in the Constitution.
If anything, anarchism is the absence of political thought. Politics attempts to rule over a mass of people by providing a baseline of services and rules to follow, and anarchy would ensure that, at a very minimum, no rules would be followed. This suggests that it is not something that should be associated with political thought, but rather social theory.
There has never been a society that has successfully implemented anarchy. Countries without a government system end up being the poorest countries in the world. The people struggle to have what they need. However, these countries do not truly follow this ideology. People struggle for power in these situations. War lords take over and dictate their own rules. Violence then reigns. This is what anarchy looks like in practice. Therefore, it is not a useful ideology.