I confess a certain fondness for anarchism*-each person free to choose their own way-very appealing. And just look at the evil that states have perpetrated down through the centuries, invading, raiding, enslaving, deceiving, murdering, and exploiting. Once again the ID the Devil fallacy comes into play: If we can just pinpoint the source of evil, we can kill it and live happily ever after.
In this case The State is the Devil. In other cases it is Religion, Atheists, Muslims, Minorities, Immigrants, Jews, what have you. To an anarchist, if you think The State is necessary, you are a Statist, something akin to a Satanist in their play book and you are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, having become infatuated with your kidnapper.
Anarchists run into a little trouble when they try to describe how their ideal society will function. A leaderless group is like a decapitated chicken, flopping around in the weeds, soon to be pounced on by any passing predator. Anarchists made their greatest showing during the Spanish civil war. There were a lot of Spanish anarchists and for a while they held certain cities.
When they had to defend themselves from the well-organized fascists, they ran into predictable difficulties, but not from lack of courage! However, they did or did not show up to fight, depending on their own judgment. They did or did not take orders, depending on their own opinions. They lost, of course, after ever so much bloodshed.
I have a bias in favor of things that work. Not only can’t anarchists describe how their ideal society will work, they can’t point to a single anarchist society that has not been over run by a State. Even city-states were over run by larger, more centrally-organized states. There is probably an optimum government size and level of organization for any given area and this may change slightly over time, but no government at all is like hanging a sign on your region: “Come and conquer us.” But we should ask, “Optimum size government for what purpose?” Optimum size to keep its citizens alive, at minimum, and ideally to provide an opportunity for its citizens to thrive.
Has such a state ever existed? Probably not perfectly, but the Scandinavian countries (a friend calls them “those happy cold countries”) seem to have something good going on. Not perfect, but good. Better, at any rate, than countries that fail to keep their citizens alive or proactively set out to kill and exploit people in other countries.
I have noticed that most anarchists are young men. Young men tend to question the powers-that-shouldn’t-be. This is a normal thing, a good thing. Those powers need to constantly be questioned. Most anarchists are intelligent and pro-active and the waste here is that they are pursuing a fantasy when they could actually do a lot of good if they applied their brains and energy to fix the state they live in.
Not by lobbing a bomb at the bourgeoisie or heroically assassinating national leaders but by the long-term, hard, unglamorous work of community organizing to really change things.
Anarchism doesn’t work. Back to the drawing board, ye brave young men.
*anarchism-belief in the abolition of government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
Spanish Civil War-excellent documentary