I can't see how this would work. Somebody has be in charge;there has to be some sort of organization.

However much paperwork and superfluous bureaucracy this would cut out, this would destroy so many small yet vital things we take for granted, which this passage from Adrian Mole: the Cappucino Years illustrates quite well.
"I asked him why his girlfriend, Alice, had not come out to vote.
He said that she didn't believe in government; she was an Anarchist.
I asked him, that in the case of Anarchy, who would take care of the drains.
He said that she didn't believe in drains.
I suddenly seemed to understand why she had been in bed all week..."

The theory claiming that equality and justice can be reached only through destruction of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals. The main idea is that the people are good but are corrupted by artificial governmental institutions. The most important is individual freedom.
In practice, removal of the government institution leads to the "jungle law" society. Practical examples are: Machno "Green" Army behavior during Civil War in Russia, 1920; New Orlean law-free existance after Katrina.

Anarchism predates Marx by at least a thousand years.

One might ask why every authoritarian government in the world - left, right and center - agrees that Anarchism must be prevented by any means necessary (including but not limited to the outrageous propaganda misinformation repeated in several of the reviews in this thread). Could it be that all governmental types would see the end of their protection racket should people decide they're capable of real self-government?

I'm not going to attempt to refute every absurd word written here on the subject, but rather suggest the reader not blindly accept the opinions of the enemies of freedom and/or their dupes.

Here are some good places to start learning what anarchism really stands for:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/spain.htm l

http://ah.lovarchy.org/quotes.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

http://recollectionbooks.com/anow/history/spain/ 

Laughable perversion of Marxist theory. Anarchism and anarchy are not the same. Anarchism originates in the First International. Aside from isolated pockets in the Ukraine during the Bolshevik Revolution, Anarchism has existed,as a governing force, in modern times at least, only in Spain in 1936-37. Anarchism in Spain was probably dominate in Catalonia and strongly represented in Andalusia. After the military rising started the Civil War, the Anarchists under Durruti revolutionized Catalonia and half of Aragon. Shootings, church burnings, massive theft, and such niceties as raping nuns, killing children, and more, characterized Anarchist rule. Evenually the Central Government in Madrid regained control of the situation. Anarchism declined so rapidly in Catalonia that the Anarchists actually joined the Government! Stalin's branch of the Communist Party gained control of the Spanish Republican state at the end of the war, and Anarchists were hunted down by Communist death squads even as the Nationalists were overruning the last Republican strongholds. Many historians hold that the disorder, terror and waste of the Anarchists directly contributed to the fall of Republican Spain. If you believe that human nature is inherently good, and always works for the best, then Anarchism is for you. If you believe that humans will take advantage of the situation and try to grab more for themselves at the expense of others, maybe you should grasp another ideology! Another thing that the historians discovered and that was that the anarchists didn't believe in bathing or have much to to with modern sanitation!

Well, I have to go against the grain on this. Most reviewers base their rejection of anarchism on the foibles of "Actually Existing Anarchists," citing hipsters who claimed to be anarchists but who actually discredited the concept in the reviewers' eyes. Most of these negative reviews are along the lines of: "Well, this punk told me he was an anarchist, and he sucked," or, more earnestly, "At such-and-such a moment, anarchists were on the wrong side of history...." That may all be true, but I'd love to hear a more philosophical assessment of anarchism, because I'm getting more interested in the possibilities it raises. (I won't be caught wearing any Sex Pistols attire or whatever.) Anarchism interests me because it's the only school of politics that really takes freedom seriously. It doesn't limit that freedom to free trade, as libertarianism tends to do, and it doesn't limit it to freedom "from" various threats, as liberalism does. Instead, it seems to hold a completely open view of the possible forms of human association. I have to admit I haven't really read much on the topic, but I am beginning to get more interested, now that I'm thinking that no government might be better than the one we Americans have now.

What's so great about anarchism? It only brings chaos and violence.

When I see a bi-cameral anarchy, I'll be sold on it.

I understand the desire for less gov't, but I feel that there is so much that would never get done if it were not for the system in place.

Now, being of my fairly conservative school of thought, I will not claim to be a well rounded political thinker, but the way I see it, even if there was no gov't there would be a gov't due to the fact that some part(y/ies) would try to take over. Not to mention how exploitable a non governed group of people would be without a standing army.

Checks and balances, Checks and balances.

Before it became a silly and purely stylistic youth fad, anarchism was primarily an excuse for terrorism, assasination and other acts of violence by desperate and confused young people in 19th and early 20th century Europe (Genghis provides a good historical summary below). Anarchists were most active in Spain, southern Italy and Russia, not coincidentally the most tyranical and backward states of Europe. There was also a more respectable, peaceful branch of Anarchism, stressing human freedom from government coercion; this folded into Libertarianism by the 1930s. The more violent Anarchists either died off or folded into Fascism and Communism in the 1920s-though Anarchists lingered on in backward Spain until Franco took over. Anarchism possesses certain affinities with the more extreme versions of Islamic radicalism; in particular, the loathsome technique of 'suicide bombs' was first used by Russian anarchists. There is a good description of Russian anarchists in Doestoevsky's 'The Devils'.

society is the bed rock of the civilised world, how could society survive if people could do what they like and be damned to there niebough. i believe order is the supreme virtue, i am well aware of what people will do if order breakes down.

Would never work.

Some believe that Anarchy dosen't mean chaos. However, Anarchy can do nothing to stop chaos.

If you live within one foot of reality, you know what humans are capable of doing. Therefore you'd accept anarchism as unfeasible. I'd like to see an anarchist make an argument for their cause's sustainability. Then again, anarchists don't tend to talk, they just mindlessly fight. Being terrible proponents for their cause.

I had some friend who told me that Property is theft. I said really? and took his cigarettes. I then reminded him that I was bigger than him and could maintain ownership of the cigarettes by the use of force. Under Anarchy, I was in the right. Really what Anarchy promises, is the opression of the weak by the strong in spite of all the pleadings of fairness. I then told my friend that I respect law and order, police and government and in that spirit, returned the cigarettes.

Anarcho-socialism is the best form of societal organization. People making negative comments against anarchy are correct, when they're thinking of anarcho-socialism, which is a contradiction in terms. Socialism requires coercion to be implemented on a societal scale, and thus is the opposite of anarchism.

Not the worst of idealogical principles, but certainly not feasible. An ideal of a utopian society, as anarchism requires the voluntary co-operation of individuals.

aka: faux conservatism, aka, the beleif of most people who use this sight that claim to be conservatives

Being involved in the underground music scene for years, I was literally surrounded by tons of those who believed in this cause. All the time I thought it was a nice enough idea but never really bought into it (even in high school I thought it sounded too good to be true) primarily because so many of these types were complete hypocrites always lecturing down to others about lacto-vegan diets, the evil automobile, and a soul-destroying system that we live in. Camiile Paglia sums it up best: Anarchism is glorified thumb-sucking. Period!

An abstract notion suitable for ardent discussion in college coffee shops. I'd give it four stars for its ability to impress the more intense and newly bohemian college girl. As a working, practical ideology, not even on the radar screen.

Anarchism, under the right circumstances and if introduced properly to a society, could work.

If you all really think the only thing stopping everyone from killing each other is a bunch of laws on books, you are either extremely naive or incredibly gullible. Either way y'all would not survive in an anarchy. Trade safety for freedom, hell yes. by the way the world is already an anarchy, humans just like to play that they hold power over one another. Bring on the crazies, mines loaded, is yours?

There is more pathology than philosophy to anarchy. The anarchist is an utterly miserable and tragic figure. The sad reality is that most if not all persons identifying themselves as anarchists are victims of childhood brain trauma. Most eventually succumb to suicide, drug overdose or violent crime. It's terrably tragic. A distorted grasp of reality that manifests itself in paranoia and a victim complex. A psychological malaise passed off as some alternate means of a society completely out of touch with human nature. Besides, without exception, anarchy leads to feudalism.

MavericklnShades, dude the 60's are over, put down the bong, shrooms, ecstacy or whatever and get back into the real world.

Yeah, what Ralph said.

Listen To Me, All You People Who Just Look At Anarchy As Chaos and Destruction. Anarchy Is Just Another Word For Utopia, Peace, Nirvana, or Heaven. It Is A State Where Everyone On This Earth Will No Longer Have To Be Ruled By A Government. Do You Think There Would Be A Government In Heaven? Hell No! Everyone Is So At Peace With Themselves, That No Government Is Required. Do I Think This Is Ever Going To Happen? NO! Society Is Too Screwed Up To Be Fixed. Laws Are Added Every Year, and At The Rate We Are Going, The Entire World Will Be Enslaved And No New Ideas Will Ever Be Born. If Laws Continue, We Will Be Forced Back Into The Stone Ages and Will Loose All Knowledge We Have Gained. Without Laws People Are Able To Be More Creative and Have Their Ideas Flourish Rather than Smothered Out By Rules and Regulations. Genius Will Proceed and A New World No Order Will Begin.

rampant crime and murder unchecked by law just pure evil. it shows the worst humans have to offer and is the worst form of government or lac of it that could ever happen

I don't care what anyone says or what proves they give me that Anarchy can be done in a peaceful and utopic way, I sitll think they are not very well informed about the human nature. Anarchy is a bloody, lawless state, where inocent suffer.

Idiocy.

It might sound great at times (namely, April 15) but without government there would be chaos...

Though at times I can be quite the Utopian idealist, the Reactionary within tells me that this is the mother of all silly dreams disguised as ideologies. Whether one views the 'Social Contract' agreed upon by the State and the people as did Hobbes or as did Locke, government of some form or other is necessary to achieve a stable and properly-functioning society.

A lot of you are misinformed and rather naive. Anarchism does not translate into chaos, but the elimination of the state. Anarchists promote a society based on voluntary co-operation, whether they are anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-syndicalists. Once again, anarchy does not translate into mob-rule. A government is not required for a city covenant to be formed. 7 big companies could get together and found a city by creating housing and industry. Anyone wishing to live in this development would be required to sign a covenant, agreeing to follow certain rules. Established cities would have to compete with others, in turn making them more desirable to attract people. This was an extremely vague overview of anarcho-capitalism, but I hope it serves as an example to those who believe anarchy equates to mob-rule and somehow is contradictory to human nature.

Anarchism is sick. It means chaos.

Totally missunderstood. Look it up you will be suprised.

At the top of the list someone said that for the majority of human existence there has been anarchy... This is obviously not true, we are social creatures and therefore band together in a social environment, as such we have leaders... Tribal leaders in African tribes wage war just as they have for thousands and thousands of years. Even if we accept that anarchy has existed for a long time, does that make it right? HELL NO!!! No government means that people do what they want, your neighbor has a pot you like? Kill him. You have a really pretty looking rock? Better watch out for people trying to kill you and steal it! Oh you'll notice that a rock and a pot were the items, thats because you wouldn't get the things you like... Corporations would not exist, and if they did they would start corporatocracy which brings you back to having a government, but a corporatocracy is somewhat like mixing kleptocracy and plutocracy... Point is Anarchy is bullshit!

Hey, how about this. History has shown us that without authority, there would be chaos... What exactly do you mean by history? If you're talking before 3000 BCE (Which is most of man's 1,000,000 year plus history) anarchists are exactly what we were, for hundreds of thousands of years! Now, in USA, geez, considering all the violent, greedy people we've bred, it's scary. We're not enlightened enough for that. I'm ideologically an anarchist, but pragmatically a socialist. Oh, yeah, I wear regular jeans and a t-shirt, only piercings are earrings, and I don't tend to scream; in fact, I'm a pacifist.

How many of these cretins sporting Anarchists logos on black jackets next to the name of some sad punk bands have ever heard of, let alone read, Mikhail Bakunin, the 'Marx' of Anarchism. They've simply hijacked the word rather than admit they are nihlists with no political agenda at all. The words 'anarchy'and 'anarchists' is also too freely bandied around by government-controlled media to discredit groups that take radical action against certain government policies.

The worst form of government that could be and the opposite in how humanity should evolve to greatness. With anarchy, there would be no structure to reward those courageous and bold enough to follow the rules and do good things, so all of the people that do whatever they can to survive would take power. This would be a frightening example of the outmoded social darwinism that should be long gone.

Anarchism is the highest possible form of development of the human on Earth. What anarchy really means is that there is no central authority that provides order. It goes against the whole Hobbesian notion that we need authority to prevent us from killing ourselves. In order for this to work, humanity would have had to achieve near perfection. Humanity is imperfect because people's interests are at constant odds with each other. These differences are manifested in the constant struggle between various competing interest groups. Therefore, laws are needed to prevent coercion among the people. Laws are needed because man is not a noble creature. It is in the greater interest of the whole of society that men prevent constant struggle; humans will be allowed to develop their talents better if they were not constantly at odds with each other. This ideology emphasizes a Utopian ideal in which all men cooperate with each other on a worldwide level without regards to the social divisions existant today. In the real world, this won't even come close to working, for man is ambitious and possesses a variety of talents that are not equal. The critism of Anarchism is similar to that of Marx's ideology. Marx did not advocate a strong state; at the highest form of development, he advocated a form of anarchism where there would be no class structure. As long as society is consumed with contradictory stances considering class, race, and talents, this could never work.

Mindless, idiotic rubbish. Nothing more to say.

how do you suppose images of mad max relate to your image of anarchy? what do you suppose nurtures the human characteristics of greed and selfishness? why do you suppose people may be labeled insane or stupid? FACT! the world is becoming less violent. why do you suppose one might think it is becoming more violent? the answers to these questions all relate back to the media and propaganda, to capitalism and the way the world is now and how 'they' want it to remain. bad things happen every day, do you really think that the fall of authority will transform everyone into raving psychotics? what would you do? what would your neighbour do? you would probably carry on living your life, paving the roads and whatnot! boundaries and borders, mental and physical, have created a world where pyschiatry is a well paid job. with out constrictions i gaurantee you wont need pyschology. anarchy, meaning no authority, has existed in pre structured political eras, how do you think it got to that stage? and before you beg the question why do u think politics was invented? i would like to ask what is the number one effective way of controling mass populations? does that answer the question? the current trend of capitalist authortitve states, that will end in the consumption of all our resources and police states with no civil liberties is a far more scary thought than having no authority to protect me. a mad man will mug me whether the police are present or not. and one more thing, anarchists think more than most, they have to, for they are the ones that question EVERYTHING! how long do you honestly think the world is going to last with the likes of Bush at the helm?

The oldest form of survival.

In a perfect world, this would be the ideal system. It is basically the definition of a utopia. However, our world is far from perfect, and it would be impossible to get everyone to just agree to be civil to one another and respect each other. I mean, there would probably be roving criminal bands, from whom the populace would require protection. This protection would be in the form of a posse, which would evolve into a militia or a police force, which would abuse its authority if there were not some higher authority governing it, and the whole anarchical system would cease to exist as humanity organizes itself into hierarchical subgroups. Just knowning a thing or two about people, I do not see how a large group of people would voluntarily cooperate with each other for the equal benefit of all. Someone is always going to want more than others, which would breed inequality all over again. If it were possible I would be completely for it, but sadly it isn't, not on this planet with this species.

It sounds great, but unfortunately there are too many assholes in this world. Too much Greed, selfishness, stupidity, ect. These people would never allow anarchism to work. Maybe it could work on a small scale, but I can't see the entire world going along with this very logical ideology.

Anarchism is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of. Without a government, everything breaks down and absolutly nothing is possible but chaos. And with chaos, things end up worse than with the harshest rule imaginable(except the nazis).

Anarcy is the most highly developed politiacal system that could exist, but at the same time a political system doesn't exist under these doctrines. It would require at least limited responsibilty by the people that live under an anarchy. people should be given a choice.. live under anarchy or under law, that is the true principle of Anarchy, the choice to live under law or absolute freedom.

I have to agree with gp_valkyrie. Anarchism isn't what most people "think" it is. It actually is a good idea, however, it would NEVER work because most (all) people are either too greedy, selfish, evil, lazy, etc... Anarchism doesn't mean complete lawlessness either, it calls for a small temporary and voluntary order of organization when needed, which would ultimately create other problems (as to who would volunteer and why?)

First of all Capitalism isn't any better. It is killing millions of people, axploiting nature and it is terrible. True Anarchism aren't those inbecil punks walking around the streets, they are nothing and a waste of space in Anarchist society. If you ask yourself who will pave the roads etc, YOU WILL HAVE TO. If all you want is freedom so you can do whatever you want, you have to learn to cooperate. But since humanity is to stupid to work together (only for money), Anarchism will never work. But at least the good things about TRUE ANARCHISM is that they : Care about nature and all life forms, respect everybody including cats and birds etc, cooperate, it isn't about TOTAL CHAOS, people that say that are inbecils, it heck is about overthrowing the government but since people that want the best for our nature and want everybody to respect each other are considered TERRORISTS after the new partiot act, then I really ask myself if Anarchism is so much worse than Capitalism. The real ideas of Anarchism are good and if you haven't read them yet and base your decision whether it is good or not then you for sure are the proof that Anarchism will not work because of how fake you are.

Seriously, this is stupid. About the only people I've met who were into this were some punk rocker friends I had in college (complete with safety pins through the ears) who seemed to survive on beer, the Sex Pistols and breaking furniture.

While this idea interested me when I was about 12, it's a ridiculous political idealogy for obvious reasons. If there were nothing keeping anyone from violating your rights, you would always have to take matters into your own hands, right? Well in that case, society would be one huge ongoing war.

Total freedom without any laws or restrictions is a very dangerous idea. History has shown us too often that if let unattended to, man will allow his greed, selfishness, insanity, and hate to take its form and total lawlessness and mayhem will result. If any of you have read the novel, "Lord of the Flies", you know what I am talking about. If anarchism were predominant in the world today, than civilizaiton would end as we know it.