Anarchy, along very similar lines, will also tend to Totalitarianism. The anarchist ideal is that there should be no laws, no government. However, the ideal of anarchism is completely and totally unrealistic in any actual application. There are two kinds of problems with anarchy: problems from the outside and problems from within. An anarchist nation must have some sort of natural resources or compensatory capabilities in order to survive. Nearby regimes would not generally let those resources remain in the hands of a divided "nation" for very long. Rather, one would expect a rather immediate occupation the land of a defenseless agglomeration of individuals by a far more organized and powerful nearby army. In this case, it is extremely likely that someone would rise from the masses of anarchists to organize others and resist the invaders. This individual would rapidly become the leader of the "nation," and immediately rules would be established to govern conduct. Power thus being centrally established, it would be very, very odd to see that new governor relinquish the position, or even to see the populace want him to do so. After all, if one invader is somehow vanquished, either it may return or another may invade at some point in the future. So, any island of anarchism is an obviously untenable system. In order for anarchy to have any hope at all of success, it must therefore be total anarchy, worldwide.
Here, the problems from within come into play, and they are far more substantial than those from without. We have seen even in a regulated society like that of America, that individuals tend to oppress other individuals, and groups of like-minded individuals tend to rally behind such oppression and systematize it. The only way to curtail this imposition of one man's will onto another's is to regulate and enforce the regulation. Imagine, then, the kind of social utopia one would find in an anarchistic society. There would be no reason anyone would attempt to create anything of value, even in their own selves, for fear that a stronger oppressor may become interested in taking it away. Stronger individuals and groups would simply dominate regionally and begin to make laws that work to their benefit. On some level, human society was once anarchistic, but the situation inexorably evolves to the same place: laws, dictators and the like. If anarchy were re-introduced in the modern day, it would be extraordinarily likely that the outcome would be far worse. The logical conclusion of the system is a pure social Darwinism followed by a very rigid dictatorship that exists only to the benefit of the rulers. Physically weaker individuals and classes (women come to mind as obvious victims of the transition from the anarchy to the dictatorship) would suffer incredibly. And, in the final irony, all semblances of liberty and lawlessness would be consumed by rigid control and slavery. All notions of "the good of the many" would subordinate themselves to the exclusive benefit of the central dictatorship. It would be most likely to see a kingdom result, with the commensurate revolts and instability on the throne, but constancy in the overall oppression of the common man and woman.
back to other rants
home to hellhed