Free Essay About Why Anarchism Is Not Chaotic

Among the different political philosophies that have been established starting from the time of the ancient Greeks until today, contemporary times, is anarchism. By definition, anarchism is a political philosophy which targets having no state society or stateless societies. Without the state is the introduction of self-governed voluntary institutions which will be specializing on the different needs and demands of the polis (Brown, 1990). Rather than having a central state, the rise of non-hierarchical free associations is recognized. Therefore, upon aiming to achieve the goal of stateless societies, anarchists are known to oppose the authority and the hierarchical organization further aiming to destroy the state system. In other words, anarchism is molding the state through bringing out the initiatives from the people forming non-hierarchical free associations, anti-authority and hierarchical state system, and further achieving stateless societies (Walter, 2002).
As time passed by, anarchism was further divided into two schools of thoughts. The first one is the individual anarchism and the other one is social anarchism (Curtis, 1981). When we talk about individual anarchism, it is about having negative liberty. On the other hand, when we talk about the latter, it is about attaining positive liberty. Basically, individualist anarchism is putting more emphasis on the existence of man, achieving its main goals and objectives in life and giving all its needs and demands all at the same time without any state or governing body that may be corrupt or may interrupt such processes of attaining good life. On the other hand, socialist anarchism is about the state as a whole and individuals as part of the state. Social anarchism calls for common ownership or communism—all will be having equal footage in the eyes of the state, no one will be considered poor and no one is rich. In general, when we talk about anarchism, as it aims to eliminate the government, it would mean to strengthen the democratic control over organizations, considering the existence of non-hierarchical free associations (Kociatkiewicz & Kostera, 1998).
Now, we have the two sides of the coin. One would take that anarchism is equivalent to chaos while the other side would take anarchism as a means of achieving positive liberty which will give people a good and healthy life. Explaining the two sides would make it easier to digest, and also, it would make it easier for us to determine why anarchism should not be totally considered equivalent to chaos.
Government is established to monitor and regulate the state or the polis as other philosopher terms it. During the time of ancient Greeks, achieving justice is the main theme why political government must be placed into existence. Therefore, according to Plato and Aristotle, the establishment of government is necessary and that people are born naturally as homo politicus or political animal. Therefore, as state is considered as natural and not man-made, the existence of government should also be considered natural because there is a need for a certain body to rule over the state and to rule over its people.
Therefore, eliminating the state or the government can really lead to chaos. When there would be no government, there would be no one who will implement rules and laws of the state, there would be no one to oversee whether justice is denied or achieved. There would be no one who will rule and everyone will think and feel that they are not in their right track. In the sector of economy per se, no one will regulate the prices of the commodities. Therefore, the gap between the rich and the poor will be greater, thus, equality is not achieved. Those people who are more influential than the rest will consider them and will proclaim them as the most powerful. There is a big chance that there will be specific marginalized, oppressed and powerless sectors in the society. That is chaos. Then, if no one will be there to rule the society, there will no rules—absolute freedom is achieved.
Absolute freedom, indeed, is not a positive thing most especially when there is no government or ruler existing. Of course, we all know that people are self-interested. They are more governed by their appetitive sides. That, among everything, is the most dangerous. The appetitive part of the people makes them self-interested, there would be no cooperation and coordination and that is chaos.
Now, why is anarchism should not be totally considered equivalent to having chaos? Yes, it is recognizable that we do not have laws to regulate the movements inside the state or society, but we have natural laws (Ebenstein, 2000). These natural laws are the divine laws which need no any implementing body for it to be followed. If only people will understand that natural laws must be followed even though we do not have government to support and guide us, then chaos will not happen. That is how anarchism should be viewed differently from any philosophy that leads and aims to have chaos in the society. Indeed, anarchism is a positive thing as it imposes equality through having communal rights and equal footing among all people living in the society.

References

Brown, R. (1990). Classical political theories. New York: Macmillan.
Curtis, M. (1981). The Great Political Theories, NY: Avon Books
Ebenstein, W. (2000). The Great Political Thinkers, 6th Edition. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Kociatkiewicz, J. & Kostera, M. (1998). “Creativity out of chaos: anarchy and organizing.” Human Resource Development International 1/4, 383-398. DOI: 10.1080/13678869800000051
Walter, N. (2002). About Anarchism. Freedom Press.