Anarchism Equals Chaos: Does It - Essay Example

? Anarchism equals chaos: does it? Anarchism equals chaos: does it? With the world full of inequalities, anarchy aims at creating a society where individuals live in a free society. It is warranted to argue that the inequalities in the society have been the basis of inequality and issues in the society. The world has been overwhelmed by the untenable system, thus, a lot of curiosity and war has been witnessed in the society. In the work of Marshall (2010, p.395), anarchy has been defined as a society whereby all men are equal, and the society applies less force and compulsion on the masses. In this society, hence, human beings enjoy their freedom, and live in peace and harmony. However, Marshall (2010, p.395) warns that anarchy does not mean that wrong doers will go scot-free. Marshall (2010, p.395) also emphasizes that anarchism allows for equality as well as functioning of the society whereby the affairs of all humans are managed by individual associations, and the powers of the state are limited. This is to suggest that no rules should be imposed on the individuals or any code of conduct. Individuals and the state in this case, mind their own businesses (Marshall, 2010, p.390).This essay shall aim at analyzing the concept of anarchism and whether the entire concept may lead to chaos or not. In the work of Goodway (2011, p.156), anarchy can be discussed as not being chaotic. From the work one would argue that anarchy rejects organization- organization of how the state imagines that the society should be structured. Anarchists believe that the society should be organized on the basis of personal freedom and social justice. Additionally, anarchists believe that in the event that coercive organizations in the society are replaced by decentralized and no-hierarchical systems, it would be easier to control the likelihood of any occurrence of conflicts in the society. This leads to the argument that anarchy does not result to chaos, as individuals function on the basis of collective service and mutual responsibility (Graham, 2005, p.28) With anarchy creating a free society, where individuals work as equals, all of them strive to fulfill their needs and desires. Graham (2005, p.28) argues that anarchy allows the members of the society to work when free, and in the long run, managing the lives of these people is very easy. It is obvious that supervising and coercing persons will create chaos, as they are given a chance to choose what they desire. If this form of coercion is imposed in communities at large, chances are chaos will burst out. This proves that anarchy does result to chaos, but minimizes chances of chaos blowing up. On the other hand, the work of Purkis & Bowen (2005, p.50) indicates that anarchy defines an ending of the powers of the state, capitalism and organized form of religion. The few in the society have subjected the majority to their rule, which is the major cause of conflicts. In this case, therefore, anarchism is a solution to this rule by the few- the few who also accumulate a lot of wealth and impose their influence on their subjects. Purkis & Bowen (2005, p.51) indicate that anarchism is against the state as well as capitalist ideologies, which have created the concept of private property. Through anarchism, issues such as sexism, racism, and religious prejudice are minimized. In summation, anarchism advocates for creation of a society that incorporates all persons despite their being affiliated to any groupings. In such a society, how do conflicts and chaos come in? In fact, decentralization of the society as seen in the argument of Shantz (2009, p.12), power lies in the people and not among few persons in the top hierarchies. In the argument that anarchism allows for individuals to organize themselves in a free society, Shantz (2009, p.12) argues that the society can be run without the ‘bosses’. The ‘ordinary’ persons are therefore given a chance to defend their rights and interests; thus, a transformation in the society at large. A closer view of this situation displays the fact that there will be fewer chances of rebellion, and noncompliance to the rules put in place, as the same ‘ordinaries’ are the rule makers. On a critical point of view, it is evident that anarchism would be practical in the everyday life of humans. In the event that the rights of humans are breached, actions are put in place to guarantee that these freedoms are enjoyed by all humans. Anarchism would therefore allow for fighting for solidarity, promote cooperation, and create a situation where the leaders respect the ruled (Shantz, 2009, p.12). A good example is where anarchists champion for the rights of the workers through trade unions, fight against racism, and sexism amongst others. This will create a long- term solution to a likelihood of conflicts arising; thus, minimize chaos. Anarchy, in relation to Shantz (2009, p.12), is a struggle that aims at changing the society. The society at large is mobilized towards real change, a form of change that resists oppression from the rulers or the ones that are considered owners of the state. The ruled are able to challenge the authority, a situation that disciplines the rulers against oppressing the ruled. Anarchists, therefore, believe that the role of the state is minimal in representing the people, and it only exists so as to tyrannize the ruled (Shantz, 2009, p.13). Since the state is the major problem, anarchists propose that the ruled be part of the solution, by demanding for their rights from the elite. This cannot be termed as chaos, but a gateway to search for long term peace and stability in the state. Of essence, anarchism is a simple means to radical change in the society. Chaos detonate when the ruled are not given an opportunity to participate in direct action. Anarchists advocate for struggle among the masses that create a situation whereby the government is forced to listen to the voice and pleas of the people. Anarchists are in this case, anti- parliamentarians, and believe that real change can be attained outside the politics and control of the bourgeoisie. Noteworthy improvements are then attained, chaos eliminated since the arrogance of the bourgeoisie is restrained by the aggressive voice of the proletariats (Shantz, 2009, p.12). The thoughts of Shantz (2009, p.12) also narrow down to the thought that anarchism does not result into chaos. Though numerous analysts and researchers argue that a society without rules would automatically be a chaotic one, Shantz (2009, p.12) is of the view that anarchism does not require rules for the society to survive. Alternatively, Shantz (2009, p.12) argues that in such a society, creative and peaceful human relations will arise. Simply put, Shantz (2009, p.12) indicates that anarchy is in itself order, that creates positive responses to problems that affect the society. Societies that are anti-anarchy are coercive as evident in the laws passed and the coercion of the masses to adhere to the set rules. Coercion will lead to resistance and punishment; as a result, a chaotic society, as opposed to an anarchical society. Since the legislations passed by the anti-anarchy governments are not passed for the good of the people, organized crimes are inescapable as the majority will resist as opposed to submission (Shantz, 2009, p.13). Buckley (2011, p.11) clearly warns against misunderstanding the concept of anarchy as creating chaos. Buckley (2011, p.11) says that anarchy refers to absence of a government, where order and harmony are integral parts of the society. This peace and harmony prevails through the natural development of the free community. The masses enjoy access to resources, are free to express their views, and participate in nation building activities. With no hierarchy categorizing the individuals on the basis of their abilities and class, no person regards themselves as superior and important than the other (Buckley, 2011, p.11). The common notion of law and order according to Buckley (2011, p.11) has no place in an anarchist society. This society works on fundamental justice and the general morality of humans without intimidation from the government (Buckley, 2011, p.12). On the whole, this is to mean that a society devoid of a government is not necessarily a disorderly one, but a sensible one. On the contrary, it is important to assess the likelihood that anarchism is the source of chaos since the masses can in no way manage themselves on their own. On a critical point of view, one would argue that without the bosses or rather the bourgeoisie class, a state’s balance sheet would have numerous anomalies. Self management is not possible at the grass root level, since there is need to educate the masses on the roles they need to play in the society. Coordination and order must be the blueprint of success in any society, failure to which, a society will be prone to all manners of behavior in the name of democracy. Conclusively, anarchism can arguably be indicated to cause no or minimal chaos in the society. Man is naturally anti-rules; therefore, giving them a chance to be free gives them a sense of belonging to the state. References Buckley, A., 2011.Anarchism. London: ABDO. Goodway, D., 2011. Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. London: PM Press. Graham, R., 2005. Anarchism: From anarchy to anarchism (300 CE to 1939). London: Black Rose Books Ltd. Marshall. P., 2010.Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. NY: PM Press. Purkis, J., & Bowen, J., 2005.Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Shantz, J., 2009.Living Anarchy: Theory and Practice in Anarchist Movements. London: Academica Press, LLC. Read More