[ad_1]
Anarchy, derived from the Greek word for without authority, has various definitions. Anarchists believe people can govern themselves, but questions arise about how a society without government would function, especially in caring for those with disabilities. Some advocate for voluntary community acts, while others believe in total anarchy. Anarchy can also occur after a revolution, leading to chaos and often dictatorship. While anarchy represents the desire for true freedom, it may be naive and difficult to sustain in the modern world.
Anarchy is a confusing word to define, as it has several possible definitions. The word comes from the Greek word anarchy, which simply translates as without or without authority. In the modern sense, it can be used negatively or positively, but more often than not the word is used in a negative sense to imply a complete lack of order.
In another sense, anarchism can refer to the idea that people would profit more without government of any kind. Anarchists believe that most people can govern themselves and would be happier doing so. Under this idea of self-government, as opposed to government by the state, come many theories about how no government might work. There are questions about whether people, for example, have the same currency, have to abide by the same laws, or have any sort of organized assistance.
It would be difficult to argue that all individuals are capable of doing this. For example, in a deliberately anarchic society, there is the question of what one would do with a severely incapacitated person from mental retardation. The person may not be able to act in their own self-interest or for the welfare of society. If that person had no guardians, it is unclear what arrangements there would be in an ungoverned society to care for such a person.
Common sense might point to creating institutions for such people or at least some form of help, but how to get the money for this is unclear. It has certainly been true that previously government-run programs to help such people, which are now run on a charity basis, often need more money than they can get through individual donations. There would be no guarantee in an anarchist society that people in need of extraordinary care would ever receive it.
These types of questions have led to many anarchist societies – the words themselves are almost an oxymoron given the philosophies of anarchism – each with different ways of suggesting how anarchy might work successfully. Some believe that individuals would use their common sense to help those less able to work in the world and believe in maintaining some sense of social rules and structure without a large governmental structure overseeing the process.
Others believe in total anarchy, advocating absolutely no agreed upon rules, with each person acting in their own interest. All community acts would be voluntary, but such a society would still be based on neighborhood interests to help others for the good of an entire community. This would include things like a voluntary agreement to fix roads or keep hospitals open. Most anarchist philosophies emphasize that communities should be relatively small and closely knit together to function. There have been some small communities which have maintained anarchism for several years without much difficulty. Chief among these was the Free Territory in Ukraine, which thrived in the early 20th century without a government.
Another type of anarchy, which relates more clearly to the negative definition, occurs when a revolution leaves a country in a temporary lawless state. For example, the reign of terror after the French Revolution was lawless and appalling. It was characterized by a fundamental lack of some rights that most democratic and republican countries take for granted. Violence could be committed at any moment, without much reason, and the resulting death toll was enormous. Other countries have gone through times of chaos and people are often looking for someone to restore order. This often leads to dictatorship.
Anarchy is an unusual concept, and perhaps expresses the desire in its most ambitious form for true freedom. It’s not necessarily bad, but it can be a little naive. It’s hard to imagine how that might work over a long period of time in the modern world, especially since so many people seem to want leadership, rules, and some sense of government support.
