Chaos, violence, and of course, anarchy; the three terms most commonly associated with the political philosophy known as anarchism - the belief that society should function in the absence of government.

Currently this concept is promptly shown the back door in most political discussions due to its complete contrast with the status quo – all you have to do is list the three words: chaos, violence, and anarchy, and watch your perception of this ideology consume itself. However, when compared with our current political systems, it becomes apparent that it has its merits, and its downfalls, like any other political ideology. It just so happens that the requirements of 21st century life are increasingly aligning with the merits of anarchism.

First and foremost, it’s important to address anarchism’s most apparent flaw, especially in relation to the current state of affairs. Most would argue that the underlying defect of anarchism is the seemingly ludicrous optimism associated with its primary objective: the abolition of the state. The idea that peace, harmony and eudaimonia can prevail without hierarchal regulation is, admittedly, an arduous concept to entertain, particularly when the apparent benefits of state protection encompass our way of life at every turn.

However, not all civilians are fortunate enough to benefit from the same level of state protection. There are many parts of the world that are continuously ravaged by war, famine and oppression, where states are facilitating violence towards their own people and against others. Initially it may seem sensible to label these states as ‘unsuccessful’, and the peaceful, prosperous lands of eternal economic growth, as the opposite. This is perhaps the largest collective act of abstention from moral responsibility that we as a society are capable of committing – for the two concepts are inseparable.

It is a total evasion to point at shapes on a map and come to the conclusion that certain states work and others don’t. States are a product of one another; borders are decided following war, violence and oppression, ideologies are tirelessly juggled between them, and economies are completely reliant on each other. Is it not just as ludicrously optimistic and infantile to separate the supposedly good and successful states from the tyrannical ones, despite their absolute interdependence, just so we can romanticise with the fallacy that the unexploited states are beneficial to society?

There are an infinite number of examples of how the seemingly pristine states are involved with the atrocities occurring in places such as the Middle East - in fact there are so many connections that they can no longer be hidden from the public. I need not lecture you on the reality of how Europe’s mishandling of the Middle East following World War II has resulted in millions of deaths, as it’s something that deep down the general public is already aware of. And yet despite this we still desperately cling on to our innocence. Somehow the fact that it’s happening over there and not over here, means that in some way they must be doing something wrong, and we must be doing something right.

This is a grip that is rapidly deteriorating in the 21st century. Globalisation has turned thousands of kilometres of distance from a significant obstacle into a minor inconvenience for the average person, resulting in the start of this century showcasing the most horrific terrorist attacks in the West we have ever seen. The lines are blurring, people and places are becoming completely interconnected, and turning a blind eye is becoming less and less plausible. We will no longer be able to hide behind the idea that our state is virtuous, and others are malicious: we will have to admit that the interconnected state cultivates violence, chaos, and anarchy. There is growing evidence that this is the case – ‘QAnon’, the very phenomenon undermining US politics, is founded on the idea of the ‘dual state’, in which autocratic figures operate above the law to mislead and mistreat the electorate. Democracies, under the prevailing pressure of the electorate, are always inclined to conceal the ‘bad’ that is perpetuated in pursuit of the ‘good’, and this is raising greater questions around the sanity of the states so often considered ethically immaculate.

When evaluated fairly, on a global scale, it becomes clear that the state facilitates an immense amount of suffering and violence throughout the world. This poses the question: why is it any more optimistic to imagine a non-state without violence than a state without violence?

Supporters of Hobbes’ political philosophy may answer this question by saying sovereign authorities are designed to reduce violence rather than completely prevent it, whereas a non-state has no measures in place to reduce violence at all. A non-state, or “State of Nature”, as Hobbes calls it, is bound to have more violence than a state, as self-interested humans eventually encounter a scarcity of resources and have no sovereign to prevent a conflict over them.

The problem with this argument is that Hobbes isn’t just describing a “State of Nature”, but he is also describing today’s status quo. If the argument is framed within the context of 21st century globalisation and the interconnectedness of states, as previously discussed, then we tick all of the boxes. Self-interested states - represented by a portion of elected, self-interested humans - are encountering a scarcity of resources on a global scale, and there is no sovereign of the global interconnected state with the authority to prevent or significantly reduce conflict between constituent states. The UN is trying, but ultimately does not have the authority of a global sovereign.

How can Hobbes’ “State of Nature”, which is defined as having no form of government, tick the exact same boxes that our status quo, a world full of governments, ticks? Because the governments are ineffective at governing a global, interconnected state. Globalisation has tasked these governments with something they are incapable of doing, and so we have inched closer and closer towards Hobbes’ “State of Nature”.

This is where anarchism has something to offer. At the moment we are enduring the worst of both worlds; we are suffering the violence, conflict and war cultivated by the state, and we are sacrificing our agency to the state. This is an infinite loop. We delegate the world’s largest problems to self-interested politicians, they use this power to create other problems, so we delegate these new problems to new self-interested politicians. Anarchism offers to break this cycle by moving towards a society where agency is reclaimed by the individual, and localised decision-making gives everyone within the community a chance to control the problems affecting their lives.

A system like this gives people the power to move away from Hobbes’ violent “State of Nature” and towards a society where there are rules and social structures without any governing authority at the top. Suddenly we are experiencing the best of both worlds; we have reclaimed agency and the ability to take matters into our own hands, and we are no longer enduring violence created by omnipotent figures. Instead, the ability to limit and reduce violence and chaos is stored within each individual.

Some may argue that a society like this offers severe implications to our societal progression, and whilst there are strong arguments for and against this, it is important to realise that the value within anarchism is not in the ends that it will produce, it is within the means: the facilitation of meaningful action at an individual level. This is more important than chasing economic growth and building skyscrapers as it restores an intrinsic purpose to each individual.

And for those who say it can’t be done: it can. The Spanish Revolution of 1936 brought rise to an anarchist stronghold in the region of Catalonia. Huge parts of the economy were put under worker control; factories were managed by worker committees, restaurants and hotels were collectivised, and agrarian areas became communes upholding libertarian values. In fact, these communes often produced more than before the revolution, with yields increasing by up to 50% in some areas. Does this sound particularly chaotic or violent? All of this was achieved in an on-going civil war against the fascist movement, which eventually led to its demise.

If the past 18 months have told us anything, it’s that people are more likely to take to the streets and induce violence and chaos when they feel that their control, their agency, has been taken from them. From the desperation for justice in the tragic murder of George Floyd in the US, to the outrage associated with the ‘Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’ here in the UK, people violently took to the streets because they felt they had lost another portion of control over their lives. Critics of anarchism state that the abolition of government and the insurgence of individual agency results in chaos, and yet here are clear examples of Governments moving in the opposite direction, with the same effects. Restoring agency gives individuals a sense of control over their lives and their futures, which gives them less reason to induce chaos.

With all of this said, anarchism is proving not only to be an effective tool at holding the current state of affairs to account, but is also offering a more prudent approach to solving the issues associated with our status quo than most people would care to admit. The 21st century is seeing a significant increase in the distrust of politicians to solve issues like climate change and the war on terror; political party membership in the UK has been on the decline for decades now. The issues associated with globalisation are demanding a fresh approach, governments are out of their depth and cannot be trusted to solve our problems for us. Anarchism offers to break the cycle and empower each individual to play their part in solving these problems, and for that, it deserves to be entertained.

Josh Lamyman