Guido wrote:I believe that a substantial part of the population of the world (especially the western world) needs some kind of externally-set boundaries in life (note that we have this at this moment in the form of the law, police and politics). I invite anyone who has studied anarchism to prove me wrong.
It's not something that needs proving right or wrong. Most Anarchists don't have the same view as Marxists or whoever else, ie. We must convert the world to our thinking; everyone should be an Anarchist. Many people apparently CAN'T live their lives without some coercive force keeping them from strangling their neighbor; to deny that would be to deny millions of crimes every day. Some of us apparently can. We stick together and do what we can. Converting the unbeliever is a matter of "try it and see if it works for you", not "listen to historical/philosophical argument A, B, or C and be convinced" or "here's a sword in your neck, do what I say" like many other philosophies. Any anarchist who's thought it through for five minutes can tell you there's something wrong with the idea of a "hostile/coercive anarchist takeover" given the ideology's heavy reliance on non-coercion. Anyway, arguing that someone like me needs the police to keep me from raping the first woman I manage to overpower just as much as some roided-up basket case, is like arguing that we all need billboard and banner ads or else nobody would ever desire a good or service. Some of us have just a bare threshold minimum of maturity/wisdom to realize what's good for us without having to learn the hard way every time.
In any case, you won't meet many anarchists who get beyond the Break Stuff Woohoo Hullaballoo of street action, and profess to think Anarchism is some political theory you can just apply after occupying City Hall and declaring a revolution. It don't work that way. By the way, I don't self-identify as an Anarchist or organize my beliefs that way, but i do believe a lot of the same things many Anarchists do about law, coercion, human behavior, and sociology.
If what you're saying, though, is "people need an
ideology to keep them from behaving like pissed off chipanzees" well... maybe, maybe not. I think that, actually, our disposition is more important than our ideology in mitigating behavior. I am a nonviolent (by nature, not by ideology; I have a very low threshold for violence and very little violent impulse is what i mean) nonreligious person who does not actively subscribe to any well-documented ideology of spirituality or of physics or metaphysics in general, not to mention no major, well-attended theory of ethics or personal behavior. i do as my heart commands, and it rarely gets me into trouble. I'm just a very safe person. I don't make the kind of shitty decisions that a concrete ideology (including secular, scientific ones here too) or religion or system of law seeks to prevent the most. I make embarassing decisions, but they only ever hurt or shame myself. In short, I'm a totally unimpressive, nearly-inert doofus. The only harm I do is by merely living my toxic, high-energy suburban life which, by a process I don't profess to understand but is very real nonetheless, is slowly killing Africans and other brown people I've never met, and also now Mother Nature, so I hear!