I'm sure you've seen the word used, but the question is... was it used correctly? There is a large chance you've heard it disguised as chaos/lack of order, which is not true. If anything, anarchy means order. (Look at the famous A that people associate anarchy with, I can explain it if you'd like..)

Well ****, wikipedia says it pretty well:
Anarchy, in its broadest sense, refers to a political and social theory in which human society exists without government.

That's all I'm gonna say for now. Discuss!

well in most punk rock songs ive heard it discusses getting rid of government as Anarchy, however i believe the government wants us tyo think anarchy is total chaos and dissaray

I'm not very informed with the subject of anarchy. From what I've known, it's the state of time/era that lacks a central, organized, and powerful government.

Yeah, government wants us to believe that they're the glue that keeps us together, but they aren't, so anything that opposes them is instantly labeled as chaos. Could anarchy be chaos? Yeah, it could. An important part of anarchy is that it will never happen unless everybody is okay with it. This is the difference between Marxists and Anarchists, Marxists are very much a "if you aren't with us, you're against us" group whereas Anarchists want you to reach your own conclusion but they'll discuss anarchy with you. So if everybody is okay with anarchy, it wouldn't be chaos.

Having the government as leaders isn't doing us any good. It's already chaotic out there.

So anarchy yes, is a governmentless and free society where people use common sense and cooperation to survive. It won't solve every problem, but it's a good start.

Anarchy wants to demolish capitalism as well. There's actually a sub-group of anarchy called anarcho-capitalism and it's a retarded contradiction and I don't urge anybody to follow that. As my friend said, "Once capitalism is demolished, we'll work on the problems that occur."

Another issue is, that people look at Anarchists as "know it alls" but Anarchists don't have the world figured out. They just want to better the world slowly as they see fit. There's a lot of debate even among the Anarchists of what to do. Also, see my quote above.

And before anybody says anything in the vein of "it'll never happen" or anything to imply all it is is a dream, consider this quote from the same friend as the other one...

"Anarchy is a dream. Reality is a nightmare."
So why not try?

My views on the subject will support it, not define it. That was done quite well by Obdurate and Guitar Addiction. Think about what things would be like without a government. It would be more difficult in many ways. We would be much more self sufficient. We would have to create civilization in which every citizen did their share of the work without being forced to. Armies would be more difficult, if possible, to bring up. Less war. No one to formally command the amries. Huzzah. Unhazzah if some nation decides to take over. Government again. Revolt again. Repeat. Overall, though, I think things would be a lot better. Our lives would be ours to live, without the strings that government has attached to our arms and legs to get its work done. I am not good at conclusive sentences, so to prevent all of my posts looking truncated off, I'll start ending them all with: Butler out.

The gov we have today in America makes it so much easier compared to other countries. Anarchy can spawn into Communism, dictators could find a way into power, and you will never have a 100% agreement between the human race. (other than saying "all people should breathe to live," but yeah.)

But Communism is by far the best system to use. Capitalism has failed. It failed as soon as it began and we had cops created to protect the rich (and abuse the poor).
Anarchy= A society where money isn't God, where greed is lessened. Therefore making the crime rates lower, etc. It's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better.

Right. You won't. But you CAN compromise. It's like a relationship between lovers on a bigger scale. Capitalism does not encourage compromise. The government we have (I'm Canadian but the Canuck Government aren't saints) does not encourage compromise. Or even healthy growth.

It's a dog eat dog world (usually for money but I digress). Wipe my ass and I'll wipe yours.
"Let's all share our dreams under a communist moon."- The (International) Noise Conspiracy

Government has helped and harmed all people in some way. There's no avoiding that. Whether or not we would be better off without it is a difficult decision. I'd rather have no government. What do they do? They sit around contemplating laws concerning useless topics. I think that groups of small communities are better off than a web of communities under one spider. There are downsides to no central control, but it may be best not to be controled, and, for better or worse, live our own lives.

Well, if anarchy were to suddenly happen, the area would surely be engulfed in chaos. For example, the Roman Empire's collapse (AKA the start of the Middle Ages) left the European world in disorder, invasions were countless, many died for nothing, people killed for power, and it all ended up turning into feudalism, which is what Ich Bin is basically saying. Small communities, or manors in the Middle Ages case, where people pledge themselves to others, which is basically what Obdurate said. (AKA the part where he mentions compromise, if anyone isnt following.) If anyone doesnt know, the general definition of feudalism was a political environment where each person had different obligations, or jobs, to serve the community. Basically, both are saying that this sort of organization is the proper and most efficient, I think.

I dont see how anarchy would reduce crime rate, wouldn't you have a lot of people killed for the slightest disagreement? People are willing to do that for power. Are you saying those sacrifices should be made just to have a "better" system?

So it is true, history does tend to repeat itself...

The point is Anarchy won't happen over night. It's not supposed to because it'll be a gradual change, abolishing certain aspects one brick at a time. It's a chain of events, you won't even be alive when it happens.

How will Anarchy lower crime rates? Easy! If people can compromise enough to make Anarchy the new system, then a little disagreement wouldn't be shit. Think about it: how many crimes are due to financial issues? How many robberies do you have because people can't make ends meet or are jealous of people with more money than them? Abolish the upper class and the lower class, there you have it, everybody's middle. Will crime disappear? No, it won't. But Anarchists aren't retards, people won't sit back and let people run around killing people. Nobody will get into power because of this.

It's not black and white, nobody has every single procedure figured out but people have ideas. It's better than this. So, yes, the sacrifice is worth it.

Just for the record, true Communism hasn't been reached, and while history tends to repeat itself, the counter balance to that is the fact that people who want to make such a major change know their facts. The only reason this stuff fails is because people don't back it up like they should, but I know for a fact the popularity of Anarchism is on the rise.