Thoughts and ideas on Anarchy

Why, what is and what isn’t anarchy?

Arguments for all come under:

1.The "anti-civilisation" argument,
2. Arguments asserting that the State represents and
promotes a monopolistic economic power structure
which would vanish in the State’s absence and
3. “The Individual versus the Collective”, including
violence, prisons and justice.

(1) OK, one thing anyone who knows anything about history/
archaeology will know that civilisational-heirarchical
systems do not last. Civilisations and Empires collapse.
America's will, ours will as well.

The question is: how do you stop 'civilisation' (defined
here as any monopolistic economic-power structure)
asserting itself and starting the whole cycle again?
More importantly, how do you prevent something worse
than the current system from asserting itself?

OK, so if we define the absence of any unsustainable
monopolistic economic-power structure as ‘anarchy’,
what forms of anarchy are possible?

(2) First of all, any monopoly is (a state-requiring)
government when you think about it-for example a
central bank, ruling out any Freidmanite form of so-called
anarchy. Still, could Libertarianism be a viable form of
anarchy, taking on board the argument that taxes are
theft and government should be as small as possible?

For example, public services-you could make the
argument (which I'm hardly convinced by) that having
certain services being state-run reduces the wages
of public sector workers, in other words wages for
important services (sewage, road maintenance etc)
may be higher if they are “outside state control” (whatever
that means, which in this case means “the market”).

This would maybe be argued by your Libertarians and
"anarcho-capitalists", some of whom believe in private
police forces (which are still police forces, 'cept even
less accountable), some in a voluntary state, and others
in a minimal state. None of which take directly into
account issues concerning homelessness, poverty and
ecological collapse, so these types tend to be on the
outside of anarchism and aren't generally
considered Anarchists.


What about corporations?

Multinationals are too powerful to be restrained by any
state, but not so powerful that they don't need the state
or haven't already super-ceded it as some commentators
claim will occur.

One of the reasons corporations support the state is
simply because they employ, in real terms, fewer workers
globally over time so, in order to protect them from the
masses of workers and peasants outside of the corporate
system (as full, global employment would negate profits),
economic monopolistic state-capitalism is then required.

(3) An example of this is the "war on drugs"-the drugs
trade requires very little capital for its gains, but the effect
of the WoD is to push small-scale producers right to the
margins, while, through the global policies of neo-liberalism,
they cannot afford to produce anything else
(thinking mainly of coca and opium).

w