Is anarchism better than civilization? Depending upon their social stratum different people will answer differently to this question. Rich and powerful will prefer civilization because that ensures security to their already easy life. No one would want to cast their luxurious life into the fire of anarchism. On the other hand, the weak and poor may have a preference for a shot on anarchism. The “civilized” society do not allow people belonging to lower strata to be in any better situation than their present. It does not matter what sort of social system the civilization follow —there would always be underprivileged people in it (yes, even socialism and communism don’t help in making poor’s lives better). So, it is no surprise that they may want to have a go at betterment by going through upheavals of anarchist times.
Laws are invented by the powerful to bind and exploit the poor. It’s counter-invention by the poor is morality. They tend to use morality to restrict rich people. These are two distinct schools of philosophy. Use of morality is surely more humane than the practices of the powerful which they deploy in order to exploit poor. But who cares in this materialistic world? Personal gain, in the form of money, name, fame etc., is the sole (stated or otherwise) objective for most humans. All they want is to have more and, once possessed, to secure what they have got. “Love thy neighbor” is only a bookish line. Unfortunately, there is a huge gap among various sections of our society. Even more unfortunately, no one can eliminate this gap.
Argument of anarchists is that there are really no master and no slave in anarchism. This, apparently, is true too. There is no law, no government, no controlling force in anarchism. All folks are equally free and equally doomed as well. People can gather wealth —but can as well lose it in minutes. Or people may have lived in poverty for long —but they have a fair chance of becoming rich by looting someone else! In anarchism, the survival of fittest becomes the mantra.
The last sentence of the above para is the law of natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin. So, can’t it be inferred that anarchism is a more natural way of living? If you are weak, you die. But you don’t become a slave!… If you are powerful, you get all you need and want. But you don’t hoard!… Fair enough!… And brilliant too —isn’t it?
But still we humans don’t like anarchism. We want to have a civilization around us. Even if we don’t have material wealth —we still want to live —we want to live in order to feel various emotions like love, meager satisfactions, little joys… and even the happiness of overcoming hardships!
We want to live… and, in general, we want to live as long as possible… That’s why we are civilized. Disparity is a bane of civilization that we have to live with. But civilization provides better security to our live. We may fret about everything that we don’t have —but we want to continue to live in order to cherish whatever little we have. We don’t like anarchism.