Anarchy
Democracy
Chaos
Confusion
Violence
Anarchy: a political system with no hierarchy, that is, no-one has any greater power than anyone else, and consequently no-one oppresses anyone else.
For some reason, people think this means chaos, confusion, and probably a lot of violence. Nothing could be further from the truth: violence is an extreme example of someone oppressing someone else, of exhibiting their greater power. Chaos and confusion? Maybe, if that can exist without violence and oppression!
Anarchy as thus defined might not work, of course, but that's a different question – and without trying it, it's very hard to know whether it would work or not.
Whether democracy works is another question. It's arguable that democracy has never really been tried, either, but insofar as it has been tried, it doesn't seem to work very well. It certainly seems to produce a lot of that chaos and confusion that people associate with their idea of what anarchy is – and a lot of violence, too.
What democracy certainly doesn't seem to achieve is the avoidance of oppression – but then, that's not what it sets out to achieve. The purpose of democracy is precisely to allow the majority to oppress minorities. It doesn't usually work: what actually happens is that some minority takes control, and oppresses everyone else.
That might well be the actual outcome of whatever system one tries.
So my position isn't that anarchy would work any better than democracy – although it might not work any worse, either – but that it's more of an ideal to strive for than democracy. Democracy is only desirable at all because it's a better approximation to anarchy than dictatorship is.
How might one achieve anarchy? Perhaps that's where the violence comes in? Perhaps, but I very much doubt it. For one thing, I've never believed that the end justifies the means; for another, I don't think it would work. Violence begets violence, not peace and harmony.
Come to that, how might one achieve democracy? I don't think violence can do that, either. Something Bush, Blair, and their cronies might do well to consider.
There is nothing in the concept of anarchy that runs counter to the idea of co-operation. It's co-operation that builds hospitals and roads, not necessarily coercion.
It seems that democracy is mostly a thin veneer over 'business as usual'. That is to say, the oppression of the masses by a few narcissists and psychopaths. The degree of democracy we have exists in order to pacify, not to liberate.
thats what i think and believe. i would like to live on this planet untill i die and i would also like to have children one day, but because of generations and generations of greed driven living the whole world will be very soon going into an irreprible state of repair. this is already happening and has been going on for something like 50 odd years now. it's scary to think that my generation might be one of the last on earth. if not then our childrens generation. i don't know about you but i would bring a child into this world to live not to suffer. it's hard enough being the child of a severely warped generation as it is. both my parents have been mutillated by this first world. i mean making yourself rich and starting your own business by going to a whole country on the other side of the world and saying to them "i'll make you rich just give me all your rescources and labour and money" i can't believe that someone who is the same SPECIES as me would do such a thing. most people have gone the wrong way. i see anarchy as taking people the right way.
but when the floods come and the rains pour and all the rescourses run out for the first world, who is left? still living. still able to feed themselves by picking fruit from the trees? not having to go to tesco to get food. not having to pay to sustain the very basics of living. check out mazlow's hierachy of needs and see how much the Authority, first world, machine, government, politics whatever you want to call it, you see how much that takes away from ANY one human being. and most wonder why this world is so fcuked!!
sorry about the rant just expressing myself. by the way i love your gallery i take it you've been to loads of countries? or is it just india? what are they (the countries you've been to) like? what are the people like?