I just saw someone claiming "anarchists don't want chaos". Are anarchists officially the least sensible people on the political spectrum? With commies you at least have to go through a couple of steps of destabilisation and corruption to arrive at an absolute dystopia, so it's reasonable that with enough desperation and wishful thinking it can seem like a good idea. With anarchy chaos is literally a part of step one.
@freemo yes, but they tend to call for abolishing of large-scale government, the economic system and/or the police, which destroys logistics and generally enables bad actors and results in a great spring for mafias and other parasitic organisations, causing chaos. So I'm not sure if it's still step one or two, but it's not far.
And it seems to be at this magical horseshoe point where extremes from all sides meet, since ankom's naive hope of peaceful, fair and somewhat efficient cooperation of small communities without market-based logistics results in pretty much the same thing as ancap's belief that humans are capable of controlling mafia-corporations via boycott and bull**** like private police. (Which will probably be the first to become a mafia-corporation.)
Or maybe I have been scarred by the zoomer Internet and there are more sensible options? How much more sensible can they be while still calling themselves anarchist?
@Amikke The term anarchy is often abused. In reality there are political systems that sometimes use the term but dont really call for chaos and no rules