Anarchy vs DictatorshipWatch
Anarchy: Total freedom from an administrative authoritative force, but no form of protection either. There is maximum free will without any sort of government interference, meanings that the government cannot impose aggression on the people, nor defend it from them. Individuals have complete responsibility for their lives
Dictatorship: The government controls all aspects of life and the economy, and the state is regarded as the pinnacle of authority. The state protects its citizens from the aggression of others, but all individuals are at the mercy of those who rule them. All individuals must adhere to the state's laws, with severe consequences if not abided
Which one would you rather live in and why?
Neither are particularly desirable, but anarchy slightly trumps in my view because it at least offers hope for a better society.
For anarchy to occur there needs to be revolution. This is why anarchy has often been one of the principles of Communism and Marxism. The case of Bakunin is not in any way unique.
In the worst case scenarios, I would expect a significant proportion of the population to die. With a dictatorship, at least the higher ranked are more likely to be guaranteed improvement in quality of life. Whats more, there is only one group to be wary of, the state.
In the best case scenarios, a dictatorship would completely outshine an anarchy. Resource management, scientific development and so on would completely outpace a disorganized anarchy which would be at the whims of the free market.
Both anarchism and dictatorship destroy the civil society that allows a free and equitable society to operate, but I've chosen dictatorship purely because of the words you used to describe it.
I saw Alan Moore once support his position as an anarchist by claiming that we originally started out with anarchy, and deviated from there, so anarchy is the most natural state for us to be in. Or something like that. Interesting; but then again he is a guy who worships a model snake because it looks smug, and thinks Northampton is the spiritual centre of the universe.
A dictatorship would not have to be necessarily a negative thing. If a ruler came along who controlled everything, but all the laws were brilliant, that would be better than no authority at all.
Okay, except this isn't anarchism as it has been articulated by any serious political philosopher. I can't find the exact quote, but Proudhon once said that all he was asking for was the rule of law (among other things).
Can dictators be benevolent?