There are, to be sure, many different kinds of proposed “anarchies,” or I should say, proposals of how people would choose to live in a society that is free of a government. Anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, so on and so forth. I do believe that, were people to live without government, and we assume that we’re speaking of macroscopic societies and not tribes (which would be communistic in character), society is likely to take the form of anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism only predicates that people will keep for themselves what is theirs and only give out what is theirs provided someone is trading them something they want; the other kind of anarchies suppose that people will, for some reason, choose to give over their own property to others in the hope that others might also choose to give them what they want (and we assume that what people even choose to give is something that other people want). There are theoretical problems in abundance with those other anarchical systems, which are prevalent even in their statist versions, but I don’t mean to put forth an explanation of why those anarchies wouldn’t work.
What I want to do is explain why anarchy itself just cannot work.
There is a false distinction people make when it comes to social systems. People are apt to say, when it comes to a system like communism, that “it works on paper but doesn’t work in practice.” This is to make a distinction between theory and practice, when it comes to social systems. I think that, for other kinds of systems, we can maintain such a distinction, but when it comes to the consideration of social systems, it is simply the case that one is actually accounting for reality with their theory, or not. If a social system cannot work in practice, then it doesn’t work in theory either, since the “variables” of practice, as it were, that being the way people tend to act towards each other, the way they come together and form societies, is the very thing the theory is supposed to be accounting for. If the theory cannot work in practice, that is because in terms of the theoretical structure it does not account for what it portends to account for, namely, human social systems.
In short, if a social system cannot work in practice, then it also does not work in theory, because the theory is to account for whatever might occur in practice, and if it doesn’t account for practice, then it is a poor theory. It is like a physical theory which doesn’t account for gravity; it doesn’t work in theory because it doesn’t work in practice, it fails to account for what it portends to account for. If it doesn’t properly account for its subject matter, it is a poor theory.
Hence, I wish to draw out the conclusion that anarchy, of whatever variant, is theoretically inviable for the simple reason that it fails to account for its subject matter. It fails to work on paper because it makes some fundamental assumptions which can never be true, and trades on a definition of “government” which is quasi-mythical. Anarchy supposes stateless society; I do not understand that a society can even exist that does not have a state inherent to it.
If we suppose that the present government were to collapse tomorrow, there might persist, for a short while, “anarchy,” the occurrence of generally unbridled anti-civilizational behavior. Looting, killing, raping, and so on, all offenses against civilization and crimes, in such a time, which warrant shooting on site by whoever would defend civilization and try to uphold it. Quickly, it would occur that the antithesis to this chaos, an order constructed by communities to defend against such lawless and anti-civilizational behavior, will be put in place, which provides a mechanism for dealing with crime and exacting retribution and recompense for the victim.
It is meant to operate on those who do not negotiate, who do not make an agreement for trade or contract with those who are violated. In other words, it is meant to operate against those who do not come under its power willfully and freely, to override their “anarchical” liberty. But then, is this not once more a state, even if one that is much less grandiose?
Where you have a system in place meant to deal with those who do not negotiate, i.e. law, you have a state. It may be a very small state and one which self-described anarchists are okay with, but it is, nonetheless, a kind of state. If we understand this to be the natural order of society (and I believe it is), then anarchy is theoretically impossible. People are apt to form communities that abide by laws which operate on those who do not agree to them (but then that is the need for and essence of law itself).
However, I think a theoretical adjustment can be forwarded, and it is one I’m very sympathetic to. The anarchist can very well accept that such is the kind of government they would prefer (unless they literally want no laws whatsoever, but then what do we care about them at that point?) and maintain their essential position on the otherwise exploitive and unjust nature of government. Anything which goes beyond the law of community is unjust. This position could be called anarchotarianism.
So there is a problem with anarchy, but not the anarchical theory itself, at least, provided we can forward that kind of adjustment.
Amtheomusings 
You said that “In short, if a social system cannot work in practice, then it also does not work in theory, because the theory is to account for whatever might occur in practice, and if it doesn’t account for practice, then it is a poor theory. It is like a physical theory which doesn’t account for gravity; it doesn’t work in theory because it doesn’t work in practice, it fails to account for what it portends to account for. If it doesn’t properly account for its subject matter, it is a poor theory.”
I don’t think one can reasonably apply the rigours of a “scientific” law to societies, which are made up of individuals.
Catholicism lays down a “theory” of how we ought to live our lives and it tells us what can (and does) go wrong. Despite this we don’t live in the closest thing to paradise this side of the Pearly Gates. Using your criterion, Catholicism is an incomplete theory.
Which part of your argument have I misunderstood?
If a social theory is good, it will be incomplete. It is a poor social theory which is flatly contradictory to the actual state of affairs, while a good social theory will be contiguous with what actually is. When it comes to the behavior of individuals, perhaps some psychology can fill in the gaps, but there can never be a total social theory. It isn’t preferable in the first place.
One problem that I see in talking about theory and practice is that the real world is constantly changing. If we had a society of ethical people then anarchy would work. And it does not have to be communist or capitalist. There are always administrative jobs that may need to be done but they are not government.
In today’s world we are moving towards a dark anarchy because there are forces at play that are evil and their methods are obscure. And not only obscure they are papered over by those that stand to profit from the fallout. A person can be manipulated and control through toxic relationships, and it takes many to manipulate one, so networks of evil people form out of their own necessity. Such manipulation is not obvious because of the medical misinformation. The fallout is disease, a very profitable commodity. (you can see here the methods on my blog at http://kyrani99.wordpress.com/)
We could say that the world at present is moving towards a capitalistic anarchy. There are no “controlling” forces because there is a constant struggle for power amongst those who are networked. There are no formal membership and organizations. How would you say we could arest this situation? Is there any theory we could find that could provide some direction?
I don’t think we’re moving towards capitalistic anarchy.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
– James Madison
I have some sympathy for anarchists, in that the institution of government is involved in almost all human violence throughout history. Still, I am forced to agree with your analysis here.
To grab a bit of a tangent, I suspect that democracy sometimes encourages people to sloppy thinking on this point. Many in my acquaintance fail to see how an unfair law, if it is supported by a majority vote, is government oppression. Oddly, this remains true even for some who detest the law.
It seems that, for many, the term “government” applies only to the decisions of the elite (and with a strongly negative connotation). Given this, it is of no surprise that some feel that we can do without “government” – though I am left feeling that something has been missed.
[…] have before pointed out a theoretical problem concerning anarchy, but concluded that an anarchist could accept the kind of community I’d described. I have […]