anarchism can be egalitarian
Sorry Barry, but I believe that “egalitarian anarchy” is an oxymoron.
Anarchy means that there are no rules anyone has to live by. As such, the basic survival drive of self-interest will govern behavior. Since people have different capabilities and vulnerabilities some will quickly become dominant and some be driven into submission, and that’s not egalitarian.
This is NOT what anarchism means.
Wikipedia: “Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government (cf. “state”) and supporting its elimination. The term “anarchism” is derived from the Greek αναρχία (“without archons” or “without rulers”). Thus “anarchism,” in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership (and thus also involuntary servitude) are undesirable and should be abolished.”
There are several forms of anarchism, and a few may deserve the “chaos” definition or the one you give it, but most are NOT about ‘anything goes’ or a sort of no-government free-market idea like that of some American Libertarians ... all boiling down to our self-interest, as if self-interest is humanity’s basic nature as Dawkins and Pinker argue.
That would indeed not be egalitarian.
Most anarchists are market abolitionists, for one, and most argue for anarchism in the libertarian-socialist sense where there is structure and order, and there are institutions (of sort) which are part of a non-hierarchal form of governence.
More from Wilipedia: “While many varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or political party in promoting liberty and social justice, libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers’ councils, municipalities, citizens’ assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of action.”
“Anarchy is not chaos, but order with out control.” - David Layson
“I would say anarchism is the attempt to eradicate all forms of domination. This includes not only such obvious forms as the nation-state, with its routine use of violence and the force of law, and the corporation, with its institutionalized irresponsibility, but also such internalized forms as patriarchy, racism, homophobia. Beyond that, anarchism is the attempt to look even into those parts of our everyday lives we accept as givens, as parts of the universe, to see how they, too, dominate us or facilitate our domination of others.
“But has a condition ever existed in which relations have not been based on domination? That was the human condition for at least 99 percent of our existence as a species, from before the emergence of Homo sapiens, at least a couple of million years ago, until perhaps only 10,000 years ago, with the emergence of first agriculture and then civilization.
“Since that time we have worked very hard to convince ourselves that no such condition ever existed, because if no such condition ever existed, it’s futile to work toward it now. We may as well then accept the repression and subjugation that define our way of living as necessary antidotes to “evil human nature.”
“After all, according to this line of thought, our pre-civilized existence of deprivation, brutality, and ignorance made authority a benevolent gift that rescued us from savagery.” - John Zerzan ( )