"Anarchism- Between an Impossible Socio-Political Practice and Possible Cultural and Ideological Movements for Libertanian Rights''

Anarchism- Between impossible socio-political practice and possible cultural movements for libertanian rights According to tradition, only three pure regimes - monarchy, aristocracy and democracy - are identified as being capable, under certain conditions, of achieving the "common good". This text suggests that a complete typology of political regimes must include anarchy not as a perverted form of democracy, but as an ideal type of pure political regime. The new typology should include monarchy (the reign of one), aristocracy (the reign of a minority), democracy (the rule of the majority) and anarchy (the self-government of all, by consensus, or the government of no one). In the end, it is necessary to remember that political life is not limited in the state, and that anarchy can be embodied - here and now - in communities and local and small political groups. The radical rejection of anarchy by philosophers who claim that its realization is impossible in our modern world is therefore deceptive and necessarily impoverishes our political thought. “What is the best political regime? This is the fundamental question to which Western political philosophy has traditionally taken it upon itself to answer, generally counting three pure types of regimes (monarchy, aristocracy and democracy) and a mixed regime (republic). Under certain conditions, those who exercise the power in these three pure regimes can seek, defend and promote the achievement of the "common good" for all of political community, as well as the "good life" for each of its members. Conversely, those who wield power in degenerate political regimes (tyranny, oligarchy, etc.) only seek to enjoy selfishness of a good life (from a material point of view rather than moral) to the detriment of the common good and the realization of a good life for their subjects. As for "anarchy", the philosophers and the most influential people in Western tradition have identified it as the degenerate and pathological form of democracy, understood here as its direct form where all citizens can participate in the assembly where political decisions are taken collectively and in the majority. To assimilate anarchy in this way to a distorted form of direct democracy constitutes a serious error which impoverishes political philosophy. On the contrary, I claim that a typology of political regimes must include anarchy not as a distorted form of democracy, but rather as one of the ideal types of regimes that legitimate policies. I will identify anarchy as a fourth type of pure political regime in which all citizens govern themselves together directly through consensual deliberations, without having recourse to an authority endowed with coercive apparatus. Therefore, It's about to offer a more complete and coherent picture of political regimes than does the tradition of Western political philosophy, and to demonstrate that anarchy should not be conceived as a form derived from any of the other diets. To conduct this demonstration, it is first necessary to synthesize the quantitative discourse of political philosophers about pure types of political regimes, then to analyze the qualitative approach used by philosophers to distinguish between "good" and "bad" political regimes, then finally to discuss the nature of the anarchy. This approach, however, comes up against a major challenge, when anarchy is about to be distinguished from democracy. Particular attention will therefore be paid to the ambiguous relationship between these two regimes.