Anarchy?
.....I don't know much, but in my humblest opinion, it needs either:
a) A strong leader, whiiiiich probably will be another leader which will facilitate another anarchy
b) A very, detailed, complex, strong, and definitely similar sense of idealism between members of the group, for what happens next. (Common cause will get you nowhere after 'now', and if not between 'members', then it'll back to point a)
As for my personal opinion?
I don't know, but V for Vendetta is, apparently, an anarchist's wet dream and to me it sounds like, 'dear God, he's a self-aggrandizing douche!'. Soo..
I would say a certain amount of anarchy (under the subset of 'free will' and 'questioning the authority') is beneficial, necessary even. But taken to V's standard.....
Dear God, no. The result will just like Africa, and THERE, hunger is a good common cause. Somewhere else, where people are far better off? When people are full, content, safe, and satisfied; their concerns turns into more complex things. Freedom; what sort of freedom.. Equality; to whom? Relating to what? Moral; whose? Enlightenment? According to what? What?
Not to mention what happen next. And opposition. :|
Which brings me to the above point-- wait, Hmm, circular logic. Anyway;
Even assuming if, SAY, people are kind / generous / moral enough to...not selfishly doing things for their own purposes....it's weird because the question that I often asked about anarchist is, 'what happens next?', not 'what happens now.'