This is a typical example of the confounding of the term An-archy (Αναρχία) with the term A-nomia (Ανομία). As soon as you have a "biggest gang in control" you have an -archy (αρχή). You can have an -archy and have anomia: ie when a group utilises its grip on power to benefit itself rather than to ensure the "correct" or "smooth" functioning of society. That is what is happening currently. We do not have anarchy right now, we have anomia.
Wonderful. Thank you for enlightening me about this beautiful language.
I believe what Alan Moore means by anarchy is simpler however, i.e. a society which has order without the direction of a government. That this is often thought of as a society without any government whatsoever, but that in fact, society is inherently ordered without the help of government, even when a government is in place.
You see, unlike you, my dear Ben, I was never a Communist. What that means is that I studied Marx and Marxism (and neo-Marxists) directly. Even going as far as to study Hegel. What that means is that unlike Communists,that normally read the Manifesto and whatever skewed interpretations of Marx the Communist cult group they happen to belong to regurgitates in their direction, I have read, studied and discussed Marx extensively. Given the attitude of myopic zeal that you currently display I would guess you were some type of 4th Internationalist in your past incarnation?
Haha, well, essentially my philosophy has always been to follow the argument wherever it leads me. To, above all, act honestly and have honest beliefs. Not to lie to myself, i.e. if I come to know the world is A, not to act and believe as if the world is B.
I studied Marx through reading the entire collected works of Marx and Engels (including the rash filled letters), and examining whether or not I agreed with each premise and conclusion made. The good part that I agreed with outweighed the part I disagreed with, to the point that I thought a stateless society beyond the law of value to be possible. That was the crux, and upon examining the thoughts which Marx had upon the question of a revolution from the capitalist phase of production to the communist phase of production, I came to realise that he did not have an answer, and upon examining the issue wider, found that no one else did either.
The other issue I came to realise was that Marx makes a lot of strange manipulations to make his math work (and I don't mean the transformation "problem," which isn't one). He held that sum of values are equal to the sum of prices in the world, and that the production of value precedes the receipt of value, prices in their totality are not only equal to, but also determined by, the total value produced. The magic of how this can occur is really beyond explanation, so I accepted that both prices and values are subjective judgments. Thus rendering the law of value non-objective in my estimation and making it impossible for me to be a Marxist.
I have studied Hegel also, enjoyed most of his work, and I believe he's far less crucial to understanding Marx than people seem to think.
Politically I would say that I am an Autonomist (with Anarchist leanings). What that means is that I am noy bound by the political/social/economic ideology of any system. I am quite happy to apply the logic/methods of almost any system as long as it is liberatory and leads to a reduction in poverty and suffering for the majority of people. I am not the kind of moron that will blind myself to the injustices of a system, just because I happen to identify with that system.