The philosophy of anarchy is, as it has been put to me before, not a positive but a negative position, a kind of critique against larger society and life. Others have demonstrated that capitalist systems will produce their own excesses and externalities as a means to control these externals, to enfold them back within the bounds of the system. Anarchy is like this, too: a position engendered as a response to the extant situation, moving against the situation, forcing it to respond. Anarchy secures the possibility of larger and more stable-“tyrannical” social systems, but it also places limits on these systems.
Were anarchy ever to move from a faith-based position to a radically Earth-centered one, to move that which is in it of ideation into instinct, and vice versa, it would individualize and empower individualities, and no system could overcome it; which means, systems would be forced to adapt to new radically individual conditions of self-value and power.
But then again, the would require human nature to be quite different than it actually is (has thus far been). A kind of “knife” is needed to cut man from his social conditionality, in the present modern reality, in order to potentiate relations of every kind, including anarchic ones. This would bring human nature to the cusp of itself, and society would again become something determined primarily by the conditions of the individual, rather than the other way around.