There is fundamental difference between civil disobedience and anarchy. There are two major types of anarchy as well. First type of anarchy is actually the imperialistic one and can be summarized in Caezar's words: divide et impera. Unfortunatelly this type anarchistic world view is present in today's world everywhere, but it has a different name. It's name is a foreign policy. The politicians involved in this kind of anarchy justify their deeds in the name of democracy, order, security, but actually the main reason is the way we live our lifes. This is not sustainable and there is omnipresent sacrity of the resources, our livehood is far from the point that all of us can live the same way. According to ecological footprint theory if humanity in total would live the …show more content…
There's no order because in the name of order the same has been disturbed and depleted. And consenquently there is no juridicial response for the actions that have been undertaken. So to finalize, there is no recognition of the state and the government. Beside that another type of anarchy, as a social movement, exists. This one is usually in the minds of people connected with the previous one. This kind of anarchy is on the margine of society and actually is of experimental nature. It shares some similarities with previous one, it doesn’t recognize the state, but the main diference is that it is questioning societal organization and it doesn’t want to dominate in this world. It doesnt’t want to climb on hyerarchical level and it doesn’t strive for the acknowledgments of the institutions. And that's why most of the people hate it and think that anarchy as a social movement is same as disorder but it isn't, this is fundamentaly wrong and unfair to all those brave women and men who sacrificed their lifes for the higher goal, the re-evaluation of the distribution of