I am under the impression that a time will come when the human species shall no longer rule this planet, be it from us following the ways of the dinosaurs or the forces of nature becoming overwhelming for our existance.
Now between now and then is there an ideal system that may ensure that the resources are distributed equally, knowledge is dispersed indiscriminately , human life( and animals and fauna, for that matter) span is prolonged (not only for those who are in countries that are more scientifically progressed). What are your take on capitalism, has it failed or has it been abused? Do humans have a better system? Or is this the beginning of the end of the great Homo Sapiens? Should we just embrace what we have and enjoy this life knowing that in a few generations after us there shall be no human life in this planet?
To those who are in the field of science: Is there any hope of human survival even after some great nature disasters that are emminent in the future?
In that case wouldn't beneficent anarchism be the best of all forms of human society?
Absolutely, except that with anarchism, nobody's in charge, by definition. Thus, no one's making sure that the beneficence happens.
The point is that everyone is making sure it is beneficent; more heads to make it surer. If only one person is in charge who makes sure they are?
Anyway, I am not sure if you are posing this absurdity to state your lack of confidence in anarchism, but an absurdity is no match for a possibility, however remote.
A lot depends on definitions. What is a dictator? What is benevolence? What kind of anarchism are we talking about?
Whether we're talking about a dictatorship or an anarchistic government, there is the problem of how to deal with dissent and dissatisfaction and even outright revolutionary opposition.
As I see it, the flaw in anarchism is that it really has no plan, consistent with its ideals, of how to deal with contrarians without creating a class of enforcers with more power than the average Joe or Jane. The dictator has a ready answer for that.
That is the problem with any autocracy: it is their definition of benevolence. They know best, and I am sure that their good intentions go the way of all good intentions including religious ones. How can any atheist believe that one person can be beneficent for all?
The thing is, any society requires authority to function. Any society will always need people to give orders and others to obey those orders (within reason). Any society will also have to deal with dissent over issues too fundamental to be resolved (such as, in our society, abortion, gay marriage, gun rights). Anarchism falls on its face because dealing with disagreements like this requires authority and suppression.
There has been one dictator who might be said to rise to the level of a benevolent dictator (I have switched from "beneficent" to "benevolent," a more commonly-used synonym). That would be the Indian emperor Ashoka (sometimes Asoka). He converted to Buddhism and oversaw a golden era in India.
The point is that everyone is making sure it is beneficent; more heads to make it surer.
Would I be wrong to equate this kind of enforcement of behavior to an ethical code or a moral code? And whether or not such a code is clearly written down on paper, who can interpret its meaning, besides a specific person given specific authority to judge its meaning; anyone?
I think it is very difficult to picture how these sorts of structures work if you haven't experienced them. Having been part of management committees in the voluntary sector, both as a chairperson and a non-voting attendee, as well as a ordinary member, I do see them working very well. Sometimes they write the code, sometimes they have to decide on an interpretation and implementation of an existing one. However, they do this as a group. The organisation I worked for for over 20 years managed all sorts of growth, challenge and change during that time, and is still doing so.
Anarchists I have known persuaded me that if I put a few of them in a room they will battle over which of them will be the chief anarchist.
One now-deceased anarchist-atheist-communist told me that volunteers would do the community's work, like negotiating for trash collection, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, anarchism has such a broad range of thought, and not all of them are compatible. However, democracies are similar. Politicians have heated debates, indulge in smears and slurs, and even parties have divisions. That's humanity for you.
One argument against anarchism is very practical: look at the real-world actions of self-proclaimed anarchists who put on masks (so that they won't have to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions) and contribute to society by breaking store windows, attacking pedestrians, and causing general mayhem.
They kind of anarchist many of you are talking about here live in academia and have no halfway-realistic plan for implementing their theories. They are a complete waste of time.
An ideology is not wrong because some people misbehave whilst espousing one version of it. There are many versions of anarchism, not all are compatible. There are revolutionary anarchists who believe in violent overthrow. There are non-violent anarchists, there are even pacifist ones. I don't support revolutions in our countries, but the US and the UK have their present democracies because of them. The Magna Carta was the result of revolution!
Some of the anarchism versions, such as Syndicalism, are as detailed as you probably need to be at this stage. Already in our societies we have people based structures of organising; trade and student unions, voluntary and community organisations, political parties and social movements.