Final answer:
Early anthropologists believed anarchy would result in chaos, but later findings show stateless societies can maintain order through community cohesion and mutual aid. Anarchism argues for self-organization rather than imposed governance. The international system demonstrates order amid anarchy despite self-interested states.
Step-by-step explanation:
Early political anthropologists, influenced by Thomas Hobbes' bleak view, assumed that anarchy would lead to a 'war of all against all.' However, later research has revealed that societies without formal states or leadership could indeed operate peacefully. Such societies, referred to as stateless societies, often rely on community solidarity and mutual aid rather than centralized authority and codified laws. These findings challenge the historical assumption that states are the natural or inevitable form of human organization. Instead, they suggest that for much of human history, stateless hunters and gatherers lived in small, mobile communities, which were quite capable of self-organization.
Anarchism as a political theory suggests that many societal issues, particularly violence, stem from social and economic imbalances rather than the absence of a state. Advocates argue that community involvement and mutual support can resolve conflicts and maintain order more effectively than an imposed government structure. This view contrasts with Hobbes’ belief that an absolute monarchy is the best way to prevent the chaos of the 'state of nature,' where life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. The modern international system, despite being composed of self-interested states that resist submission to an overarching authority, also exemplifies how order can exist in a context of anarchy.