the science of anarchism

Is anarchism a science? I would like to say it is. People describe it as a praxis, but the scientific process is also a praxis. To understand how anarchism, much like science, is about providing observable results which may be replicated, we most examine the scientific principles that premises social analysis.

First of all, psychology, and the relationship psychology has to evolution. The following is an hypothesis, but it is an hypothesis which could be very important.

Psychology is a relative phenomenon. If we were to imagine a quantification of psychology, then on one side we're looking at stimuli response, and on the other side we're looking at free will.

An insect lacks psychology, and is simply programmed to respond to stimuli in the most basic of ways. It has no memory or self awareness, it simply is.

Whereas a being with memory and self awareness, when faced with stimuli, has the capacity to assess their own situation, and run through information that might be relevant, and then develop a response. We assume this capacity to be free will. However, this also means that our will is only as free as our biological, or possibly psychological limitations.

I believe psychology is an evolutionary measure that arrives to a being capable of travel. That isn't just a static being with perhaps divergent genomes all over the planet, but rather a being who will constantly change environments throughout its life. This is why I believe the habits of our nomadic ancestors is what bestowed us with the most complex psychology on this planet.

So on this quantifying scale, where do we fit? It's impossible to know, because we have no idea to what extents memory and self awareness will actually take us. But I would imagine we're closer to free will than to stimuli response. But what is important is how we're not at full free will.

Things like addiction, fear, hunger, thirst, pain, sorrow and other stimulus would not affect us if we had complete free will. Hunger is not actually dangerous, it is simply a warning of malnourishment that most of us require massive amounts of willpower to freely resist.

So these factors do for a fact govern our lives to one certain margin or other, and will influence our choices. This margin is what we have in common with the insects of the planet.

And I believe this margin is what makes anarchism a science. Because I believe there is a universality in this margin. That, if we establish two societies on opposite ends of the Earth, with the same politics, same culture, and same language, the beings, no matter what ethnicity, will behave identically as a people, and would be able to seamlessly migrate between these two places without naturalisation. The only divergence which would build overtime would be caused by more random factors like natural disasters, conditions of birth, and possible power structures.

But all in all, you would be able to replicate the results of a society. Which is visible. As for instance Canadians and Australians have more in common than perhaps Canadians and Hungarians.

And when anarchism is used as a praxis, we begin to understand these patterns. How language, culture and politics define a people far more than any other factors. Because these three regulate the stimulus we face regularly. Anarchism is therefore the praxis of removing as much of the limitations imposed by stimulus as possible, in order to allow human beings to have a higher free will and have all of their needs met.

And in doing this, one must conclude, that sooner or later there will develop a homeostasis in an anarchist society, which will provide an objective formula for how to make societies in the future.

In this aspect, I would conclude that anarchism is a science.