Um, OK, first, about anarchy.
The idea of anarchy leading to chaos is natural, after all, given our society, it is hard to understand the concept of order without power. Anarchy is not supposed to be "do whatever you want", it is supposed to be an organized order without a governor, based on the idea that man is naturally perfectible, and as such, it can use it's rationality to organise into a true, free, intellectual society free of alienation. Of course, problems occur, problems always occur, and anarchy could never work perfectly, it is an ideal to be followed.
Communism and Anarchism are heavily related. Communism is also a system without state, but Marx believed the supression of the state cannot be done ipso facto, and before that it needs a period of Socialism. Socialism is what has happened in many countires, yet in very different ways, as you know. Cuba, now, is a Socialist country.
Again, if you can, Alan Moore's "V for Vendetta" explains anarchism really well, and it entretains at the same time. I recommend it, I highly recommend it, seriously. And some scenes in it are very poetic. A true piece of art.
I believe a politic of dialoge, as oposed to the impositive dogmatism imperating in modern goverments, is much more active for the development and strength of the goverment. This is the main reason why I admire the soviet parlamentary system (People not voting presidents, but parliment members, and removing them when necessary), I believe it to be a great idea if taken into action correctly, without manipulation of the media, one of the problems imperating in Cuba.In order to avoid revolts and slipping into anarchy, it's necessary for the leader to be strong, but political stability comes at a great cost.
For me it'd be great for Fidel to change the articles in the constitution and USA to lift the embargo. If that ever happens, I promise I'm emigrating to Cuba. But I doubt it will ever occur.
I do, and I believe in Enlightment. Sapere aude, all that crap.So again, I ask you, do you really think that the people and the state can be coordinated in such a way that you don't fall into neither anomie, nor fascism?
And I realise I may be wrong, that it may be just an unreachable ideal, I may just be the Quixote who sees giants where there are windmills. Yet, it is either Enlightment and change, or either giving up into postmodern values, meaning a rather passive action, the classical "democracy and capitalism are find and dandy, let's keep with it and try to make the best of it". Hell no! The project of Enlightment has not failed, and what Kant said back in his time is still to be applied today, every day more. We are not in the end of history, we are just starting with the second volume, as the poet Mario Benedetti very eloquently said. And if the end of history is for Frankenstein to walk in fashion expositions, for NASDAQ to be a Veda for post-Brahmans and for Judas to sell in exclusive his betrayal to the pink press, then please allow me to say humanity has failed so badly it has already lost all hope. I do not like this sciences and fictions of emptyness, markets and flags, cosmetic and bad taste, and thus, it is either change or death. It is either Prometheus or Narcisus, or Sisifo. You are from Chile, you probably know Pablo Neruda, so as he said:
Debemos hacer algo en esta tierra
porque en este planeta nos parieron,
y hay que arreglar las cosas de los hombres
¡porque no somos pájaros ni perros!
Y bien, si cuando ataco lo que odio
o cuando canto a todos los que quiero,
la poesía quiere abandonar
las esperanzas de mi manifiesto,
yo sigo con las tablas de mi ley
acumulando estrellas y armamento.