What do you think when you hear the term, Love’s Anarchy? I would sincerely appreciate any answers you would be willing to post in the comments section below, but while I wait for that, let me tell you a bit about what I mean by it.

First let me give you my answer to “What is at the extreme ends of the political spectrum?” Because I think anarchy is fundamentally a political position. Your answer, or even the “correct” answer, may vary, but on the left you’ve got communists, and on the right, anarchists. Democrats and Republicans overlap in the middle somewhere, while socialists sit between Democrats and communists, and libertarianists between Republicans and anarchists. As a matter of fact, “libertarian” is what the French anarchists called themselves after anarchy was outlawed, even though now it means something like Republicanism X-treme. Likewise, socialism is more or less just communism lite.

Communism (as a theory, as a desire) is the idea that everything should be held in common and no one should have power over another. Anarchy (as my theory and desire) is the idea that rules are ineffectual and counterproductive, and that we’d all be better off without them. The problem with communism is that everyone must be forced (whether by actual force or through social coercion, shaming, punishment/reward, etc.) to abide by the principles and ideals of communism, whereas the problem with anarchy is that it is mere chaos, with those who desire power pursuing and exerting power, while those who desire peace pursue and extend peace (and likely suffer under the thumbs of those desiring power).

But what if, instead of thinking of it as a two-dimensional spectrum with two extremes, we imagined it as a sort of mobius strip, where anarchy and communism could blend into one another at the twist?

To state it plain: As love’s anarchist, I want everything to be held in common, just like a communist, but I want the sharing to be entirely voluntary, just like an anarchist.

I’ll just sit here patiently until your reaction dies down. Okay. Yes, I, too, live in the real world where such a society would be untenable, unsustainable, and all but unimaginable. My contention is that none of that matters. Love’s anarchy can and does coexist within this broken, evil world. Where? I don’t know. A little bit here, a little bit there. Where it looks like it’s occurring, it probably isn’t. Look harder–they’ve got an ulterior motive. Where it doesn’t look like it’s happening at all, look closer–there may be sacrificial love going on that could humble Ma Theresa.

You say you can’t see it? Even though you’ve looked as close and as hard as you can? Perhaps I’m wrong. Or perhaps you just can’t see the childhoods, the hidden passions, the traumas and the gifts. In order to see clearly enough, you might have to fall in love with that person. Sure, maybe all of that person’s love and passion are misdirected–aimed at gaining and exerting more power, but if you were truly in love you might see purity in that love and passion nonetheless. To state what we all should know by now: falling in love does not require that the object of our affection be worthy. To love completely is to identify fully, not blind to flaws, but able to see blemishes as terrible yet honorable scars rather than irredeemable character defects.

Love’s anarchists aren’t worried about whether other people are sharing their share; their only concern is to give out of their own abundance and receive into their own poverty.

Does that come close to answering the question?