Is anarchy to be avoided in favour of totalitarian, or oligarchically mediated proletarian, dictatorship?

Question

As a matter of political philosophy, Democratic Fascism is not an oxymoron, and nor is a Republicanism constituted in practice as an Incumbent Oligarchy (since the terms are not stated in such wise as to be available for contradiction).
"Anarchy" literally stems from "an-" = "no, not", and "archon", a particular style of leadership or direction giving, translated from the ancient greek as "chief, leader, rectum".
"Aristiocrat", by contrast, stems from "aristo-" = "best", and "kratis" = "power, strength". A crude appreciation thereof would be "Might is right", heading off any questions of what constitutes "best" in that context, perhaps not so fully as the sans coulottes did in the 1700s with certain other questioned heads.
The thrust of this question lies in a correction of the understanding of what constitutes Anarchy, given the bad PR self-determination always gets when push comes to shove so far as the incumbent powers and their income bent servants are concerned.

Answer 1

Anarchy would be fine if it was true anarchy but any country without a government and therefore a regular army, would easily be taken over by an invading force from a neighboring country.