Anarchy is a political structure where there’s basically no one in charge, right? But wouldn’t that just create a power vacuum that would filled by organized crime, corporations, etc.? Then, after that power vacuum is filled, we’re right back at square one, and someone is in charge.
Are there any political theorists that have come up with a solution to this problem?
Your right, they don’t have any solutions. Not all ideas are good ideas even if given a name.
Anarchism by its nature cannot work, and anything to mitigate its faults just adds some form of democratic power system, which IMO is not anarchism it’s something else.
😅.
Tell that to the millions of collectives, groups and communities around the world which pretty much run on anarchist principles, they don’t seem to have gotten the memo.
Barcelona, a whole city, was organized by anarchist principles during the Spanish Civil War.
I’m with you that “modern” societies (mostly ordered around nation states), as we know them, cannot be organized by anarchist principles. The world would look very different, much slower.
But then again, all seemingly insourmountable problems humanity faces today, stem from the acceleration of the current ruling economic principles, so there’s that.
But that’s the thing, they aren’t anarchist. All of those groups you describe end up either having a power structure appointed by someone else or created by the group.
What do you think “anarchy” means? It is not “everybody does what they think”, it is about how to organize societies and groups equally, by consensus.
"Anarchy is a form of society without rulers. As a type of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy. While viewed positively by anarchists, the primary advocates of anarchy, it is viewed negatively by advocates of statism, who see it in terms of social disorder. "
I’m going to be honest, and maybe it’s a difference in personal experience. But I can’t even count my fingers and toes the amount of people I personally know who would immediately take advantage of that situation.
Anarchism relies on everyone playing by the rules. We already live in a state with a monopoly on violence and we still can’t get everyone to play by the rules .
My main argument against anarchy as a large scale societal system is that nearly immediately bands and kingdoms would begin to form.
Humans existed in the natural order for many millions of years before modern society. Even then they adopted district forms of hierarchy again and again. It won’t take long before someone tries to make themselves a king and fuck over everyone else.
I want to be clear though I believe the ideal form of government is not even close to any of the gov we have around today. So I don’t want to be seen as arguing for the bullshit we are currently doing lol.
Yep. That’s what I meant before. You cannot take our current world and “swap” a random constitution of a state towards something written by anarchists. That doesn’t work.
That’s why I pointed as an example to groups which, knowingly or unknowingly, implement anarchy in one way or the other. And I fail to see how they always transform to some hierarchical system like you wrote.
I mean, the anarchical experience that a lot of people share is a shared flat. Most wouldn’t consider themselves an “anarchist flat collective”, but that is what they are observed through the lense of political science. In all my shared flats we did not have any “boss”, we talked about problems, found agreeable solutions for everybody by consensus and so on and so forth. That is anarchy, everybody had a say, everybody’s opinion was heard and considered, agreements were formed without a powerful entity which enforced it.
And a lot of larger groups employ the same principles.
What if one your flat mates decided to start pissing on the couch instead of the toilet lol are you going to do
How come that just never happens, lol?
People generally have a harder time to be assholes to people they know. That’s where this “I want to deport every brown person, except that one person I know, he’s fine” mentality comes from.
What would you do if a flatmate starts pissing on the couch? Basically at one point you would decide to kick him out of your “flat society”, yes. And if my flat mates all decide it is better to piss onto the couch I can decide to leave my “flat society” as well, yes.
So yes. You and your flat mates have now formed a hierarchy lol you and your flat mates on the top. Couch pisser on the bottom. It’s an obtuse example but I think it reflects reality.
Your example of “I want to deport every brown person” is an perfect example of a real life couch pisser lol.
People will decide to enact their will onto others based on their personal morals. If enough people come together with the same morals they will as a group decide to form a hierarchy.
It’s like if you dispersed a bunch of dust into space evenly. It’ll start to clump eventually.
Any system that effectively minimize the ability for one will to destabilize the group as a whole is probably best.
Anarchism just isn’t that. Its like the libertarian version of leftist policy.
Structure must exist because not everyone’s wants to play fairly and not everyone needs to be worrying about that.