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?
You must log in or # to comment.
There are many types of theories, but they rarely are literally “no organized public sector”. Generally you can more think of it as your municipality being more or less completely sovereign and independent.
That’s archy.
It wouldn’t.
Anarchism (and communism) live and die by the idea that ALL people would have a completely unrealistic level of cooperation and selflessness. As fucked up as capitalism is, it can bend when people don’t play nice and there’s at least a theoretical possibility of anyone gaining power (money) to impact change in the system. Money itself doesn’t inherently have preferences or moral opinions on what should be. Anarchism however breaks the moment someone behaves selfishly. It can work fine in small, like-minded communities where people can always leave (or be excluded) to find other systems that better fit their ideals. However, Anarchism on a societal level would demand that there is basically no other type of society available - which would lead to Sen’s paradox. The reason we don’t have true anarchist (or communist) countries is that they get wiped out by powers that function in sync with people’s natural inclinations for self-interest (like capitalism). People like to argue that these attitudes are DUE to capitalism, not inherent in human nature. Even if I were to entertain the idea that that’s true, we currently live in this world of self-interest. Unless you can press a reset button on humanity, this is what we are working with. Solutions that rely on the idea that we can just fundamentally change how ALL people in the world currently are, are not solutions. They’re idle fantasies. The “argument” that “if the world wasn’t shitty, we could have an amazing utopia”, is not an argument at all, it’s just a tautology with no power of utility.
The way db0 handled their defederation from feddit.org is a great example of how Anarchism fails even on small scale. They espouse ideals about democratic voting and rational discourse, but the moment the organizing body of the instance had opinions on how they think things “should” be, they used propaganda and political theater to get the result they wanted. Anarchist ideals couldn’t function in a low stakes online space, it has little hope of functioning where people are driven by actual survival needs (and desire for power). Whatever ideological purity drove the db0 admins to present the “democratic vote” the way they did, will be the exact same drive people tend to fall to on larger scales as well.
Same thing can be seen in the Communist instances: they rely heavily on propaganda and people sticking to the “correct” narrative. Which also brings up the conflict: there has to be an organizing body that has opinions on what is “right” and what is “wrong”. This organizing body will be the authority, no matter how people try to use rhetorical slalom to get around it and trick people into thinking the spade isn’t a spade.
People can start to build small grassroots communities with these ideals. Please do, and once they gain enough power (money) in the system we are currently living in, perhaps they can impact policy changes etc. that are more humanitarian. That would be wonderful. But always be aware that the ideals are fragile and break under any corruption. Capitalism works with corruption (not merely despite of), which is why it’s extremely effective at being the might that makes right.
(And because I’m aware how these discussions go: I’m absolutely NOT saying “capitalism good”. I’m saying it has more functional power than Anarchism. And I find Anarchism to be far more ethical and appealing in theory.)
Interesting comment, thanks.
The way db0 handled their defederation from feddit.org is a great example of how Anarchism fails even on small scale. They espouse ideals about democratic voting and rational discourse, but the moment the organizing body of the instance had opinions on how they think things “should” be, they used propaganda and political theater to get the result they wanted.
Was there some funky business with the vote or are you more referring to the fact that the mod conducting the vote had a clear preference for banning feddit.org?
There was no funky business that person doesn’t understand anarchism whatsoever and uses that failed understanding to claim it doesn’t work. Ridiculous statements that the admins should be enlightened centrists or some shite.
The issue is that it’s not one problem, it’s thousands. Anarchism has countless solutions for countless power vacuums, from regulating the flow of meetings to federating different Zapatista towns.
You yourself are probably engaging in anarchic power vacuum mitigation when your friend group decides when to hang out and what to do; if anyone got too much power or responsibility you would take action to make things fair again.
Generally speaking, power vacuums are dismantled by dissolving the hierarchies that can be dissolved, changing the material conditions so power is decentralized, and building a social structure to hold the remaining power conditional on not being authoritarian. You can probably remember doing these things with your friends (or former friends).
Anarchist theory is either descriptive, like critically analysing the Zapatistas, or it’s putative, like sociocracy. So far we have no proven overarching theory of what works for everyone everywhere in every situation, but we do have lots of small anarchist collectives that are benefiting their members and their society in limited scopes.
This is the best answer. Anarchist societies do not work in practice. They work in theory.
Open source, direct internet democracy.
Let anyone vote on anything basically.
My hope is voters tend to vote on matters relevant to them providing initative to get/beeing informed on the matter they vote on.
I see representative systems as root of corruption so my solution calls for a system with direct decisions without political representatives.
So, passengers in an airliner decide on managing the airliner, because they outvote the pilots!
Democracy!!
Democracy’s still a kind of “boss”, a kind of “archy”.
I hold that, exactly as vertebrates all show, you have to have a brain, & you have to have COMPETENCE & RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY based brain.
Pilots, not majority-on-the-aircraft, fly the aircraft.
Those who reject how immune-systems work, including immunization/vaccination ( done right ), ought be prevented from voting on immunization programmes.
Those who aren’t living with the ability to get naturally pregnant, don’t have any business voting on women-specific health issues, including abortion.
Etc.
Not accountable in that domain? no vote.
Not responsible in that domain? no vote.
Not competent in that specific domain? no vote.
Period.
This makes me intolerable among many ideologues/ideologies.
Which is good.
_ /\ _
That’s a framework for a technocracy. The question here was for a blueprint for an anarchist society.
And if we take your line of thinking further: At what point do you stop denying people the right to vote?
Should only those in a particular industry have a say when it comes to regulating that industry? In that case, issues like environmental and consumer protection would become unenforceable… because why would a CEO or worker care about the impact their own actions have on the rest of society if regulation can be framed as a threat to their own job?
My prediction is that it works for 5 minutes… then a neighboring state is gonna invade and annex it
You’d need some organizing to defend yourself… like a military… counter-espionage…
Oopsie… you’ve accidentally invented the state…
Most anarchist attempts had armies, built around anarchist principles : self-discipline, electing officers, more equal pays, etc. Some argue that this is state-like, i’d say it depends on what happens when the war is over. And i prefer an army where soldiers are inclined to criticize and change their officers, it’s more likely to disband.
Taking the definition at its etymological root, all anarchy means is “without rule”.
In my head-canon, that doesn’t necessarily mean the lack of laws, state, institutions or governance; the implication is that there are no citizens or individuals with permanently elevated authority in the polity of government. Without rulers.
Many, of course, disagree with this mostly on the basis of practicality, but I’d like to think it’s another way to describe the concept of “No gods, no kings, no masters, no slaves.”
My feeling is they don’t?
I think it’s important to denote that some people categorize anarchism as a distant dream regime, for convenience of course.
You can see anarchism in action in the punk movement or other community efforts. People building bridges on their own, living in a gridless community, sharing art using their own methods like cassette tapes. That’s all anarchism.
I’m not at the heart of anarchism. I’m not occupying an abandoned building to help the poor, for example. But I’ve read a couple of books on it.
If you read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein that may give you an idea.
Otherwise, I attended Porcfest, the libertarian Porcupine Freedom Festival, back in 2016. Although it’s labeled libertarian, most folks I talked to discussed anarchy. One of the presentations I remember asserted that 8 is the optimal number of individuals in a decision making group. In his ideal anarchy individual people would assemble in groups of 8, who would then gather their groups or reps from their groups into a higher group of 8, and so on. Effectively higher level group decisions, if needed, would be made by a council that could be traced back to any individual.
I don’t know that that’s a good plan, but it may get your mind going on how to think about the topic.
I mean we have the UN which doesn’t have any one nation in charge. Geopolitics tends to be anarchistic.
You you want true anarchy look at the African jungle. Truly no laws, no government, hunt and be hunted.
‘Basically no one in charge’ is not exactly correct. Heirarchies are allowed to exist, but ideally should be as brief and flat as possible.
My best understanding of the end-goal is an intermeshing alliance of small democratic collectives working together to provide for one another. This type of system has existed previously, such as with the various tribes across the Americas which often traded and collaborated with one another. In contrast with previous times, there is vastly more understanding of how the world works now, and thus many more possible projects to strive towards.
There is also no expectation of some supposed utopia from this, as i understand - conflicts are still expected to flair up every now and again. The main aim is for equality and the absence of a single constant power structure which oppresses and dictates the conditions of all, but instead that there is a democratic collaberation defining the conditions for folks involved.
Read up on Spain pre-Franco, which was the only time that an Anarcho-state was seriously attempted. It basically coagulated into an Anarcho-syndicate, but failed miserably at getting many traditional ‘state’ responsibilities covered. When Franco rolled in with the backing of Hitler, Durruti was the only guy that tried to mount a defense, because the “government” couldn’t come to a consensus on whether to defend themselves or not. Durruti had to literally raid government weapons stocks to arm a militia to try and fight back, but that totally failed and then they ended up as a fascist steel production center feeding arms to Nazi germany.
So that’s about how it goes in practice. It’s a style of government that’s good in theory, but it fails when implemented, generally due to ever present outside influences. It’s on the same sort of pedestal as communism really, in that lots of folks look at it on paper and think it sounds great, but reality’s a bitch.
it wouldnt.
