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?

  • qevlarr@lemmy.world
    30·
    2 days ago

    The point of anarchism is the rejection of hierarchy. If enough people reject hierarchy, they would all be on board with not filling the power vacuum. That’s why establishing anarchism is much more than getting rid of the current despot. It has to be get rid of all those with power over others, get rid of the concept of hierarchy, get rid of wealth accumulation as power concentration, get rid of anyone even trying to rule over others. They would have no support with anyone, because everyone knows power corrupts and we’re not taking any chances. Nobody should desire to rule over others, if (1) nobody listens to you, (2) people will fight you, and (3) you, like everybody else, knows it’s morally wrong

    I’m not saying all of this is practical, but that’s the idea. Dismantling hierarchy is difficult, but still not sufficient to establish anarchist society. People would just build a new hierarchy if not convinced that hierarchies in themselves are the issue

    • pemptago@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      I wonder if hierarchical structures need reframing rather than removing. If changing our mental model could be the dismantling. I’m considering the definition and observation of emergent and beneficial hierarchies as discussed in “Thinking in Systems” by Donella Meadows-- the hierarchy structure is not inherently bad. What’s bad is, when it comes to human social structure, the person coordinating a collection of people is often considered more important.

      If they were equally as replaceable as anyone in the collection (as it should be in a resilient system)-- perhaps by randomly reappointing that position, periodically-- then you could have a central-coordinator structure where benefitial, without the problems of that coordinator becoming drunk on power.

      Coincidentally, that book has a quote from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that’s very fitting for that last part you mentioned:

      if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.

      • qevlarr@lemmy.world
        1·
        5 hours ago

        Thank you, nice quote.

        I do think the hierarchy is the problem, not only who is in charge or how they transfer power. There is always tension between “give the people in charge enough power to get things done” versus “now they have too much power and are corrupt”, but by that point you cannot do anything about it. Democracy allows dictatorships to form in the name of government efficiency or the democratic will of the in-group majority.

        If you rotate leaders, you will sooner or later rotate in the dictator. Ruling over others should be unacceptable across the board. This is what anarchists fight for. You can fight for that even if the system you’re living in is predominantly hierarchical. You don’t need to dream about a revolution that never comes, it’s all about changing people’s mindset over time.