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.
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.”
The “archy” is definitely related to the idea of a top-level leadership/executive group that is set apart from the rest. Anarchy removes that executive privilege and parasitism.
For any society to function, there must be rules. Anarchy, in most forms, the community is the legislature and judiciary.
I guess you mean “without rule” as in “without people ruling” and not as “without norms”, and it is indeed correct. There is a word for “without norms”, which is anomie (at least in french).
Also, i’d argue that states and governance inherently require permanently elevated authority, but if you meant more general meaning for those, like state as organization of masses of people and governance as common decisions for those masses, then i see your point.
The “political class” of an anarchical state as I’ve described would be rotational.
We in the United States have “Jury Duty”, where the average citizen is required by law to be selected to be part of a “jury of peers” on legal cases if the defendant exercises their right to a trial by jury.
Jurors can be struck down (relieved of their duty) for many reasons in the jury selection phase by attorneys, the judge, or submitting documentation on why they can’t perform their duty.
A corollary compulsory service or duty could be applied to the positions in the three branches of government we have in our current constitutional structure.
We would effectively shift from being a constitutional federal republic (on paper; in practice, the current form of government is a plutocracy) to a constitutional aleatory republic. We would have representative governance, but they’d be subject to review, competency approval, and votes of confidence.
One could also imagine ranked-choice voting and mandatory direct referendums regarding crucial policy decisions. Lobbyists must present their legal proposals to jurist-representatives and the general public, mitigating the efficacy of monetary influence in political speech and advertising.
Democracy is supposed to be that, but the citizenry doesn’t participate like they should so it devolves to where things are now.
But then there’s the issue of who enforces the rules
all of us, that’s what culture is. There are so so many things we only do because we’re brought up to consider it normal, a popular example being how you put back the shopping cart.
No one is going to punish you for just leaving it wherever, hell you could bring it home and it’s almost certain no one would really even care much about it, but yet most people put the cart back simply because it’s the right thing to do and we’d get a very strange and uncomfortable feeling in our stomachs if we didn’t.
Do you know how common it is in the US for people to just like… leave it? In germany theres the advantage that people have gotten accustomed to putting it back through the coin lock mechanism even if oftentimes the cart they use is now not locked. The problem is if strong factions arise where it will be hard for the rest of the public to sanction someone breaking rules. If it becomes more convenient to ignore then to enforce such a decentralized enforcement won’t be effective
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.
Love the post. I would argue the latter (single overarching model concept) is antithetical to anarchist theory
This is the best answer. Anarchist societies do not work in practice. They work in theory.
…that is not what they said at all
I love the people who say anarchism / communism are utopian and would never work in practice without negative externalities- and then go bootlicking for representative democracy and capitalism
would anarchy work better in addition to some other system that does not rely on hierarchy?
What system does not rely on any hierarchy? That is supposed to be Anarchism
maybe something that has semi hierarchy, that can be dismantled on a whim if needed? Have the best from both worlds. Like, anarchy + democrady -> voting system, but politican can be removed at any time by anyone, meaning that they have to actually do good job to keep representing people. Cant even try pleasing everyone and do nothing as that wont help either. Abusers get dealt with in same way as abusers get dealt with in regular anarchy. Though all this relys on humans being even semi rational and decent, which kind of makes it utopistic idea. But it would still work likely better than current only rich get to rule system. And besides, what is the worst that would happen? People vote against their own interests, get apathetic and do nothing?
At worst, nothing at all gets done as no one is in charge of anything, which would still be better situation than current one as at least things wont get worse and if there is some ongoing crisis going on that has to be dealt with, if people still cant get the head out of their arses to deal with it, they have decided to let it happen. Just as we have right now decided to let climate change happen by just pretending to do meaningful things to stop it while in truth just focusing to protect the wealth of the rich.
Every day we have less and less to lose. Any system seems better than what we currently have, though i wonder if soviet union got started with that sentiment. But something has to change because way things currently are are intolerable and by the time that transforms into physical need(like hunger) its too late already because everything is too broken already due to planet not supporting enough life to sustain meaningful civilization.
All layers of decentralization add complexity and inefficiency. Anarchism relies on every human being fully educated on Anarchist theory (never going to happen).
Anarchism is more of a “good samaritan” ideology which can work as a band-aid for people to help each other within a bad system, but it has never become a fully functioning system itself.
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
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.
Most things we do are anarching tbh, like just the simple act of meeting someone while walking on a narrow path means you have to directly communicate with them to get past each other, there’s no higher authority involved that decides who goes to which side, or punishes you if you shove them out of the way.
