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?
I mean we have the UN which doesn’t have any one nation in charge. Geopolitics tends to be anarchistic.
That’s democracy, not anarchy.
Why not both?
Indeed. Democracy does not exclude anarchy and in the case of the UN it’s a voluntary union, each member is free to not participate and ignore the decisions made by rest of the union. People often criticize the UN as having little authority - that’s because it’s anarchistic in nature.
If there is a point to my example it is that society is a patchwork of ideologies, there is no “pure capitalist” society just as there is no “pure anarchistic” society. So to say one ideology does not work as totalitarian society is different then saying it does not work at all.
Fair point
The UN is not a society. There are many groups without a leader. But when talking about anarchism, people usually mean anarchist society.
That’s like saying FAANG is anarchism, because they talk among themselves without there being a leader.
The UN routinely has councils and vetos given to a select few.