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?

  • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      we need something else than just democracy, or at least something that would also protect the integrity of democracy from corruption. If we had something like that and it would function reliably well people who want change would at least have something to rally behind instead of just wanting change into “something” that isnt ever really specified and thus wont ever gain any traction.