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?

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    12·
    8 days ago

    Anarchy is a political structure where there’s basically no one in charge, right?

    That’s a very literal interpretation of the word. As I understand it, anarchy is more like a class of ideas, rather than any concrete idea. Two people who both call themselves anarchists can have very, very different ideas about how society should run.

    So the answer is: it depends what kind of anarchy you’re talking about. Your question is asking how a broad category would work but it’s so broad that I don’t think you can give a concrete answer. You’ll need to be more specific.

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      8 days ago

      Well, let’s just pick one style of anarchy, and go with that. I don’t know any, but maybe you do.

      Pick one and explain how that would work in a larger scale.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      8 days ago

      Yeah, it’s a goal, not a method. Even with a democracy/republic, there are so many different versions of it that exist. Is there a parliament? Is there a central leader? Who can vote? What happens if people can’t agree on who should be in charge?

      Anarchism is a large set of ideals. There are a lot of people who have thought about how to make it work. Any issue people have with it, I promise you it’s been considered. Everyone probably won’t agree on what the solution should be (because that’s always the case), but it has been thought about.