voxpoplar wrote
I have not read up a huge amount but I think the standard answer is something along the lines of that anarchism does not mean lack of organising, just lack of hierarchy.
After a revolution there would still be larger structure and organising but would, ideally under an anarchistic viewpoint, be bottom-up, voluntary and truly democratic.
There’s a lot of different types of anarchism and lots of different answers to how this would theoretically work. E.g. anarcho-syndicalism is focused on the idea of anarchist trade unions seizing control of production.
How to prevent people concentrating and amassing power under these sorts of systems is obviously a big problem and I don’t think there’s any good answer other than you need mass class consciousness and people motivated against allowing that.
flabberghaster wrote
Note that non anarchist philosophies also struggle with the question of "how do we prevent our system from being taken over by the badguys?" Whether it's monarchists saying "this system works great if the monarch is good but the trick is to make sure a doofus doesn't become monarch", or democracies wondering how we can prevent a demagogue from taking power and abolishing the democracy via popular vote. Even communists have the same problem: whatever administration you set up, how do you prevent it from turning itself into something terrible that's bad for people?
So yes, anarchism doesn't solve it but nothing else does either, IMO.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments