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?
The Dispossessed by Ursula K Le Guin is another great book. The protagonist is from an anarchist moon orbiting a very capitalist planet. The author explains how an anarchic society works in that context.
My argument (this was in a literature class) was that an anarchic society would be virtually impossible to maintain on Earth. Militaries are, by nature, very hierarchical. Anarchists don’t take orders. Unless the anarchists are protected by other countries for some reason, their society would be an easy, tempting target.
That’s why I thought Le Guin’s moon solution was so elegantly simple. It doesn’t even have enough resources to make it worth a single trip, much less a coordinated takeover. Conditions are livable, but barely. Malnutrition and starvation are common. The moon just isn’t worth fighting over, so the government let the anarchists have it. Their demonstrations and protests were causing too much trouble anyway. Everybody was happy with this compromise.
That’s very interesting, I should read the book.
You know things aren’t looking good for the anarchists when the easiest path forward for them is to regroup on the moon lol