Real question: what do anarchists expect society to do/become and why is it better?
Nuanced answers only
So if you ask a group of 5 leftists of any sort how they imagine society might be structured you’ll get 6 answers. Anarchists are no different, it’s difficult because it’s off the map yeah?
The common thread is a society with no involuntary impositions of power and authority. That isn’t no rules, many societies in the past and present have varying degrees of hierarchy and even within the same society the degree of hierarchy can change depending on what groups of people are doing.
you know how when you organise a family gathering nobody is “in charge” exactly? people select tasks they are suited to or feel it’s their turn to do and go about doing them. People might choose to defer decisions to another person but always retain the ability to withdraw that consent and so on?
Anarchists imagine a society more like that, where when a person wants something done they assemble a group of people, communicate their ideas, reach a consensus on whether it should or shouldn’t be done, if people agree then they organise themselves into a group to accomplish the task.
It’s really not so different from how you probably conduct yourself most of the time. It’s actually kinda rare for people to use coercive violence to get people to cooperate. Anarchists think we can all just take a few more steps towards being anarchists all the time.
As to why would it be better? well what feels better: cooking at a community gathering or working at a restaurant with your boss breathing down your neck?
This sounds a whole lot like the indigenous peoples of various lands until the imperial machines of war rolled them over. These days, I don’t think you need a military budget rivaling America’s, but I think some form of military defensive structures would need to remain in place to protect your massive hippie nation-state from opportunistic neighbors.
Ultimately this is the core problem as I see it - a hierarchical society will always be militarily stronger, practically by definition - and if history has taught us anything, it’s that weak neighbors get eaten by their stronger neighbors.
Additionally I think most of these idealized community structures are overly optimistic about the likelihood of a charismatic leader coming along and getting people to follow them, and then not letting them withdraw that power. Anarchists talk about hierarchies without formal power structures, but what is actually stopping someone whose already effectively in charge from turning that power into something more permanent, especially if they’ve convinced the populace that they want that?
Its happened an endless amount of times all throughout history, and I really don’t see why it wouldn’t here. Ultimately it just seems like a fragile system that relies mostly on every single individual being perfectly rational and immune to the draw of populist leaders. Aka - completely unlike actual humans
Anarchists aren’t unaware of these problems, if you’re interested then there is a lot of ink spilled on the subject. Either from the perspective of actually existing anarchists or theoretical books.
Anarchists don’t imagine some perfect static society but rather a set of evolving practices to guard against precisely what you’re talking about. The less centralised things are the less vulnerable they are, and even if someone manages to start concentrating power that doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed to hold on to it for very long.
The history of the Spanish civil war might be quite interesting to you, as the anarchists had to fight the strongly backed fascists, obviously eventually they lost but they did pretty damn well! lots to learn there.
The less centralised things are the less vulnerable they are
I’m sorry, but how do you arrive at that conclusion? If I roll in with a giant, powerful military from my centralized state, how does being less centralized make your position easier to defend? The less centralized you are, the less capable of a coordinated defense you are, and the more likely it is that your territory will be conquered without being able to present a meaningful resistance.
And if you were referring to an internal threat from a populist leader, then that’s assuming that the individuals involved don’t let said populist leader make them more centralized for easier control - if you’re just relying on the individuals always making the right decisions, then frankly you’re doomed.
they’re guaranteed to hold on to it for very long
Absolutely, and judging by history the typically dont. But a wannabe tyrant can do a lot of damage through their rise and fall, and tyrants have descendants.
, if you’re interested then there is a lot of ink spilled on the subject. Either from the perspective of actually existing anarchists or theoretical books.
And I’m sorry but “just devoted weeks/months of your life to read anarchist literature” isn’t a replacement for an actual rebuttal to my points, I have done some reading on anarchism, hence why I understand the concepts well enough to talk about them, but of course I’m not going to spend huge amounts of time reading up on a political system that I think is fundamentally flawed, and I’ve yet to come across any argument in your comments or others that actually negates any of what I’ve already said, most of it boils down to “we’ll just figure it out bro, trust us”
The history of the Spanish civil war might be quite interesting to you, as the anarchists had to fight the strongly backed fascists, obviously eventually they lost but they did pretty damn well! lots to learn there.
Completely irrelavent scenario (and if it was relavent, the fact that they lost would support my point), the Republicans of the Spanish Civil War weren’t from an anarchist society (nor were they all anarchists). They were residents of a non anarchist society who rebelled, using existing infrastructure created by the existing non-anarchist society.
The closest real analogue is what happened to the native Americans during the colonization (though even that is a very loose analogue, as many tribes were very very far from anarchic, though some were very very close to it), and we all know how that ended from our history books.
It’s going to be basically impossible impossible to address this. You’ve asked incredibly broad questions and I’m typing on my phone with arthritic thumbs. Anything I miss or can’t exhaustively lay out convincingly you’ll just say “well what about that thing”. Which is fair enough, hence why political theories can’t be adequately explained in a few internet comments and why if you want detailed answers you can really only find them in books. I’m sorry, I’d have the same answer if you asked me to explain electromagnetism. Some things are just complicated.
I would say I’m not sure why you seem to think centralisation leads to superior manufacturing capabilities or agility in decision making. That isn’t obvious to me, often in disaster situations we find the opposite with citizens mustering before states. Many models of anarchism are highly industrialised. It’s not as simple as big military beats small military, look how badly the usa failed in its various wars since ww2. Even if that was true why then is the world not neatly rolled into one super state? factors other than military might superiority affect the desire for and feasibility of military invasions.
As to not having an exact answer for every conceivable problem: it’s not like our society has one either. It’s not designed, we’re making this shit up and it is failing catastrophically to address challenges like power and wealth concentration due to technology, ecosystem collapse (we are in a mass extinction ffs), and climate change. Further it almost ended the world several times over during the cold war!
