The Utopian Idea of An Anarchist Society
In a prior rule by none framework article I wrote the following:
Anarchy creates an absolute power vacuum. In essence, it tries to create stateless society. In reality, it usually ends up just masking the state with something else such as the institutions. Power, control, and wealth are still distributed within a society. They are just done so in a different manner temporarily.
‘Anarchy’ as a political philosophy is useful for fence sitters as an easy virtue signaling type of government. It is often used by people that do not want to have to choose between actual government frameworks along with the reality of their failures and limitations. So, they simply say they are “anarchist” and include some iteration of “I don’t believe in a state” even though they likely intrinsically know that that is an impossible solution. There will always be power centers in a nation and there will always be a need for a state. A lack of any form of centralization will naturally result in the human desire for power through centralization. If not the state, then the business or the foreign entities, which will come to function as a state. To not believe this is to stay in some form of fairytale land where practical reality no longer applies. But, again, most “anarchists” don’t actually believe in this, but follow the ideology because it’s an easy philosophical cop-out by not having to choose real-world solutions which result in real-world setbacks and problems instead of an imaginary stateless utopia where everyone believes in the non-aggression principle and voluntarism where normal human desires apparently no longer apply.
Therefore, it’s not super useful to us in formation of a framework outside of the lessons it teaches. But those lessons are still very important.
I wanted to further expand on this with some additional thoughts.
A major problem with anarchy as a practical solution is the implementation problem. The idea around anarchy is a system where there is no state or organized governing body and there is direct democracy by the people. But these two things conflict with one another: if there is no organized governing body, then who implements the results from the direct democratic elections? They can’t just magically enact everything after the vote, and there is no actual way to coordinate and “force” others to agree to the vote. To think that everyone in the nation will agree with results of the vote, abide by it honestly, and always follow things like the N.A.P. and similar philosophies is utopian idealism. It will not happen; someone or something would have to work on compliance.
Any attempt to gain compliance over the direct democratic votes would have to be done through something. A… organized governing body, perhaps?
Anarchists often detract from this approach and then claim something else will do it: like private entities, or paid-for-police, or something else. But then they’re just switching who actually has centralization in a nation, rather than truly having absolute decentralization like the framework and system calls for. If you have anyone that implements a vote, then they have some form of centralized power, regardless of how you want to spin it. If you have any entity or individual that has greater power or tools above others in any respective societal arena, then you have the initial matchbox strike for centralization.
The anarchist political philosophy is stricken with emotional idealism. The philosophy shares a similar false worldview as communism, by which I mean that it worships unattainable utopian ideals. There is no practical, reality-based method to deny the nature of humanity and reach an anarchist dream world. It is simply not possible given our human condition to reach their ideals. Pure decentralization, voids of power, will always be filled.
The anarchist political approach is an obsession with abstract ideals instead of practical implementations, which are eerily similar to other failed utopian fantasies, like communism and socialism. There is little difference in the philosophical backing of either, because they all rest on a premise of denying human nature and basic human drives.
At some point, we have to move past this constant need for the “perfect” solution to everything in a philosophical sense. Things in the real world come with real world tradeoffs. Openly discussing and honestly debating these trade-offs is the correct approach, not hiding behind utopian daydreams about perfect societies.
Enclavism won’t be a flawless solution to the framework or system problem. I have no utopian daydreams about it. It will have tradeoffs, just like a republic, monarchy, empire, and semi-presidential parliamentary system, all have tradeoffs and benefits.
The goal, however, is to make these tradeoffs less long term destructive and to make the benefits far more desirable.
That is something that is practical and reasonable to do in the real world. But to do it, we have to focus on difficult practical solutions, instead of easy philosophical copouts.
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!