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?
Most anarchist attempts had armies, built around anarchist principles : self-discipline, electing officers, more equal pays, etc. Some argue that this is state-like, i’d say it depends on what happens when the war is over. And i prefer an army where soldiers are inclined to criticize and change their officers, it’s more likely to disband.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_northeastern_Syria_offensive
This is the result of “Anarchist” societies…
Ah yes, their efficiency is very questionable. I still prefer an army less likely to murder civilians over a classic army, but I have to admit the latter are more likely to survive, precisely because of their violence. (SDF may be a more nuanced thing, i’ve read reports of bad civilians and prisoners treatments. But you’re right to say “Anarchist” with quotes, it’s effectively close without being strictly anarchism).