I’m politically agnostic and have moved from a slightly conservative stance to a vastly more progressive stance (european). i still dont get the more niche things like tankies and anarchists at this point but I would like to, without spending 10 hours reading endless manifests (which do have merit, no doubt, but still).
Can someone explain to me why anarchy isnt the guy (or gal, or gang, or entity) with the bigger stick making the rules?
There is a lot of confusion around anarchism, because it is a negative description: It’s a collective without leader, without governing institutions. It doesn’t say much about how this collective organizes instead. So you could call the chaotic state after a government coup Anarchy. But that isn’t what anarchists are talking about and I don’t think that is what OP meant either.
Anarchy as a deliberate system is when a group of people decides to work or live together without selecting a leader or any other form of government, instead resolving decisions that affect everyone together. In that sense it is not an interim state, a leadership-vacuum just waiting to be filled. Although of course Anarchy can transition into another system by various means, but so can every other system as well.
Right, it’s just that there is no component inherent to anarchy which prevents a leader from rising anyways. Someone who is charismatic and skilled at what they do will naturally attract followers, and suddenly factionalism takes hold.
Anarchy can be deliberate, but if it is being proposed as a long-term format for society, it would need some form of protection in place to prevent the entire thing from falling apart the moment a faction of enough mass decides they know what is best for everyone. That’s usually the role a government fulfils, but anarchy doesn’t have that.