Joey Corleone said:
is anyone else concerned about this at all?
Speaking from the US, I'm not. An authoritarian takeover, from either a "dictatorship of the people" or a nationalistic junta, is nearly impossible here due to the decentralized government, long-established electoral system, and dozens of competing entities that want power for themselves.
Tinderfox said:
âŠdo you know what Anarchism is actually about, for one?
An ideology defined primary by the lack of a central governing state, wherein local organized communities tend to be the highest governmental structure in place. There's a number of different schisms within anarchism--from libertarian anarchism, communist anarchism (yes, they really can get along), to capitalist anarchism--primarily relating to what form society will take (muh individualism, muh commune, muh free market) after the abolition of the state.
Anarchism has the same basic problem communism has: it's a utopian ideal. Power will always have a tendency to corrupt and consolidate and if there aren't checks and balances in place (something very difficult to do without a larger state), then it'll run rampant.
It also has the invasion problem. With no central state in place to protect the people, it's incredibly vulnerable. If Makhno hadn't been around, the bolsheviks would have steamrolled even quicker over the Free Territory than they already did. Catalonia, meanwhile, had to buckle to the communists to try and keep itself alive and still fell to Franco.
is just about dismantling unjustified hierarchy, isnât it?
No, it's a political ideology advocating a "stateless" society of some form. Anarchists still want to set up something, it just varies, depending on the faction. The libertarian group want full blown private toll roads and volunteer fire departments, the communist group wants local communes where everything's shared, the capitalist group wants free market forces to drive society, etc. And to get to that great utopia, the current system's gotta go.
âŠeven when theyâre totally viable.
There's very few political systems I'd say are really viable. Communism has failed as no state was ever able get past the corrupting allure of the dictatorship phase, anarchism's attempts have been crushed by outside invasions and internal disarray, monarchism collapsed from outside interests wanting a say, dictatorships are incredibly unstable and either reliant on economic wealth or foreign help, mercantilism was always incredibly stupid and is responsible for 70% of the current world's problems thanks to the colonies it created, direct democracy is horribly impractical for large states with millions of people.