is one of the most common responses I get when I talk to people (usually liberals) about horizontal power structures. It comes down to some version of “Well, that sounds nice, but what about the bad actors?” I think the logic that follows from that fact is backwards. The standard response to this issue is to build vertical power structures. To appoint a ruling class that can supposedly “manage” the bad actors. But this ignores the obvious: vertical power structures are magnets for narcissists. They don’t neutralize those people. They empower them. They give them legitimacy and insulation from consequences. They concentrate power precisely where it’s most dangerous. Horizontal societies have always had ways of handling antisocial behavior. (Highly recommend Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm. He studied hundreds of forager societies, overall done amazing work.) Exile, public shaming, revocable leadership, and distributed decision-making all worked and often worked better than what we do now. Pre-civilized societies didn’t let power-hungry individuals take over. They stopped them. We used to know how to deal with bad actors. The idea of a “power vacuum” only makes sense if you believe power must be held at the top. If you diffuse power horizontally, there is no vacuum to fill. There’s just shared responsibility. That may feel unfamiliar, but it’s not impossible. We’ve done it before. Most of human history was built on it. The real question isn’t whether bad actors exist. It’s how we choose to deal with them. Do we build systems that make it harder for them to dominate others, or ones that practically roll out the red carpet? I think this opens up a more useful conversation.
What if we started seriously discussing tactics for dealing with domination-seeking behavior?
What mechanisms help us identify and isolate that kind of behavior without reproducing the same old coercive structures?
How do we build systems that are resilient to sabotage without falling into authoritarian logic?
I’d love to hear your guys’ thoughts.
Yeah, this is one of the differences between anarchists and communists I doubt we’d ever find agreement on due to the nature of our views. Anarchists reject the notion of power altogether, while Marxists don’t deny that power can entrench itself but attempts to explain why and under what historical and material conditions it can be overcome.
To be clear, my intention isn’t to defend the past socialist experiments as seen in my original comment, but using them as examples where people in charge refused to give up power misunderstands theory and history. The countries were never in position to “give up power”, as they didn’t ever reach a point where state became unnecessary, and there are reasons for that.
If you look at a country like post-revolution USSR, the country was agrarian with vast peasant majority. The productive forces were far from developed to properly transition into socialist mode of production and meet everyone’s needs, which is one of the purposes of the centralized state, and this is something that would have taken a really long time given their productive capacity. Lenin and Bolsheviks did try to go for an international revolution angle in hopes they would escape this predicament, but they failed, leaving USSR isolated, forcing it to adopt capitalist markets and then quickly degenerating due to opportunism and the ‘bad actors’ the system inevitably creates over time as leadership changes.
Marxists such as myself would argue that USSR was doomed from the start due to their material conditions at the time unless they could have found success internationally. This is something that Anarchism wouldn’t resolve - decentralization in an undeveloped, isolated and hostile environment would weaken defense, cripple the development of productive forces and very likely would have lead to an accelerated collapse.
Also apologies - I can’t help but write unreadable walls of text.
I do see your point, and I can’t argue that so far communists have greater success in creating and maintaining states against outside influence be it economic or military.
No need to apologize for the walls they are well structured.