1. Criminal trials via random lottery of jury with the charged being viewed as innocent until proven guilty.
2. Checks and balances, where governmental power is intentionally limited and weakened.
3. A system of federated governments that elect representations, with a design favoring minority members of that federation.
Anarchism is always a balancing act between legitimate power and limitations on that power. Most forms of Anarchism do not reject all forms of power as illegitimate but rather place a heavy burden of proof on the claim that legitimate of the use of power.
I disagree with a lot of what Chomsky has said but I do think his definition of anarchism was very well stated:
"Well, anarchism is, in my view, basically a kind of tendency in human thought which shows up in different forms in different circumstances, and has some leading characteristics. Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just." - Noam Chomsky
I think US historians wrote books on it, but often fail to mention that after (or really, a bit before) Neuschwander took control, the metal and steel industry that sold them metal gave them structurally deficient steel, poor quality copper and were largely inconsistent in their metal delivery, being late for months, then giving them all the late commands at the same time, stretching or overflowing their storage. The luxury store and industry wasn't any better (one more reason to hate LVMH and never support them as a French), leaving their products in inventory and not in display, rejecting previously accepted commands, and limiting foreign exports to less than the number of exported goods than when Lip watches had to be smuggled. The courts and police didn't help and (according to what i heard: this is a biased account) refused to take any declaration.
Is that system “working”?
In June 1888 Peter Kropotkin wrote “Are we good enough?” on the subject of human nature and anarchism. It’s well worth a listen: https://youtu.be/jytf-5St8WU
the real solution is to fix the "are we good enough" problem and change education such that we actually become good enough. this requires moral education to a degree that is not happening anywhere yet. the reality is that as peter says in the beginning, if we were good enough, then the system would not matter. and has history has shown, as long as we are not good enough, any system remains exploitable. communism brought a temporary relief but ended up failing because we still were not good enough.
so lets forget this arguing about which system is better. it does not matter. what matters is that we learn to become good enough. that should be our goal. that's the only way to eliminate all problems.
edit: thanks again, your linked video is perfect, I have held this exact view that "we're not good enough" for communism/anarchy, so this is the perfect challenge to my current beliefs!
The problem with anarchism is never infighting it just wasnt good at defending itself from external military threats.
Stalinism on the other hand, was a perfectly crafted machine for dealing with external military threats, but wasn't very nice to live under.
It should be pretty simple to understand why: no one person or group of people can predict all eventualities or contingencies and it is not possible to design a system based on rigid ideals that can fail gracefully.
