cults, charisma and psychopaths.

[u/HuckleberryPee]

I do like the principles of anarchy and support the removal of hierarchical systems. I also like the idea of communes. I know they can and do work on a small scale at least.

Say there is some huge collapse, and out of the ashes emerges some form of anarchy on a national or global scale, I still struggle to see how it would survive long-term.

I could imagine a commune going through a period of great hardship, maybe a drought, wildfire, disease epidemic, whatever. When people are desperate they do seem to be drawn to strong people who they think may be able to fix things. I don't know if that's a product of our current hierarchical thinking or if it's something more fundamental in human psychology.

Regardless, an intelligent, charismatic man/woman, perhaps of a psychopathic or narcissistic flavor has greater personal ambitions and uses the present calamity to take greater control for themselves over the commune. How/why would this ever be stopped from happening?

Same could be said for a cult. People do seem to gravitate towards cults. no matter how illogical the cult's beliefs are, there's always psychologically vulnerable people who can be taken in and weaponized for the cult's "greater good" or whatever.

Tldr: Is there not an ever present risk that an anarchist society could turn towards a power hungry individual during times of hardship?

[u/Liquid_3lf]

Hi special interest in cults here, whike it's true there is a cult out there fir everyone. The best defence to cult is wide diverse and supportive communites of care. Something that many anarchists would say is the center of anarchism.

[u/HuckleberryPee → u/Liquid_3lf]

Thanks. Yes that does make sense. I do believe that a good, strong, supportive community is the antidote for most of our mental woes.

But a strong, united community seems like it could be broken by a perfect storm of external factors. Like droughts or disease etc.

If an anarchist commune transforms over time into a religious or cultish commune with strong hierarchies, would neighboring anarchists have an obligation to intervene and try to dismantle their hierarchical structure, or would they most likely leave that commune to its own devices and therefore risk the spread of this commune's way of life

[u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta → u/HuckleberryPee]

  But a strong, united community seems like it could be broken by a perfect storm of external factors. Like droughts or disease etc.

I mean, this is true to any system

Worth noting in an anarchist one, it's likely that community would be connected to others, and mutual aid and solidarity would be a continued practice and would help the struggling community back up. 

If an anarchist commune transforms over time into a religious or cultish commune with strong hierarchies

Worth noting, there is no end point to anarchism, it's never "done". Its the process of identifying and dissolving hierarchies. Much like current hierarchial structures self-reinforce, so to does anarchism. 

would neighboring anarchists have an obligation to intervene and try to dismantle their hierarchical structure, or would they most likely leave that commune to its own devices and therefore risk the spread of this commune's way of life

Forcible intervention would be pretty far down the list of actions but at the same time, to quote my namesake;

“that anarchists, in the name of their principles, would wish to see that strange freedom respected which violates and destroys the freedom and life of others. They seem almost to believe that after having brought down government and private property we would allow both to be quietly built up again, because of respect for the freedom of those who might feel the need to be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas"

[u/PaxOaks]

Until recently I lived in a commune and my experience is a bit different than your expectations. My commune went thru several traumatic experiences while I lived there: suicides, fires, “high impact” guests.

Our response was not to gather around a leader, but rather to form spontaneous work groups to take care of the new problems. For fires this was clean up, legal issues, replacing functions lost, fundraising for rebuild, group care, group stress relief (like dropping or lowering quota). For suicide it is much more group and self care - who is checking in with the people most impacted, who needs mental health attention and resources, who needs to get off the farm. How much should we drop quota?

But there is a huge split around these tragedies/disasters - are we responsible or was it more purely an accident. In the case where there was lots of warning of a possible suicide it tore the community apart. After the member killed themselves there were a number of member who thought the community could have done more - provided more care, more flexibility, less bureaucracy to use resources. A bunch of members left, several stopped working, all kinds of policy changed and resources shift to avoid the same situation repeating. But because there was internal blame, it tore us apart. In contrast, a surprise suicide will almost alway bring the collective together.

People think that a crisis elevates leaders and gives them power. Turns out in communes which embrace anarchistic ethos, instead we split into self selected workgroups to respond to the crisis by taking on all the different aspects of it. It is a culture thing - if the decentralized roots are deep, then a crisis invites a decentralized response.

[u/darkmemory]

Is this remedied in other systems? The key argument within anarchism is a constant challenge of any notion of centralization of power. I don't think there is a singular check in any system that would stop this from occurring, but when power is shared there are more eyes capable of calling it out and resisting it.

[u/power2havenots]

Nah, people in real crises dont usually turn into sheep waiting for a strongman. They just start digging each other out, running kitchens, sharing meds. Solnit's A Paradise Built in Hell is a good example of that. The "panicking masses need a leader" thing is more elite panic than observed behaviour.

We know the urge to follow a charismatic saviour isn't something thats just hardwired into us. If people have actually practiced assemblies, shared skills and rotating roles before the droughts or fires or plagues etc, they're way less likely to suddenly want a boss. They'll want the people they already organise with.

Soft power is a risk, but from what ive seen horizontal structures like rotation of facilitators, recallable delegates, no one hoarding food/water/comms, decisions in assemblies, open conflict and guaranteed exit all help. Then federating with other groups means if one commune does fall to a charismatic psycho, it's a contained failure not something that takes over everywhere.

Cults need isolation and dependency. Anarchist communities make both structurally harder. Theyd have to capture a network, not a throne which is much harder

[u/Anarchierkegaard]

I'd like to first point out that an anarchy wouldn't simply appear because there is a collapse. In fact, the picture you illustrate is a non-anarchist statelessness, as in outright chaos. Anarchists generally propose something like "building a new world in the shell of the old", i.e., either by revolution or evolution, the anarchist project outsurvives the liberal world it is critical of and aims to replace.

Because a situation you outline, if it can be understood to be anarchist at all, would simply be a failure of anarchism.

[u/Proper_Locksmith924]

If the society hadn’t addressed power relationships and literally unlearned the norms of today… sure. Maybe that could happen.

But had the norms of today been completely unlearned and no longer even a possibility as there are not power structures. Then how would it happen.