So either anarchism has no power structures, thus implicitly admitting that it is fundamentally incapable of bringing about the political change that it advocates for, or it has a power structure and thus it is liable to be commandeered by power hungry psychopaths and used for their own gain like the rest of the power structures around the globe.
Anarchism is a network of smaller structures. Yes, a psychopath would be able to a tribe into a cult. However, the rest of the network would work a check on that psychopath’s power. Better that than a psychopath turning a nation into a cult.
So either anarchism has no power structures, thus implicitly admitting that it is fundamentally incapable of bringing about the political change that it advocates for, or it has a power structure and thus it is liable to be commandeered by power hungry psychopaths and used for their own gain like the rest of the power structures around the globe.
Which way, western anarchist?
Anarchism is a network of smaller structures. Yes, a psychopath would be able to a tribe into a cult. However, the rest of the network would work a check on that psychopath’s power. Better that than a psychopath turning a nation into a cult.
So we’re talking about the platonic ideal of anarchism and not the examples of anarchism in the real world then?