> Actually there are a lot of problems that anarchists wouldn't run into that the government does. Political corruption - collusion between state and corporations with welfare for the wealthy
I don't know why you think that a different organizational scheme would prevent corruption.
If you're going to build a bridge, somebody has to do the work. Everybody else is going to pay them somehow. And if you're going to pick someone to do the work, somebody has to choose. It's untenable to have every decision made by all people, so everyone will delegate, say, construction hiring decisions, to someone.
Now the Construction Hiring Decider can pick who gets paid to work. Who will he/she choose? Will it be based on skill, personal connections, ethnic bias - or maybe kickbacks?
You can't run any large group without delegating some responsibilities. As soon as anybody has any decision-making power delegated to them, they can misuse it. There is no system that can totally prevent that. And the more structures of accountability and shared decision-making you build to safeguard power, the more it looks like a democratic government.
I don't know why you think pay comes into this. Anarchists generally don't believe in a market economy.
You do raise good points but anarchists are not all juvenile and naive as many think and, seeing as anarchism has been around for >100 years, people have thought of these issues before you. Decision-making definitely has to be delegated to people sometimes and the manner in which this is done is important. Usually anarchists emphasise frequent rotation and possibility for immediate recall in order that no one may abuse their power.
I think of it as being similar to how science is funded by national agencies. There is a big pool of resources and it gets dispersed among researchers according to some process. That process usually involves nominating a team of scientists in the relevant field to judge where the resources would be best spent. Everyone ultimately has the same goal of advancing research most effectively and so they usually make the best choices possible. The panel is different every year so there it's hard to have collusion going on. Academia definitely has its problems with entrenched hierarchies of course but those come about for different reasons.
It's impossible to make a perfect system but it's clear we could do better. Anarchists just want to dilute unjust power structures as much as possible. There are examples of organisations that are successfully run like this so it's not like these are utopian ideas.
I don't know why you think that a different organizational scheme would prevent corruption.
If you're going to build a bridge, somebody has to do the work. Everybody else is going to pay them somehow. And if you're going to pick someone to do the work, somebody has to choose. It's untenable to have every decision made by all people, so everyone will delegate, say, construction hiring decisions, to someone.
Now the Construction Hiring Decider can pick who gets paid to work. Who will he/she choose? Will it be based on skill, personal connections, ethnic bias - or maybe kickbacks?
You can't run any large group without delegating some responsibilities. As soon as anybody has any decision-making power delegated to them, they can misuse it. There is no system that can totally prevent that. And the more structures of accountability and shared decision-making you build to safeguard power, the more it looks like a democratic government.