I like and appreciate a lot of the anarchist values and would like to see them influence policy. Anarchists believe that states are inherently immoral, and societies should be structured to have as minimal of a hierarchy as possible. This entails focusing on [Local Communities](/garden/local-communities/index.md) and spreading power as thinly as possible, to avoid the possibility of individuals becoming corrupt and abusing their power.
Anarchism is anti-authoritarian, and explicitly denounces any use of violence to enforce rules, thus requiring [Police Abolition](/garden/abolitionism/index.md). By similar logic, anarchists tend to oppose imperialism and capitalism and the respective hierarchies they create. There are those who consider themselves "anarcho-capitalists" without realizing (or are ignoring) the hierarchies created by wealth inequality. These are incompatible views, and the person is likely actually authoritarian.
Democracy is a form of electoralism that is typically compatible with Anarchism, although some definitions of anarchism disallow any form of rules, even when agreed upon unanimously. There are different forms of democracy, with [Direct Democracy](/garden/direct-democracy/index.md) and [Consensus Democracy](/garden/consensus-democracy/index.md) being the most popular variants that are compatible with anarchism. The US government is a [Representative Democracy](/garden/representative-democracy/index.md), which is NOT anarchistic. Representatives abstract policy making from the views of the people. If we're supposed to vote on the representative that will most closely vote to how we feel on all issues, then the theoretical perfect representative would just be ourselves - and at that point, we should just be voting on the issues directly. Therefore if striving for anarchism, you should not use a representative democracy as in its theoretical ideal its still only just as good as any other variant of Democracy, and in practice will be much worse.
A core principle of anarchism is "free association", referring to how individuals should be able to freely move between anarchist organizations to find one they're compatible with, or even frequently move between several communities they like. This can cause concerns of encouraging segregation, so I think its important for these communities to encourage diversity as much as they can. They can also refuse to associate with other bigoted communities, theoretically discouraging those bigoted views through social and material isolation.
Anarchistic organizations can still appoint roles to people. For example, if a nation like America were to be made anarchistic, it would likely maintain some roles of the President, such as that of Commander-In-Chief. It is primarily the law making and enforcing that would need to be democratized, and of course making sure those appointed roles are elected democratically.
Anarchism relies on the idea that there are enough individuals motivated to systemically fix problems that they will do so without direct personal gain (beyond the problem being solved), and that others will not block those efforts, even if the policy won't help them in particular. I believe this would and does hold true. I believe our society being filled with greedy individuals is primarily caused by our society rewarding greed. Without the profit motive and returning to a culture of collaboration and mutual aid, greed would for the most part become a non-factor in policy making. Those who are already at the top of the hierarchy don't want to lose their position, and have thus been propagandizing that hierarchies are necessary/inevitable, and even just. This concept gets discussed in [The Alt-Right Playbook: Always a Bigger Fish](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs).
Democracies where the people vote on individual issues are often criticized by citing the US' current low turnout rates during elections. I believe the rates are more indicative of a lack of faith in electoralism, and in any case its not a reason to be alarmed that policies would be dictated by a minority of the population. The low turnout can work in favor of direct and consensus democracies, as it means it only takes a few motivated individuals to improve society or block proposals that would worsen it. The fact getting engaged in politics takes time and effort means you're less likely to see people blocking policies in bad faith out of contrarianism. In theory, any consolidation of power would also negatively affect most people, which would motivate them to block the proposal. That makes anarchism very stable.
In contrast to [Neoliberalism](/garden/neoliberalism/index.md), anarchism calls for systemic solutions to problems, rather than reliance on individual charity. In America, charity has never been sufficient to end hunger or homelessness. Anarchists and leftists believe we need systemic issues to these problems, such as making food, shelter, and healthcare freely accessible to all. Technology has made it trivial to provide for everyone. In America, there is more food waste than it would take to feed all the hungry, and enough vacant houses to shelter all the homeless. The scarcity is artificial, created by those at the top of the hierarchy.
Places of work can also be democratized! Typical American corporations are very hierarchical, with a few hands at the top having ultimate say over the company - what it does, how much it pays its employees, who it fires, etc. Worker's co-operatives are alternatives to corporations that are entirely worker owned and operated, with a flat hierarchy. This makes technology work in employees' favor, rather than owners' (since the employees are the owners). For example, lets say some technological innovation made employees twice as productive. Under a capitalist structure, the owners would have no reason to increase compensation based on the increased production, and in fact would be discouraged from doing so. They'd likely either use the increased productivity to sell more products, or half the workforce to cut down on significant expenditures. Under a socialist structure, the needs and desires of the employees are most important, so workers are likely to either see increased compensation due to their increased productivity, or reduced hours without a reduction in compensation. The co-operative could still decide to also just utilize the increased productivity without reducing hours nor increasing compensation, but the decision to do so would have been consensually made by the workers themselves, not their boss.
China recently enacted a [policy](https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2024/01/employees-participation-in-corporate-governance-under-the-revised-chinese-company-law) to make all of its corporations operate democratically, with a "Employee Assembly" made up of up to 100 workers, that can decide on things like firing supervisors or, in big companies, appointing 1/3 of the board of directors. That goes a long way in democratizing the remaining private businesses in China.
