Asklemmy

What if we had 12 parties that were all captured by corporate interests?

Everything can be corrupted, the apparent amount of choices doesn't make the choice any better or worse

Good question.

If the one party is founded and sustained by people who are sworn enemies of said corporate interests, there ensues an existential power struggle between the party and the corporations (foreign, domestic, or most often both), that typically ends up reaching beyond the borders of the country in question.

If the one party quickly becomes captured by foreign interests, chances are the party was founded with that intention.

Apply this lens to the last 107-119 years of history, and most of it will become much clearer.

So who watches the watchers? In a way we all do. But instead of this being a mere idealistic aphorism, there are mechanisms in place to ensure it. We enculturate people to value equality and not valorize themselves above others, we minimize the potential benefits of corruption and keep the punishments consistent, we ensure that the watcher is not a lifelong position, we ensure that watchers do not become a separate class, we subject the watchers to oversight and approval of those who are watched, and we set up the processes so that they only function when people are working together.

This is so much more extensive than the asymmetric and byzantine setup that passes for "checks and balances" in liberal democracies. Is it still possible for things to go awry as a few bad actors try to bend the framework to favor themselves? Yes, absolutely. And that is a challenge to the people setting up the framework, to keep the wrong people out initially and to make it strong enough that it can keep its integrity once the founders are gone.

No problem!

Honestly, one of the best introductions to anarchism is The Conquest of Bread by Petr Kropotkin. It's a century old and still very relevant and approachable. You can find it for free on The Anarchist Library.

And one thing to understand about anarchism is that it’s very much a goal oriented philosophy more than most other political philosophies. What that means is that you get a lot of different approaches and concepts from people trying different things to attempt to achieve similar goals. And this often involves practical differences between different situations. Rojava is necessarily going to do things differently from how the maknovists did things and they’re both very different from how some punks who bought some land for a commune in the American Midwest will handle it.

The same as everyone else's - a society without hierarchy.

I see it playing out perfectly fine, just like it has throughout human existence in numerous societies across the globe. But it takes a lot of work to get there.