Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

edmund_the_destroyer OP wrote

Interesting. I thought anarchists believed that hierarchy was fundamentally bad - that even in cases of a project for the best of reasons like research to cure cancer or increase food production it would inevitably be subverted into something abusive and self-serving.


rot wrote

It has to be justified, if it's a project that helps me in anyway or helps the community then I'll volunteer. Listening to someone's good idea and following along is not a coercive hierarchy.

Construction workers would have to follow the architect's blueprints or nothing would be built, they can suggest altercations but ultimately the group has to follow the agreed upon plan.


Yunlunuae wrote

The problem is that english as a language doesn't lend itself very well to distinguishing between authority (as in unjustified and coercive) and authority ( as in a knowledgeable person in their field). A leader for a specific task is reasonable and so long as those wishing to partake in the task agree it would be justified, they're deferring to experience or knowledge in such an example.


throwaway wrote

Look at it like this: natural "leaders" will occur in every field. Some are good strategists while others are good fighters, for example. Naturally, the fighters will go to the strategist for advice on strategies. This is natural and justified hierarchy.


robottroymacclure wrote

its just expertise, theres nothing Hierarchical about it. everyone is an expert on something. we all pool our mental resources and everyone benefits.


robottroymacclure wrote (edited )

Edmund, you jammed together two different ideas in this statement. the premise is not related to the conclusion.