ziq OP wrote
Reply to comment by GaldraChevaliere in The idea of "some justified hierarchy" is completely counter to anarchy and I don't understand why so many ancoms cling to it by ziq
I mean that's just a carpenter doing their job. I see ancoms use the term directly in relation to organizational positions. Appointing leaders, managers, generals, etc. Any system they create that has a place reserved at the top of a pyramid for a boss has nothing to do with anarchy. Anarchy has to be utterly horizontal.
GaldraChevaliere wrote
Yeah. Maybe I've been using the term wrong, or maybe there's just too many marxists slipping into shit. It just seemed a little confusing to me, like, I'm not remotely qualified to run a lab. My word should probably not be taken as seriously as a chemist's when it comes to those things.
ziq OP wrote
Well if you're not able to run a lab, you won't. Do your own thing. But the chemist isn't your superior in any way just because they are skilled in a certain area.
throwaway wrote
In that specific area, they are your superior. Of course the construction worker is not forced to obey the architects' orders, but anyone with a brain that hasn't fully corroded would. Of course, the same goes for the architect in reverse.
ziq OP wrote (edited )
How are they my superior? I don't work for them. I don't answer to them. Them having a skill I don't have doesn't make me inferior to them.
throwaway wrote
Oh come on... Don't take it out of context. I said in that specific area. They are superior to you in that particular field, because they know more than you do about architecture.
It's a given that I don't believe them to be superior to your being just because they're good at architecture.
this_one wrote
I think the point ziq is trying to make is that you're both using different definitions of 'hierarchy' (and that, in their opinion, their definition is more useful for this conversation/conversations about anarchy in general than yours is)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments