Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

10

videl wrote (edited )

I know this type of thing is mentioned every time someone brings up Chomsky, but that "some hierarchy is justified" thing - from my experience - does help with getting liberals to not completely dismiss anarchy right away. It at least gets them to ask themselves, "what hierarchy is justified?"

7

PerfectSociety wrote

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think it's worth diluting Anarchism to make it more theoretically palatable to Liberals. I think the liberals who might be open to Anarchism can be reached more effectively (and without changing the meaning of Anarchism) by starting discourse by pointing at examples of Anarchist Praxis that have manifested successfully in the world, rather than starting off by citing theory.

In my experience, many social liberals (not classical liberals) find anti-capitalist ideas appealing but what stops them from embracing those ideas is that they think the ideas aren't practical. So I think the best way to convince them otherwise is to start off by simply providing them examples of successful "implementations of Anarchism" (as they would call it).

8

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I've been under the impression it meant hierarchies of skills, something something "on shoes I bend to the knowledge of the shoemaker". The 'hierarchy' is only justifiable in the sense that a carpenter doing it all his life knows more about how to build a house than an office worker who gets confused by flatpack instructions. So it's sensible that the carpenter is the one directing a construction project, but his authority isn't transferable outside of that project.

1

ziq wrote

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.

3

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.

0

ziq 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.

0

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.

1

ziq 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.

0

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.

2

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)

6

selver wrote

It's all Chomsky's fault. I die inside a little every time I see someone explaining anarchism that way. It's such a stupid statement. Literally everyone could be defined as an anarchist since everyone thinks the hierarchies they support are justified.

3

ziq wrote

Every time some noob asks "so anarchists opppose all hierarchy?" some basic ancom Noddy has to butt in with their "no not all hierarchies! Only unjustified ones!" shtick. Then they're flooded with upvotes from other Noddys. And yet another anarcho-Noddy is born.

3

zzuum wrote

ELI5 justified hierarchy? Like pseudo-laws or something?

0

ziq wrote (edited )

Like 'voluntary' positions of power. They usually say it's justified as long as the power is given to the person freely by the people. Which of course is no different than liberalism except perhaps it's (temporarily) contained to a smaller scale (community leaders vs national leaders). But all power corrupts so it'll rapidly degrade into a bureaucratic nightmare.

2

selver wrote

Except they also view relationships like parent-child as non-voluntary justifiable hierarchies, which opens the door to all the other paternalistic forced hierarchies. ie. all the liberal ones.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

Yeah that's another common one they always bring up. Any others you can think of?

2

Anarcropolis wrote

What about teacher student relationships and simple group leadership? When ppl say "justified hierarchy" I take it as a relationship where one or more person is temporarily given command over another for organizational purposes.

Like a non coercive agreement.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Teacher student relationships is a great example. Imparting skills to others needn't be a hierarchy. If it's a hierarchy, the teacher has power over the studemt and the student is essentially a hostage - forced to learn even when they don't want to. Why should learning be so backwards? Why can't it be a free exchange of ideas, a fully voluntary open communication between people? The fact that one of the parties has some skills they wish to pass on shouldn't entitle them to a position of power over others. Teachers learn just as much from their students as vice versa.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

The point is to always prevent hierarchies and power disparities from forming by treating each relationship between parties with great caution. If you make 'all power corrupts' your mantra, instead of Chomskyist flimflam like 'justifiable hierarchy' you'll go a lot further in maintaining anarchy.

1

Anarcropolis wrote

I think there's a problem with using hierarchy because that means that there is a power unbalance. I understood justified hierarchy as different from coercive hierarchy b/c what justified it was the lack of force.

"A fully voluntary open communication between people" wouldn't be considered justified hierarchy I guess because there is no power being used to force compliance, but I thought of "justified hierarchy" as a trade off: You have knowledge or skills that will benefit me or the community so I will follow your directions. It's temporary and voluntary.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't see an open exchange / transfer of ideas as a hierarchy. It's just basic interaction; communication.

1

Anarcropolis wrote

I think I might have misunderstood what "justified hierarchy" meant. GaldraChevaliere and I had similar ideas about it and what you said to them made sense. I was under the impression that jh was not real hierarchy just expertise in a field being applied- taking an expert's instructions or opinions is not really hierarchy in the sense of top-down coercive force

What would you call "hierarchies of skills" then?

1

ziq wrote

Communication?

2

Anarcropolis wrote

Yeah but there's an element of direction, of organization that places the more experienced in charge. We're communicating but I'm not convincing you to do anything for me

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Well look at this thread. We're exchanging ideas. I'm imparting an idea to you without being in charge of anything. You're doing the same.

1

pretzel_logic wrote (edited )

Dumb question here. Relation of a Species with the natural world, can it be considered as a hierarchy? Are there some fundamental hierarchies?

Edit: Is the relation considered a justified hierarchy?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Like wolves eating rabbits? Predator and prey? Doesn't have much to do with anarchy.

There's nothing justifiable or non-justifiable about a wolf eating a rabbit to survive. It's not something we have any control over. Hierarchies in relation to (an)archy are artificial constructs.

1

pretzel_logic wrote

Sorry for the lame question, I thought OP was referring too fundamental predator and prey like structure.