Anarchist approach to power "essentialist"?

[Matina]

So I was wondering what do you think about the anarchist conception of hierarchy and power. So according to what I've heard from anarchists so far, is that power and hierarchy "corrupts", is "authoritarian" and that it makes even the most honest revolutionary an "authoritarian". Thus always according to anarchists "hierarchy and power inherently leads to corruption/authoritarianism/degeneration".

So according to this anarchists have an "essentialist" conception of power, meaning that people are inherently authoritarian/corrupt/despotic when they assume positions of power. How does this correspond to the anarchist philosophy which is supposed to be materialist, given that essentialism is idealism to the extreme?

Also look at my signature for a good anarchist quote.

[Diagoras]

The contemporary anarchist critique of disparate power is not based upon some 'original sin'-type notion of innate human features, a priori, but very simply upon historical observation. Those who are able to concentrate power into their hands over others tend to use it, and to their advantage. Individuals can not be trusted to not use power and privilege to their own advantage (at the potential expense of the general good) if they are allowed to acquire it. Those who do acquire special power act in concert with others of similar interests in order to provide for mutual protection of these privileges. This is a foundation of disparate classes. Even if one individual who acquires power over others is not particularly tyrannical or bloodthirsty, and acts in concert with the general will, he/she is then at best redundant and the power disparity remains unjustified.

Of course not every individual wields their power/position in relation to others in the same way, so generalizing that every person who claims hierarchical power over others will be the next Stalin is absurd. However, in spite of the ubiquitous examples of individuals with more power than others using said power to defend their positions, the anarchist critique is more focused on the cultural and systemic role of the power differences in shaping society over time. Summarily, the general position of anarchists upon disparate power can be better described as "at its most banal, hierarchical power relations are unjustified privilege that obstruct general empowerment and wellbeing, and at its worst, history is littered with examples of what those with power over others will do to defend perceived enroachment upon that power (whether issues of state, race, gender, class)".

On a side note, I find the Stanford Prison Experiment and similar mirror experiments to be informative as to how acquiring and acting within disparate power structures and roles plays out generally.

[apathy maybe]

So according to this anarchists have an "essentialist" conception of power, meaning that people are inherently authoritarian/corrupt/despotic when they assume positions of power. How does this correspond to the anarchist philosophy which is supposed to be materialist, given that essentialism is idealism to the extreme?
There are a number of comments to be made. The first (and least), is that not all anarchists are materialistic (though the sensible ones are). Some people are anarchists because they reject anyone but God having power over people. (Absurd though that is.)

Anyway, focusing on the materialist anarchists. It is an observation of history that those who have power, rarely give it up willingly. Even if they do take up their position with the most pure of heart, they will inevitably reject calls to surrender it. If I were set up monarch of the world tomorrow, think of all the things I could do! I could abolish capitalism, destroy injustice, feed the poor, and so on ad infinitum. The trouble is, where would I stop? Once I had accomplished all I had set out to do, it is still doubtful that I would be happy, just one more tweak here... (Not to mention, to maintain my position and enforce my decisions, would require armies and police. What to do with them?) Anyway, so I manage to solve all the world's ills, and I voluntarily give up power after abolishing the police and armies. What a strange thing that was! Why?

As mentioned, in history most people (not all) do not give up power willingly. Just because anarchists don't (always) use Marxian analysis, doesn't mean that we reject learning from, and studying history.


Also look at my signature for a good anarchist quote.
The quote, for the future:
Facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history." - Bakunin, God and the State


Diagoras's explanation is also quite good.