The thought of the abolishment of all forms of Hierarchy.

[The Man]

Were all against Social/Economic Hierarchy here, but there are few Anarchists that I know that feel that we should abolish ALL forms of Hierarchy that appear in everyday life. I think this is nonsensical, and utterly ridiculous. How could this even be remotely possible?


Your thoughts?


Comrade Lycanthrope

[Victus Mortuum]

Well - Anarchism is fundamentally opposition to ALL hierarchy (an-archy). Perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself an anarchist?

[The Man]

I'm not denying that I'm against all forms of Hierarchy, because I am. I'm just baffled on how we could possibly destroy all forms Hierarchy in everyday life? How could you possibly do that?

Comrade Lycanthrope

[StalinFanboy]

Which ones can't we get rid of?

[bcbm]

man over beast

[Savage]

Social hierarchies will still exist in any sort of stateless society.

[The Douche]

man over beast

As if man isn't a beast?

[Exakt]

A central worker's council (or whatever you wish to call it) is comprised of delegates from lesser workers councils right the way down to the individual factory/workplace.

Why would you want to 'get rid of' the benefits of that hierarchy?

[bcbm]

As if man isn't a beast?

no.. he's a man

[The Douche]

no.. he's a man

Anthropocentrist.

[Exakt]

Were all against Social/Economic Hierarchy here, but there are few Anarchists that I know that feel that we should abolish ALL forms of Hierarchy that appear in everyday life. I think this is nonsensical, and utterly ridiculous. How could this even be remotely possible?

Your thoughts?

Comrade Lycanthrope

Perhaps attacks against hierarchy should be focused on ones which cause material oppression. The hierarchy of races causes oppression, the hierarchy of... classes causes oppression, the hierarchy between groups of nations causes oppression... but the hierarchy of waiting in a line to receive your Mc Burger isn't oppressive in any material manner, and trying to regulate relationships between friends would be more burdening than merely letting them exist...

[Victus Mortuum]

I don't think that you all fully understand what is meant when anarchists oppose hierarchical authority.

Anarchism is opposition to -coerced authority-

It's not opposed to educational 'authorities' and such (though they would certainly push the dissociation of knowledge through society, rather than its concentration in a particular minority)

[bcbm]

Anthropocentrist.

species traitor

[Exakt]

No, you're right - I think the concept is pretty vague.

What is coerced authority? Authority gained without the consent of individuals?

Well then, it is based on a bourgeoisie legal fiction - which isn't to say that it is useless (far from it), merely that its foundation is weak and its function limited.

One worker can argue that he wasn't coerced into signing his employment contract at all - he freely consented to do so. In that case would you be opposed to the relationship between boss and worker? Or would you recognize that, as most Marxists do, that whilst signing a contract of employment is a step up from being forced (via slavery) into that employment relationship, there is still a whole economic motivation/force which requires people to get employment?

Do children consent to educational authority? Or do they submit?

Any workers organs in a revolutionary situation has gained its authority through either the actual application of violence or via a threat of it. Would you be opposed to those organs merely because they haven't been consented to by everyone?

[dernier combat]

Anarchists are against involuntary hierarchy. They are by no means against all authority. Voluntary hierarchy and voluntary submission to authority will exist in our everyday lives, with the latter being demonstrated here by Bakunin:

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker.

[theblackmask]

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1298386087209_2811279.png

[Exakt]

That Bakunin quote really needs to be updated for ya'll anarchists' sake. Here:


Originally Posted by Mikhail Bakunin
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Hell nah. In the matter of rims, I refer to the authority of the rimmaker. And I'm rollin' on 20s, motherfuckers.

Anyway, it doesn't really explain what involuntary means, what happens if some agree to it but others don't. I've heard the Bakunin quote a bajillion times, but unfortunately society is more complex than deciding what size chucks I need.

[PhoenixAsh]

Whats with all the subversive anarchy threads lately?

[PhoenixAsh]

What is coerced authority? Authority gained without the consent of individuals?

Its authority that comes about from an unequal economic and social autonomous position.



Well then, it is based on a bourgeoisie legal fiction - which isn't to say that it is useless (far from it), merely that its foundation is weak and its function limited.

One worker can argue that he wasn't coerced into signing his employment contract at all - he freely consented to do so. In that case would you be opposed to the relationship between boss and worker? Or would you recognize that, as most Marxists do, that whilst signing a contract of employment is a step up from being forced (via slavery) into that employment relationship, there is still a whole economic motivation/force which requires people to get employment?

Yes...because it comes about from the need to work to sustain your life and the inability to formulate conditions on equal terms. Very little contracts come about on equal terms.

So you can both agree its voluntary but the force is implied in the context and not the individual act.



Do children consent to educational authority? Or do they submit?


Whats educational authority in your opinion?




Any workers organs in a revolutionary situation has gained its authority through either the actual application of violence or via a threat of it. Would you be opposed to those organs merely because they haven't been consented to by everyone?

No because after they are created averybody has an equal position / voice within the organs.

THe freedom consists of either participating or not participating. But your position and autonomy is the same.

[PhoenixAsh]

That Bakunin quote really needs to be updated for ya'll anarchists' sake. Here:



Anyway, it doesn't really explain what involuntary means, what happens if some agree to it but others don't. I've heard the Bakunin quote a bajillion times, but unfortunately society is more complex than deciding what size chucks I need.

Again...its pretty simple.

Involuntary means every single situation in which the submission comes about through unequal economic and social context.