I am trying to write a simple faq about anarchism. One of the question is “Why do anarchist want to abolish hierarchies?”. This question sounds so obvious to me I cannot write something convincing enough.
For know I got the following:
First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism challenges. While anarchists have, on occasion, stated their opposition to “all authority” a closer reading quickly shows that anarchists reject only one specific form of authority, what we tend to call hierarchy.
Hierarchy is a social, religious, economic or political system or organization in which people or groups of people are ranked with some superior to others based on their status, authority or some other trait.
Authority is the power to enforce rules and give orders.
But why do we need a such authority? Why would they be more accountable for doing this job than anybody else? For example, in a factory, why would the boss be necessary? Workers could just organize themselves and do the same function.
You never agreed to respect hierarchies like the state, the police, the companies, etc. When you born you never signed a contract saying you agreed with all of this, so why should you respect it?
What do you think about it? What would you add to it?
I think it’s important to make the point that anarchists are against unjust hierarchies. The hierarchy between a surgeon and surgical nurse, or a pilot controller and a pilot is justifiable – but a hierarchy in gender, race, nationality, or “wealth” under the capitalist system cannot be justified, and must be challenged.
As an anarchist, i strongly disagree with this though we may not have the same understanding of “hierarchy”. I believe these people have different knowledge/skill-sets (difference is fine) but i don’t believe one is more valuable than the other or that they should have authority over the other.
Both are capable to provide useful insight to one another and their cooperation should be based on good will and voluntary association. Hierarchy is the weird notion that a surgeon should be obeyed by a nurse because they always know best… My personal experience with hospitals contradicts this idea.
As both the surgeon and the nurse have a common interest, they cooperate towards this goal. A nurse usually “obeys” the surgeon because the requests make sense and are in the best interest of the patient. Following recommendations is in my view not hierarchy as long as it is conscious, consented and retractable at any time. Hierarchy is the weird notion that if the surgeon ordered to chop a patient’s arm, the nurse wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) even think it through.
Justifiable hierarchies sound good until you realize the potential for political recuperation/assimilation. I mean remember the times when “unions”, “cooperatives”, “federations” and “delegates” were a revolutionary anarchist concept? Or when “democracy” was a terrifying concept for the bourgeoisie? “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” was a revolutionary slogan before it became the slogan of the French republic, under which it became the exact opposite of the truth.
All powers dress themselves in some kind of legitimacy. No tyrant will ever promote injustice and suffering for all. I’d rather have a clear anti-authoritarian stance with strong defiance against any sort of authority, which retains the possibility to consent to giving away your power to someone else eg if you feel like they would be good leaders in a specific situation (for example a surgery).
I do not understand a restricted, time-limited, retractable delegation of power to be a form of hierarchy, and i do not find any form of hierarchy acceptable.
Some good points. In my own mind it may be a matter of semantics, but you’re right. I’ll try to do some more reading on this.
You disagree with crimethinks introdution to anarchy?