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.
The hierarchy between a surgeon and surgical nurse, or a pilot controller and a pilot is justifiable
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?
Either make it short or make the beginning snappy. Otherwise few will read it.
It starts off too technical, which will turn people off. Maybe give an example of a hierarchy versus good authority near the start.
I’d like to read it. I didn’t know about they subtlety.
deleted by creator
For now I got this: https://hostinbel.nohost.me/dokuwiki/anarchism
Peter Gelderloos did a twitter thread kind of about this a while back: https://twitter.com/PeterGelderloos/status/1315275754276519936
I’m not against hierarchy while there exists capitalist threats, but I’d support leftist anarchists in the revolutionary struggle.
condorcet once said something along the lines: if we don’t do shit we will live in a society where oppression will be based on knowledge. ofc he wasn’t anarchist, but some folks may have skipped this chapter.
so even the authority based on knowledge(given by xe8) doesn’t sit well with me. so what do you mean by authority ? giving orders to someone else based on a structure ? what saying do people under orders get about who they choose ?(maybe i am just describing idealized democracy, which might not be good enough)
Power corrupts. Nobody can be trusted with power over another person.
Sorry but this notion that “power corrupts” is very idealist and not necessarily true in all cases. Being afraid of power is a detriment to all movements because without power you can’t think to ever gain anything. Power is merely a tool, nothing more.
“We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.” - Foucault in Discipline and Punish
What’s the difference between power and authority? Also, the idea that nobody can be trusted with power over another person sounds pretty accurate (at least power that is involuntary and unjustified)
I think we are getting into a difference of definitions here. I am specifically talking about political power; that of legislators, governors, judges, police officers, bosses, managers, clergy, landlords, etc. which gives them specialized responsibility for managing the lives of other people. Instead, people should have the generalized shared responsibility for the management of public society and full control of their private lives. When someone does have such specialized responsibility of management (“power” in my usage) it corrupts them in multiple ways. Just a few examples:
- There is the outright abuse of power for personal advantage.
- There is the perception that oneself is of higher moral value than the managed person.
- There is sometimes the necessity of using people as a tool to secure one’s own power.
Power, in the sense you are using it, is more like a synonym for potential or capability. If I understood you correctly, we are actually in agreement and are just using the word in different ways.
If I understood you correctly, we are actually in agreement and are just using the word in different ways.
That is correct. Power is either understood as a synonym of capacity (power to achieve something), or as a synonym of authority (power over others), not sure why some folks would downvote you.
Apparently two people downvoted without replying… did I say something unconstructive? I thought we were having a good conversation.
