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. …
My answer to the concept of “justifiable hierarchies”
Sometimes I think it was a good idea that chapo.chat just completely disabled the downvoting feature, being forced to write a response is much more conducive for fostering discourse than being able to downvote and move on.
Even though I consider myself a ML, I agree with anarchists on the notion that every hierarchy has to have a strong justification to exist (and I really hope this is not a controversial stance among us). Now what I don’t understand is, how does a fully anarchist society form and maintain itself without reintroducing some form of hierarchies? If you find a critical mass of like-minded individuals to form an anarchist commune somewhere, that land is gonna belong to someone, who probably won’t give it up willingly. So that will likely be the first step where some form of coercion has to be employed.
Afterwards, it has become increasingly obvious, that a liberal society with free speech absolutism and tolerance for all dissenting viewpoints is not equipped to deal with fascist ideologies. It is my understanding that without exercising any form of authority it will not be possible to suppress fascist groups from forming, and so a society without hierarchies would share that problem. Moreover, the wreckers could also come from a hostile state, for example an imperialist state who has to see the anarchist project fail to maintain its legitimacy. How can you prevent a foreign actor from doing something like COINTELPRO without having a intelligence apparatus on your own?
Unfortunately, a intelligence community almost immediately introduces some form of hierarchy, because you have to limit the flow of some information. You cannot for example let your suspicion that some person is a foreign agent flow freely, because that might tip them off. Additionally, foreign agents will have a strong incentive to infiltrate your intelligence community, necessitating some kind of operational security, something that I would consider very authoritarian.
Now, I agree that having such an institution introduces a huge risk, and there have to be mechanisms in place to recall the leadership by popular demand fast and readily, but I think not having it is not viable.
Similarly, in the short to mid term, it will be necessary to maintain an armed force. This could, of course, take the form of a citizens militia, you could even make a strong argument that it should. But even then, these units usually have to have some kind of leader to ensure swift decisions. These leaders should of course be elected, possibly by their direct subordinates, and again, leadership must be easily revocable. But is this not a hierarchy in its purest form?
Is there an anarchist, hierarchy-less solution for those problems?
Sometimes I think it was a good idea that chapo.chat just completely disabled the downvoting feature, being forced to write a response is much more conducive for fostering discourse than being able to downvote and move on.
Even though I consider myself a ML, I agree with anarchists on the notion that every hierarchy has to have a strong justification to exist (and I really hope this is not a controversial stance among us). Now what I don’t understand is, how does a fully anarchist society form and maintain itself without reintroducing some form of hierarchies? If you find a critical mass of like-minded individuals to form an anarchist commune somewhere, that land is gonna belong to someone, who probably won’t give it up willingly. So that will likely be the first step where some form of coercion has to be employed.
Afterwards, it has become increasingly obvious, that a liberal society with free speech absolutism and tolerance for all dissenting viewpoints is not equipped to deal with fascist ideologies. It is my understanding that without exercising any form of authority it will not be possible to suppress fascist groups from forming, and so a society without hierarchies would share that problem. Moreover, the wreckers could also come from a hostile state, for example an imperialist state who has to see the anarchist project fail to maintain its legitimacy. How can you prevent a foreign actor from doing something like COINTELPRO without having a intelligence apparatus on your own?
Unfortunately, a intelligence community almost immediately introduces some form of hierarchy, because you have to limit the flow of some information. You cannot for example let your suspicion that some person is a foreign agent flow freely, because that might tip them off. Additionally, foreign agents will have a strong incentive to infiltrate your intelligence community, necessitating some kind of operational security, something that I would consider very authoritarian.
Now, I agree that having such an institution introduces a huge risk, and there have to be mechanisms in place to recall the leadership by popular demand fast and readily, but I think not having it is not viable.
Similarly, in the short to mid term, it will be necessary to maintain an armed force. This could, of course, take the form of a citizens militia, you could even make a strong argument that it should. But even then, these units usually have to have some kind of leader to ensure swift decisions. These leaders should of course be elected, possibly by their direct subordinates, and again, leadership must be easily revocable. But is this not a hierarchy in its purest form?
Is there an anarchist, hierarchy-less solution for those problems?