No it doesn’t. You just recognized this yourself when you noted that a leader can be a coordinator or guide. This by no means necessitates or even gestures toward a hierarchy.
“Orders” is a pretty unsavory, cynical way to frame a leader’s role. In fact, one could argue that a good leader does not need to lead by coercion or orders. This is the capitalist’s way of leadership: “I have more; therefore I’m above you.”
A good leader guides by expertise and experience, and need not place themself above others.
Leader does not equate authoritarian. Anarchism recognizes such hierarchical leadership for what it is: Abusive and destructive
A leader must inherently be up in the hierarchy, since if they weren’t everyone would be a leader. Differences that may only be genetic can definitely give you a position over others, without even needing to use “coercion and violent orders” that you seem so obsessed with.
Think of that teacher almost everybody had that was able to keep absolute order and silence without even raising their voice or punishing anyone, but imposing by their mere presence. That’s what these kind of organic leaders have, an imponent presence that puts order without violent actions. But it’s clear than a teacher is hierarchically superior to students in a school, and that doesn’t mean they’re always gonna be imposing themselves by force.
But whatever, this is too focused on how survival without leadership is impossible when I said that an anarchist society would be constantly raided by opportunistic people
Wow, it’s amazing how you are wrong about almost everything you say! You seem to be replying to your own strawpeople instead of the words I actually say.
First of all, you are the one who brought violence into the discussion, so I’ll just summarily ignore that at this point since you’re just barking at the end of your chain.
Second, a leader by no means needs to be “up in the hierarchy,” and I pity you for thinking they do. It’s funny you mention teaching since my background is in education, and I was prepared to use a teacher as another perfect example of a non-hierarchical structure. Granted, there are hierarchies that are forced on some teachers in certain circumstances due to the flaws inherent in our inequitable system, but effective classroom management is by and large a non-hierarchical relationship. In fact, creating a classroom hierarchy is a hallmark of an untrained, ineffective teacher! A teacher who is “in charge” is far less effective than one who sees themself as a guide walking beside their students.
I said that an anarchist society would be constantly raided by opportunistic people
Okay, so you take issue with Kropotkin et al’s argument that it would not? Which parts of his argument do you care to address? Or is this just based on some vague incorrect notion you have of what anarchism is, without looking further? Personally, I subscribe to the notion that a stateless society in which everyone feels personally invested and in which it is in our own best interests to engage with the community would effectively eliminate the toxic power structures that have led to things like poverty and greed. Certainly, it’s at least an idea worth investigating, without arrogantly proclaiming what you think would happen, without even understanding what it is.
No anarchists believe humans will become saints, or that anarchism necessitates people being good by nature, so I’m not sure who you’re responding to. Certainly not me! You’re thinking of neoliberalism, which is based on the lie that we can all become shiny happy people, and then suddenly capitalism will start working.
Rather, anarchism recognizes that the lion’s share of injustices that are meted out on both a small and large scale are a result of inherently inequitable systems like imperialism, capitalism, and statehood; and hierarchical power structures.
It’s not like instituting anarchism will eliminate all ax murderers or thieves (though thieves would have a rather silly time of it under anarchism), but it works because it is in our own selfish best interests to live in a community of others with a varying range of interests and skill sets.
Hell, Kropotkin even recognizes that people might still long for things like luxury goods within the first generation of an anarchist society, after which such pursuits would be clearly a fool’s errand.
But sure, there’s nothing stopping you from removing yourself from a community, or from behaving in such an egregious way that necessitates your removal by direct action. But when you start breaking down why these petty acts of violence happen against others, most of them can be attributed to: 1. Inequities caused by a system that creates them, 2. Influences of a state, and 3. The existence of hierarchies.
Going back to the teacher example: A bad teacher will say “because I said so,” a better teacher will explain why they said so, but a great teacher will work alongside the class to create a class contract for establishing ground rules, which are open to discussion at any time. You might claim the teacher is at the top of a hierarchy because of their training, education, and skillset, but I would argue that’s not a hierarchy. When I call an electrician, it’s not because I’m above them or they’re above me – they have a certain set of skills to be shared. No hierarchy inherent in that.
No it doesn’t. You just recognized this yourself when you noted that a leader can be a coordinator or guide. This by no means necessitates or even gestures toward a hierarchy.
A coordinator coordinates by giving orders, a leader gives orders. A guide is followed by others, a leader is followed by others
“Orders” is a pretty unsavory, cynical way to frame a leader’s role. In fact, one could argue that a good leader does not need to lead by coercion or orders. This is the capitalist’s way of leadership: “I have more; therefore I’m above you.”
A good leader guides by expertise and experience, and need not place themself above others.
Leader does not equate authoritarian. Anarchism recognizes such hierarchical leadership for what it is: Abusive and destructive
A leader must inherently be up in the hierarchy, since if they weren’t everyone would be a leader. Differences that may only be genetic can definitely give you a position over others, without even needing to use “coercion and violent orders” that you seem so obsessed with.
Think of that teacher almost everybody had that was able to keep absolute order and silence without even raising their voice or punishing anyone, but imposing by their mere presence. That’s what these kind of organic leaders have, an imponent presence that puts order without violent actions. But it’s clear than a teacher is hierarchically superior to students in a school, and that doesn’t mean they’re always gonna be imposing themselves by force.
But whatever, this is too focused on how survival without leadership is impossible when I said that an anarchist society would be constantly raided by opportunistic people
Wow, it’s amazing how you are wrong about almost everything you say! You seem to be replying to your own strawpeople instead of the words I actually say.
First of all, you are the one who brought violence into the discussion, so I’ll just summarily ignore that at this point since you’re just barking at the end of your chain.
Second, a leader by no means needs to be “up in the hierarchy,” and I pity you for thinking they do. It’s funny you mention teaching since my background is in education, and I was prepared to use a teacher as another perfect example of a non-hierarchical structure. Granted, there are hierarchies that are forced on some teachers in certain circumstances due to the flaws inherent in our inequitable system, but effective classroom management is by and large a non-hierarchical relationship. In fact, creating a classroom hierarchy is a hallmark of an untrained, ineffective teacher! A teacher who is “in charge” is far less effective than one who sees themself as a guide walking beside their students.
Okay, so you take issue with Kropotkin et al’s argument that it would not? Which parts of his argument do you care to address? Or is this just based on some vague incorrect notion you have of what anarchism is, without looking further? Personally, I subscribe to the notion that a stateless society in which everyone feels personally invested and in which it is in our own best interests to engage with the community would effectively eliminate the toxic power structures that have led to things like poverty and greed. Certainly, it’s at least an idea worth investigating, without arrogantly proclaiming what you think would happen, without even understanding what it is.
Oh don’t worry I did read it after all. And no, humans aren’t good by nature and removing “toxic power structures” won’t turn all humans into saints
No anarchists believe humans will become saints, or that anarchism necessitates people being good by nature, so I’m not sure who you’re responding to. Certainly not me! You’re thinking of neoliberalism, which is based on the lie that we can all become shiny happy people, and then suddenly capitalism will start working.
Rather, anarchism recognizes that the lion’s share of injustices that are meted out on both a small and large scale are a result of inherently inequitable systems like imperialism, capitalism, and statehood; and hierarchical power structures.
It’s not like instituting anarchism will eliminate all ax murderers or thieves (though thieves would have a rather silly time of it under anarchism), but it works because it is in our own selfish best interests to live in a community of others with a varying range of interests and skill sets.
Hell, Kropotkin even recognizes that people might still long for things like luxury goods within the first generation of an anarchist society, after which such pursuits would be clearly a fool’s errand.
But sure, there’s nothing stopping you from removing yourself from a community, or from behaving in such an egregious way that necessitates your removal by direct action. But when you start breaking down why these petty acts of violence happen against others, most of them can be attributed to: 1. Inequities caused by a system that creates them, 2. Influences of a state, and 3. The existence of hierarchies.
Going back to the teacher example: A bad teacher will say “because I said so,” a better teacher will explain why they said so, but a great teacher will work alongside the class to create a class contract for establishing ground rules, which are open to discussion at any time. You might claim the teacher is at the top of a hierarchy because of their training, education, and skillset, but I would argue that’s not a hierarchy. When I call an electrician, it’s not because I’m above them or they’re above me – they have a certain set of skills to be shared. No hierarchy inherent in that.
Dude stop with the walls of text. I thought the meme was an exaggeration but leftists really think they’re right just because they wrote more
“I insist that you respond to my glib dismissive (and incorrect) comments, but you are not allowed sufficient space to explain yourself”
Pretty fashy derailment tactic on your part, don’t you think? What next – tone policing?
I’m not reading that wall of text