3 ms·

No it doesn't usually, usually they agree to do stuff and if they don't agree everyone goes their own way. Usually there is no command in the friend group.

vdaea 3y ago
There is no leader per se, but there's always that one person who convinces everybody else to do something, and that one person who must be there every time the group meets else most members don't feel like going... etc
- TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command other people and has to convince them. Being charismatic is not bad.
  - AdrianB1 3y ago
    Hierarchies are not necessary based on coercion ("command"), leading by competence or charisma is also hierarchy.
    - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
      Not for anarchists, anarchists are fine with voluntarily agreeing with an expert.
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    > This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command I disagree, and it seems to be because we're using the term "hierarchy" differently. In my primary local friend group, the leader depends on the topic. If we're talking about the areas where I'm the (informally) recognized expert, I tend to lead the discussion. If it's someone else's area of "authority", they lead it. Either way, while no one is designated at the person who decides what we all think or what to do, the person leading that conversation tends to have a heavy influence on the outcome and is responsible for building consensus. That's a hierarchy. It's not a coercive hierarchy, but it's a hierarchy nonetheless. This distinction is important especially when speaking to someone who is opposed to anarchy as a concept. Without it, they tend to see the (usually hypothetical) structures that we propose as evidence of anarchism's flaws. They're not - they're nothing more than thought exercises. While anarchists see those as a tool to help refine their view of how a system _could_ work, non-anarchists see them as evidence of internal inconsistency.
- AdrianB1 3y ago
  What you describe is called an informal leader. But you are correct on everything else so far.
  - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
    Anarchy is about rulers, anarchists are fine with coming up with agreement and with delegating tasks to other people.
    - Ancapistani 3y ago
      "anarchy" pretty much literally translates from its Greek roots as "without rulers". "Hierarchy" comes from "heira", which means "sacred rites". So it's "the rites which rule". In other words, "the process through which people are organized to do things" To make it nice and confusing, "anarchism" has been applied to so many systems of beliefs over the years that it has no clear meaning on its own. To some people, it absolutely means "no structure whatsoever". Etymology.com links: hierarchy: https://www.etymonline.com/word/hierarchy https://www.etymonline.com/word/hierarchy anarchy: https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy
lupusreal 3y ago
Informal hierarchies form in groups of friends, but as you say when it becomes a problem people can simply part ways. This isn't a good way to structure governments or workplaces though, because simply walking away from your home or livelihood isn't as easy as finding new friends. That's why it's important for these things to have formal officially recognized hierarchies, with rules governing and regulating those hierarchies defining and limiting the ways they can behave.

vdaea 3y ago

There is no leader per se, but there's always that one person who convinces everybody else to do something, and that one person who must be there every time the group meets else most members don't feel like going... etc

TotalCrackpot 3y ago
This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command other people and has to convince them. Being charismatic is not bad.
- AdrianB1 3y ago
  Hierarchies are not necessary based on coercion ("command"), leading by competence or charisma is also hierarchy.
  - TotalCrackpot 3y ago
    Not for anarchists, anarchists are fine with voluntarily agreeing with an expert.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  > This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command I disagree, and it seems to be because we're using the term "hierarchy" differently. In my primary local friend group, the leader depends on the topic. If we're talking about the areas where I'm the (informally) recognized expert, I tend to lead the discussion. If it's someone else's area of "authority", they lead it. Either way, while no one is designated at the person who decides what we all think or what to do, the person leading that conversation tends to have a heavy influence on the outcome and is responsible for building consensus. That's a hierarchy. It's not a coercive hierarchy, but it's a hierarchy nonetheless. This distinction is important especially when speaking to someone who is opposed to anarchy as a concept. Without it, they tend to see the (usually hypothetical) structures that we propose as evidence of anarchism's flaws. They're not - they're nothing more than thought exercises. While anarchists see those as a tool to help refine their view of how a system _could_ work, non-anarchists see them as evidence of internal inconsistency.
AdrianB1 3y ago
What you describe is called an informal leader. But you are correct on everything else so far.
- TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  Anarchy is about rulers, anarchists are fine with coming up with agreement and with delegating tasks to other people.
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    "anarchy" pretty much literally translates from its Greek roots as "without rulers". "Hierarchy" comes from "heira", which means "sacred rites". So it's "the rites which rule". In other words, "the process through which people are organized to do things" To make it nice and confusing, "anarchism" has been applied to so many systems of beliefs over the years that it has no clear meaning on its own. To some people, it absolutely means "no structure whatsoever". Etymology.com links: hierarchy: https://www.etymonline.com/word/hierarchy https://www.etymonline.com/word/hierarchy anarchy: https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy

lupusreal 3y ago

Informal hierarchies form in groups of friends, but as you say when it becomes a problem people can simply part ways. This isn't a good way to structure governments or workplaces though, because simply walking away from your home or livelihood isn't as easy as finding new friends. That's why it's important for these things to have formal officially recognized hierarchies, with rules governing and regulating those hierarchies defining and limiting the ways they can behave.