3 ms·
This is not a hierarchy if that person doesn't command other people and has to convince them. Being charismatic is not bad.
by 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 agoHierarchies are not necessary based on coercion ("command"), leading by competence or charisma is also hierarchy.
- TotalCrackpot 3y agoNot 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.