3 ms·
I think you mean violence, not hierarchy. Engels made a similar mixup when he wrote a screed against anarchists based on a misunderstanding of "authority" to me
by hnbad 3y ago
I think you mean violence, not hierarchy. Engels made a similar mixup when he wrote a screed against anarchists based on a misunderstanding of "authority" to mean any form of violence.
Anarchy describes organization and cooperation within a group. There can be groups that have different interests and those differences in interests can lead to disagreements that can be resolved in different ways. That doesn't change. Even in prehistorical gift economies there is evidence for various forms of diplomacy to arrange agreements with other groups: migration, gifts, demonstrations of power, ceremonial fights or, as a last resort, war.
It's worth pointing out that this is no different today. States can make all the laws they want but if they want other states to do what they say, they need to find a different way to do so. And more often than not, this fails unless both sides can find a mutually beneficial agreement.
- int_19h 3y agoI meant both. To get back to my example, groups operating completely independently would not be able to solve AGW. To solve it, you need a single coordinated plan across different groups, and people and organizations who will see it through. At that point, you have a hierarchy. Further, some groups will refuse to participate for selfish reasons, and thus it may be necessary to compel them to participate in said hierarchy. But there are different ways to arrange those things. The problem with most hierarchies today is that they're sold as something innately good, not as necessary evil to solve a particular problem. If you're building a hierarchy with the latter perspective in mind, you add plenty of checks and balances to make sure that it does not entrench and take over other issues.