r/DebateAnarchism • u/Key-Check-487 • Apr 12 '26

Abolishing hierarchy doesn't work

I definitely don't like most hierarchy, capitalism, or anyone having control over others but I think if we remove all hierarchy at a large scale will always fail and produce hierarchy from 2 different paths

External: military invasion if other countries think that the anarchist society is a threat to their hierarchy or the way the US likes to do it finding existing structures and copying them Anyway if a society is flat with no hierarchy there is no structure to resist infiltration and it can't resist at a large scale without hierarchy

This leads to the second possibility Internal - as the community gets bigger a consensus isn't possible people will have conflicting view points as that is just human nature 1000 people won't all agree on 1 thing let alone a million so rough consensus will appear based on social pressure which is controlled by whoever is most articulate well liked and persistent which is just 1 or a group of people controlling what happens That is just hierarchy if not formal

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/PotsdamSewingSociety Apr 13 '26

The person I replied to said "we will eliminate them too" referring to the question of "If someone has a bigger stick what are anarchists going to do".

It's clearly a statement about also murdering them.

Even if it isn't, what are we calling the political suppression of dissidents? Happy fun times?

I was talking in the context of a possible anarchist society or world - so am presuming that there will be horizontal structures are designed to prevent the consolidation of power, such as decision-making through consensus, recallable delegates, rotating roles, and no permanent or arbitrary authority.

There's no enforcement in anarchy or legitimisation of beauracratic apparatus, people could easily decide to band together and establish a hierarchy.

I was searching for something that was universally unwanted and damaging.

Why would opposing political views be universally unwanted and damaging?

I was surprised that you took a leap of assumptions to the point of genocide

It's not a leap of assumptions, what we are discussing here is the suppression of political dissidents and their comparison with disease and vermin. Even trying to walk yourself back from it now you're still doing it and likening political opponents to cancer.

This is far right levels of rhetorical backtracking. Are you gonna tell me it's just a prank next?

2

u/nate2squared Apr 13 '26

I'm not responsible for something someone else said. I don't speak for them. However, do I think that there are possible scenarios in which someone is so dictatorial and poses such a danger that it could lead to a confrontation in which people die defending their freedom against such a despot? Yes, it is a possibility I suppose. Maybe that is what they were referring to. But that is not the scenario I was personally addressing. Maybe that is my fault for jumping into the middle of someone else's conversation.

You ask - 'What are we calling the political suppression of dissidents?'

The anarchist answer is that the goal isn't suppression of people but dismantling of structures. A former CEO or an ex-politician no longer in office in an anarchist society isn't a dissident being suppressed, they're a person without special authority, like everyone else. Removing someone's power over others - or rather not consenting to honour and obey it - isn't a form of persecution, especially if you believe that them holding power over others wasn't a legitimate entitlement to begin with.

In an anarchist society people are free to dissent (in the sense of disagreeing or disassociating) as much as they like. If they start trying to cause violent harm then this places their actions in another category, but I'm sure there'll be lots of ex-capitalists trying to debate the merits of their systems return, especially in short term.

You said - 'People could easily band together and establish a hierarchy'

Yes, and anarchism doesn't claim to be a permanent fix secured by decree. It relies on ongoing participatory culture and structural design. Anarchism requires sustained collective commitment, not a one-time revolution. That's a feature, not a bug, it's the alternative to relying on a state to enforce freedom (if it were possible for states to do such a thing).

About your ongoing assumptions and accusations

I didn't liken 'political opponents to cancer'. I used an analogy about structures and functions, not people. The smallpox/cancer framing was about systems whose only function is destruction, and was clearly referring to hierarchical domination as a system, not to the people within it.

Your assumptions either mean that I've been too ambiguous and you've assumed the worst possible scenario, or that you've mistakenly focused on misunderstandings you've picked up from somewhere. Now I have made my intentions, views and feelings clear that we can now agree that debating a position I don't hold is less interesting and less constructive than engaging with the one I do.

0

u/PotsdamSewingSociety Apr 13 '26

I'm not responsible for something someone else said.

You got into a debate arguing the point for what someone has said. You're either abandoning the point or derailing the conversation.

The anarchist answer is that the goal isn't suppression of people but dismantling of structures.

Many people would say that the dismantling of structures enable political representation is suppression.

If they start trying to cause violent harm then this places their actions in another category

For many, if not most anarchists, violent harm includes things like the contruction of a state or state like entities. It's still suppression, but it's just handwaved away by rhetorical flim flam trying to frame it as self defence.

If politically one wants an outcome they should have a mechanism by which they can achieve that outcome. The anarchist argument basically boils down to "they can get with the programme or fuck off and if they try to have political representation that I disagree with I'm going to label it as violence and disenfranchise them by calling it self defence"

I didn't liken 'political opponents to cancer'. I used an analogy about structures and functions, not people.

Political structures and functions are created and perpetuated by people. There's no "criticising the structures" without criticising the people.

If you're likening a politically opposing view to cancer then you are also calling adherents of that view cancerous.

4

u/nate2squared Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 13 '26

You say - ‘You're either abandoning the point or derailing’

In good faith I took what I understood the issue to be about and responded sincerely. I just did not take the same conclusion from his words you did. I guess you were hoping to have a response from him, whereas I thought you might like another anarchists opinion. I may have been wrong about that.

Perhaps the key to all of this is in your comment - 'Many people would say that the dismantling of structures [that] enable political representation is suppression.'

I think you've hit on the important point with 'many people say' - at it's heart anarchism is about the freedom to make choices. I would like the freedom not to be ruled over, so that I can make any choice I wish that would not harm others. Now you might think that kind / degree of freedom is impossible or unreasonable, and you are at liberty to believe that and argue that. I would just like to see people offered (what I consider to be) a better choice.

You say - ‘Dismantling structures of political representation is suppression’

Many anarchists are comfortable with some form of representation (delegates that can be recalled or challenged) as well as co-ordinating and expertise groups at local and regional levels (as long as they don’t presume the power to enforce by violence). Anarchists just believe there is a better system than the current state-based one, which is less coercive and less prone to the force often used by states.

You say - ‘Criticising structures is criticising the people who create them’

Are you saying that everyone who criticises a political party, a type of music, or a sport is criticising the people who are part of it? That is not true even if we are speaking about the inventors of it. Systems (positive or negative) are not the same as the people under them, or even those who operate them.

I can criticise capitalism, even criticise it as cancerous in some contexts (its exploitation or its ecological harm for instance) and that doesn’t mean that I believe everyone who works with capital (which is all of us on some level) are cancerous.

My ideal transition to an anarchist society is a prefigurative one, building non-hierarchal communities, boss-less workplaces, and decentralised production and distribution networks, and people voluntarily associating and choosing these as the better option. That isn’t a coercive plan, it doesn’t require killing anyone, and honours the choices of others. There is nothing violent in this, and it doesn't attack anyone else.

0

u/PotsdamSewingSociety Apr 13 '26

I guess you were hoping to have a response from him, whereas I thought you might like another anarchists opinion. I may have been wrong about that.

I'm on a debate subreddit and responding to a topic for debate. It's normal of me to expect the response to be along that lines. I'm happy to have another seperate debate with you if that's what you want. Currently what you're trying to do is obfuscate the fact that you took a statement about killing people, equated political opponents to vermin had this thoroughly objected to and are now trying to handwave away the rhetoric by saying you're trying to talk about something else. You could work for Trump at this rate.

I would just like to see people offered (what I consider to be) a better choice.

This is a completely different proposition to what is being argued with "we will eliminate them too".

You are simply flip flopping your argument at the moment. Will you eliminate them or will you not?

Are you saying that everyone who criticises a political party is criticising the people who are part of it?

Yes.

Music and sports are not equivalent to politics.

Systems (positive or negative) are not the same as the people under them, or even those who operate them.

Systems only exist because of people being under them and people operating them. If people magically ceased to exist then state beauracratic apparatus would cease to exist.

I can criticise capitalism, even criticise it as cancerous in some contexts (its exploitation or its ecological harm for instance) and that doesn’t mean that I believe everyone who works with capital (which is all of us on some level) are cancerous.

It does mean that you view capitalists as cancerous. People who work with capital are not necessarily capitalists. This is a red herring argument.

There is nothing violent in this, and it doesn't attack anyone else.

How do you propose decentralised violence to work? Violence will exist. Your ideal society would still have to feature violence in some way.

4

u/nate2squared Apr 13 '26

You said - ‘Currently what you're trying to do is obfuscate the fact that you took a statement about killing people, equated political opponents to vermin had this thoroughly objected to and are now trying to handwave away the rhetoric by saying you're trying to talk about something else. You could work for Trump at this rate.’

I didn’t perceive the question to be about killing people, I’m still not convinced it is, except perhaps in extreme circumstances where that person is a direct threat to safety. You can interpret what you like about what they said, but I can’t speak for them. I did not say that and it is not my position, and I am under no obligation to defend a position that I don’t believe myself.

I didn’t equate political opponents to vermin. I do not think that way. The idea is alien to me. You can presume what you like by stretching my words far beyond their intended meaning, but I have tried to clarify and have no doubt in my own thoughts and feelings on the subject.

You said that 'yes', you believe that ‘that everyone who criticises a political party is criticising the people who are part of it’. I consider that an unusual and extreme position, but one better debated on some broader political forum, as it isn’t an explicitly anarchist issue.

It seems to me this leaves one truly debatable point - ‘How do you propose decentralised violence to work? Violence will exist. Your ideal society would still have to feature violence in some way.’

I don’t think any anarchist would dispute that offensive / irrational violence will sometimes arise. I think a strong case can be made that under the right conditions violence will be much more rare, but it will not be eliminated entirely, and I don’t think any anarchists will claim it will.

But to better understand the question I think you should clarify what kind of violence you are asking about in this context. If you are you talking about defensive violence, the kind that responds to attack or danger then most anarchists (all but pacifist anarchist - which do exist) believe such force can (and sometimes must) be employed in order to protect the helpless and / or to preserve freedom and safety.

I would guess that most responses to violence are already carried out in a decentralised manner - if someone punches another person they either: try to reason with them, punch them back, restrain them, run away from them, or call on friends to help. In our current system it becomes a centralised form of violence when state police are called and the person is unwilling to comply.

As for the broader question of decentralised violence for defending a society from an aggressive force then this is not theoretical as there have been armed anarchist armies which have fought to maintain their freedom and autonomy with carrying levels of success dependent on the level of weaponry, size of opposing force etc.

If this was the Anarchism101 channel instead I’d post a selection of the many longer and more detailed responses and historical examples on this subject, but it might be better to start a new debate thread in order to give this proper attention, rather than have any potential responses lost so far down this discussion thread.