196

16462 readers

1882 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

944

Rule (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

369 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.

Why do you think I always specify "command and control", when talking about hierarchies? What do you consider a hierarchy? Anarchists specifically focus on hierarchies of decision making power.

Controlled by a generaltariat

A delegate body that coordinates processes and that can be revoked if the community chooses to do so is something else than a boss who can fire you. Also: you probably skipped the part about "workers' self-management.

and lasted less than a year. Why is that relevant? Do you know why it lasted for such a short period? Is "being able to win against fashists on several fronts" now something we want to require every social system to have, because I have some bad news about parlamentary democracy concerning Weimar Germany.

Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.

Lol, Petliura was a nationalist and opposed to the anarchist movement. (granted: I might have gotten the year wrong)

who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.

They refuse to follow the european tradition, since "anarchism" is a mostly western political movement. The way they act in practice is however de facto anarchist as in bottom-up basic democratic.

Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel

Again: I don't think we use the same definitions of hierarchy.

As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don't actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee "conflict is rare" doesn't mean absent

Never claimed anything about conflicts being absent. I was making a claim of an egalitarian society.

"pygmy" aren't a thing, that's Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.

Ok, didn't know that. Anthropology is not my main field, so please excuse me. However, virtually all immediate return hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.

Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below

What happens when a dm is such a dick that people don't want to play with them anymore?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because to explain anarchism you have to continually hedge because the system does not work.

That's heirarchy. "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." I didn't miss it, it doesn't matter a union is either self management and yet still utilize a heirarchical structure.

It's relevant because a system that routinely fails in less than a year can't exactly be called a legitimate method of governance. Yes every new government is resisted to some extent, the success of a government against those odds is what determines how effective it actually is.

I imagine you did.

Nope. They say they aren't what you claim them to be, take their word.

: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing : a graded or ranked series

By either definition there is heirarchy in all but one of your examples and it is in effect a pre industrial society.

Conflict is unlikely to happen without a heirarchical structure.

Arguably yes, in practice rarely if ever.

Then the group leaves, because if the person at the top across in bad faith they people below have the choice of violent revolution or to simply leave same as any other government.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, can't porperly parse your comment anymore without further structure.

We disagree on fundamental definitions. Furthermoree you accuse me of bad faith by "hedging", so I see less and less reason to carry on arguing with you.

If you want, you can think that you "won" by slam-dunking some anarkiddie on the internet. Have a pleasant day.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It doesn't seem to be that you ever properly parsed my comments.

I didn't say you, I said in general defending anarchism is largely hedging.

I didn't start the conversation with you so save the snark.