HotlineChicago1989
"@Prometheus labs CEO":/1984573#comment_8155078
Well, except that most anarchists I know emphasize they don't want to abolish all hierarchy, just UNJUSTIFIED hierarchy, such as hierarchy by birthright (especially the "divine right of kings" type), racial/sexual hierarchy (often created to deny certain groups power so that those already with power can maintain their status by denying competition for it), hierarchy by wealth (especially since most of the economic elites often inherit their wealth, thus making it a roundabout version of the "birthright hierarchy" I mentioned earlier), etc., etc.
And before you say "That sounds like a meritocracy to me", Libertarian Socialist Rants addresses this point in a counter-response to TJ Kirk's Drunken Peasants podcast (I'll link later as I'm on iPhone, and it has annoying habit of resetting pages I'm drafting responses on if I alt-tab to copy-paste links), and to paraphrase him, a society seeking hard hiarchies by an individual's skill will ultimately hit the Peter Principle, where people get promoted until they hit the level they're suddenly incompetent at doig their job.
To avoid getting too long-winded about this, anarchists admit that some level of hierarchy is inevitable, but seek to MINIMIZE it as much as possible (usually by fostering environments where everyone's input is accounted for, such as workplace democracy), rather than run to the endzone of investing all political power into a single King/Dictator barking orders for an entire country, or all economic power into a single CEO barking orders for an entire corporation.
Well, except that most anarchists I know emphasize they don't want to abolish all hierarchy, just UNJUSTIFIED hierarchy, such as hierarchy by birthright (especially the "divine right of kings" type), racial/sexual hierarchy (often created to deny certain groups power so that those already with power can maintain their status by denying competition for it), hierarchy by wealth (especially since most of the economic elites often inherit their wealth, thus making it a roundabout version of the "birthright hierarchy" I mentioned earlier), etc., etc.
And before you say "That sounds like a meritocracy to me", Libertarian Socialist Rants addresses this point in a counter-response to TJ Kirk's Drunken Peasants podcast (I'll link later as I'm on iPhone, and it has annoying habit of resetting pages I'm drafting responses on if I alt-tab to copy-paste links), and to paraphrase him, a society seeking hard hiarchies by an individual's skill will ultimately hit the Peter Principle, where people get promoted until they hit the level they're suddenly incompetent at doig their job.
To avoid getting too long-winded about this, anarchists admit that some level of hierarchy is inevitable, but seek to MINIMIZE it as much as possible (usually by fostering environments where everyone's input is accounted for, such as workplace democracy), rather than run to the endzone of investing all political power into a single King/Dictator barking orders for an entire country, or all economic power into a single CEO barking orders for an entire corporation.