35
"Hierarchy is necessary" (?) (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I hear this claim a fair bit, admittedly often in communist spaces.

It is said that any group of people bigger than 50-200 people "requires" hierarchy.

I'm not sure about that.

What do anarchists make of this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago* (6 children)

It's not merely about social exclusion or bullying, but actively being hate crimed. Gay men are frequently targeted in violent attacks, lynching, often killed in sadly a significant portion of the world (Africa, the Middle East, South Asia). That is what I'm concerned about.

I'm not sure if simply leaving would be a realistic solution given that the nearest safe place could easily be several countries away, and international transport is very expensive

On disagreements: If you look at political discourse and voting in parliamentary discussions, there is always disagreement. It is rarely the case that everyone agrees 100-0 (numbers arbitrary) in favour of any decision. Leftists are infamous for their constant disagreements and splintering into different factions

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    There is no magic bullet that can make everyone get on. All anarchism can offer is that no organ of coercive violence can be used against people.

    If an individual or conspiracy desires to hurt someone they can act and try to do that. Nothing can ever prevent that, all you can do is try and stop it happening. No king or emperor can stop a lynching, only punish people after. Historically however these acts have often occured because of support by those weilding power.

    Murder is illegal and yet it happens, to prevent it you have to remove incentives and shift culture.

    disagreements: It seems we both agree that current parliamentry systems are highly disfunctional and don't encourage or train people in consensus building to everyone's detriment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago* (4 children)

    Laws against hate crime significantly lower their rate of occurrence. Compare countries where it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of their sexuality, or in housing, or where hate crimes are taken seriously by the law versus countries where it isn't taken seriously by the law.

    It's intuitive to know that if you can kill a minority member and routinely get away with it scot-free, you will be seeing it more often than if it was appropriately punished.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    You're mixing a few things here. It is precisely the law that makes discrimination at your place of employment possible. The law means you must put up with it or starve and be homeless, the law means you must follow your boss's orders, the law means that people can withhold the stuff you need to live or prevent "their" property.

    None of this would be possible

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Except there's nothing to stop people from doing those things even without those laws.

    The laws against violent hate crime make a more compelling case than employment laws imo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Step back a minute and ask what structures exist that encourage hate crimes? Ask why only the most heirarchical societies tend to have them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •