• CarlMarks@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then every social structure is authoritarian.

        Anarchists usually distinguish between just and unjust hierarchies, by the way, and svoid the word “authoritarian” when describing just ones. Anarchists still need to organize themselves to have leadership and delegation.

        • Discoslugs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You should read about anarchy before you speak on it lol

          There are all kinds of organizational styles that are non heirarchical.

          Look into horizontal organization

          Also look up the zapatistas, while they do not call themselves anarchist. They use a non heirarchical form of government.

          • naeap@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
            at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.

            no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that

            edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for

          • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            yes because it’s not anything intelligent enough to be thoughtfully argued against. a 7 year old could see the holes in such an idea

            • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I oppose one more system of authority than you do, in the interest of ideological consistency, intellectual honesty.

              are you taking the position of a literal child?

              • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                is revolution not putting the authority of the people over those in power, and bringing those people low? that’s “hierarchy”

                • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  that depends if you draw distinction between the people and the state (which is merely an abstraction of capital)

                  state capitalism, as defined by lenin, is not a classless society, and is indefensible as a liberatory philosophy.

                  just as liberalism abolished the monarchy only to replace it with a dictatorship of private capital, authoritarian socialism replaced monarchy with a beaurocratic ruling class and unilateral control of the means of production.

                  the neck cares not the color of the boot