Anarchism

1715 readers

71 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

Other anarchist comms

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Can we define "hierarchy"? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TL;DR: Is it possible to define hierarchy, as a useful term for communication and association between anarchists? If so, what are some of those definitions?

There are many different strains of anarchism, and specially since anarchists mostly believe in decentralization, I feel like many of our efforts go diluted for lack of collective organization. Sure, there are big anarchist collectives doing work out there, but I have the sensation that most youth or influential people who identify themselves with anarchist causes get lost in the plot simply for lack of a bigger movement. For most of the modes of anarchism there is one big bad evil guy, commonly named "hierarchy"; although writers and academics define those terms in their publications, I can't help but notice, at least in the forums I've been around, your average anarchists could be talking about two completely different concepts of hierarchy or oppression. Maybe if we had agreed upon definitions to those hot topics it would be easier to associate. Is that even possible? That we all agree on the same meaning for a word? Do we call Chomsky to solve this linguistical issue?

Or am I completely wrong in my questionings?

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Please dont call Chomsky into a debate about the word hierarchy, he has such bad takes when it comes to that. "Justified hierarchy" und such things...

Besides that, in my eyes we don't need unified definitions and theories. Its more important to make sure people unterstand each others words when going into a dicsussion/dialogue.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

...unified definitions are the most reliable way to make sure everyone understands each other's words going into dialogue. Unless everyone includes a glossary with their contribution to the dialogue, there's no other way to ensure understanding.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I hate most of Chomsky's views, but he is so prominent its hard not to mention him.

I agree, we don't need unified definitions, but if we can at least have a couple standard ones we can refer to, I believe that would make communication and organization easier. An example of what I'm talking is the definition of property: There are a couple of standard ones that are of easy access, and when talking about property its always easy to explain if you mean "private property of the means of production" or "personal property" or "real property as the mainstream economics definition" and even if the person who you're talking to has not read a lot of theory (or at all), they can probably grasp those concepts with a quick google search. Compare that to "hierarchy", which is a term that is thrown around all the time, many times with quasi-conflicting meaning and understanding the definitions is a rabbit whole of research reading different authors. Could we not just summarize the most important aspects for the main (i.e. most relevant) definitions for easy digestion, just like what happened with the word property?