"If people are different then that's a hierarchy, checkmate anarchists" = truly the most lazy dipshit line conservatives have. 1) Difference is not domination. What we oppose is relationships that constrain net choice. "Social hierarchies" are not any axis of difference.
Not all differences lend themselves to hierarchy, but some do, in some contexts. Being faster, or stronger, or smarter, having clearer vision, reproducing more... these things lead to material advantages. An additional subjective step to say this justifies hierarchy of course
-
-
"Equal in rights and dignity" is an important, if incomplete formula, not because it draws a clean line between advantage and hierarchy, but because it draws a messy and negotiable line through the middle of hierarchy itself
-
Well I’d think of hierarchy in a more narrow sense but that’s not to say hierarchy is the only undesirable thing
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not those either in themselves hierarchy is more than people having more than others
-
Do you just mean hierarchy to mean any form of coercion? Is there a consistent and implementable left anarchist definition of coercion in this case?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
but ultimately they shouldn't lead to material advantages, given a truly equal society.
-
Perhaps they shouldn't lead to capital advantages. Perhaps they should be abolished as differences, and anyone should be able to become as strong or smart or fast as they want. But to say they should be stripped of their implications is like saying 2 + 2 "should" equal 5.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.