The Problem with Hierarchy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2024
- Anarchism is sometimes defined by its opposition to "unjustified" hierarchies, but this definition can be damagingly incomplete. Here's a quick rundown on what exactly hierarchy is and why anarchists oppose it, alongside a few misconceptions.
The list of artists used is in the outro.
Introduction - 0:00
Authority/Expertise/Force - 1:04
Unjustified Hierarchies? - 2:20
Parenting? - 3:07
Engels? - 4:34
Bad People? - 5:53
Conclusion - 6:35
=
Support me on Patreon!
/ saintdrew
=
Follow me on Twitter!
/ _saintdrew
=
Follow my music producer, salmon the ghost:
/ salmontheghost
=
Music:
Sun (prod. salmon the ghost)
outro music: Cedar Womb by joe zempel
UA-cam: / @joezempel
Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/3vVDn...
i long believed that parents hold justified authority over their children until I heard of egalitarian hunter gatherer tribes in which children have great independence from a young age. I've also noticed how fascists are obsessed with maintaining hierarchy within the family. They know that if people are not trained to obey from a young age, many won't accept the rule of their leader, the conceptual father of the country.
i think an authoritarian social structure results in an authoritarian family structure, rather than the reverse. it's the same with school, it's basically a giant wagie simulator (except you don't get paid i guess) because we live under capitalism
The point should be though to instill values and education without beating them.
That was me however ADHD make punishment isn't all it does is see consequences as a score to settle. I no longer fear death so whatever
@@krunkle5136 Yes! Let’s the break the cycle.
Yeah until you consider that the child will grow to respect their parent, and even if they could disobey or do something their parent says is a bad idea, the parent has more experience and skill. The child will listen. Maybe this isn’t hierarchical, but parents objectively have more experience, skill, and physical strength than their children, and in some ways the children will never catch up. (With the exception of shitty parents.)
"If you believe human nature is naturally irresponsible, selfish, and greedy, then we should shift to a new political and economic system that does not encourage and enable those negative tendencies."
Yeah I'm going to be using that quote 10/10. Recently discovered this channel and am loving it. Here's a comment for the engagement algorithms ✌
I thought the next bit was gonna be about how cultures are less likely to encourage and foster shite behaviour and attitudes in egalitarian systems but the point still stands even if you don't know or don't agree with that!
The concept of "human nature" is inherently essentialist, and therefore, should be opposed
what if you dont?
@@DisOcean8 Then you can still advocate for a system that does not literally encourage exploitation and greed. Even if human nature is inherently good which I think it is you can't expect everyone to be so when the opposite is so encouraged in our capitalist system
@@samneibauer4241 im kinda studying for bachelors in biology and i have a lot of hate towards the idea of "human nature"
even though its mostly a philosophical concept, you can scientifically describe humans in very broad strokes, i think
like were not logical, but usually pattern seeking, not inherently kind or empathetic, but have the ground to nurture that
and even that is kind of essentialist i guess im not very good at philosophy sorry
we are whatever our environment tells us to be, not whatever nature had in store for us
Strange that opposition to hierarchy is considered "radical" to so many people.
Radical just means going to the root of something so theyre right
except to the insecure. 😥
People like the idea of opposing authority far more than actually fighting it.
too busy drinking the koo-laid
One thing is that many people believe hierarchy to be "natural" and justify it because of this belief.
Thank you for this! I've been trying to understand why some self-declared "anarchist" youtubers are pushing "justified hierarchy", and I have to assume it's because they think they would rank well.
The main reason for this is that capitalism and state ideology is remarkably good at recuperating anti-capitalist/anti-state movements and turning them into pro-capitalist/pro-state movements. The end result is self-described communists/anarchists who believe that communism/anarchism is when you have a more efficient/inclusive welfare state. When one cannot imagine an alternative to what exists, they can only imagine ways to improve it using the now-coopted language of its opposition
It also doesn’t help that positive(as in what something is as opposed to what something is not) descriptions of anarchy are sparse or aren’t to be found.
@@Zerker161 Well they did have alot of practice and an argument could be made that they wouldn't be around now if they weren't good at recuperation and cooptation.
@@sorzin2289 That would be a strange argument to make because recuperation isn't a skill, it's a natural function of a system designed to do exactly what it does. It's as much a necessary part of capitalist function as logistics or commodification
- why some self-declared "anarchist" youtubers are pushing "justified hierarchy"
to me it's just because anarchism is getting popular, but they don't want to work on changing their actual perception of the world, so they remain a liberal, often do not read theory, but call themselves an anarchist, and other people like them enable them to do so by muddying the water and writing new corrupted ideas that they call anarchism (hi chomsky, bookchin, and friends)
edit : btw this is the same thing in my opinion that led to authoritarian communisms, marx and engels' disapproval of anarchism
I heard an example before where, temporary authority is set up in times of emergency, like natural disaster relief, because it's very time sensitive. Having a previously agreed upon ruleset/chain of command using consensus discussion, can help in making the process more streamlined. Then that chain of command is immediately disposed of once it has outlived its usefulness.
What do people think about that?
I feel that having certain people taking action to do things like coordinating relief efforts is not inherently authority, at least as Andrew defines it here. The important thing I feel is whether the decision-making this person proposes is backed by a fear of disobedience, rather than these effectively being guidelines used to help coordinate people.
he said authority is not a one-time instance, but an ongoing relationship, so i would imagine this doesn’t count
Comment for the algorithm.
Reply for the algorithm.
@@LexYeen reply to reply for the algorithm
Another algorithm reply
Yes
Indeed
Bro I swear you could make the most prolix subject sound poetic and exciting
I sprinkle in a lil lyrical spiritual miracle up in it
Andrew is anarchist ASMR
@@gonzalo4722 Anarcho-SMR
I have never considered myself an anarchist because of the negative connotations that the term has taken over the years but i agree entirely with the points you made. We are taught from our birth that we must respect hyerarchy or rank. At home we're taught to revere and obey our family (and especially our elders) just for being older than us regardless of how shitty or toxic it can be, at school we're taught to revere and obey the teachers regardless of how actually educated they are or how they do their job, at work we're taught to revere and obey our bosses because they own us regardless of how abusive and unjust that is, we're taught to revere and obey the police because they "keep the peace" regardless of how well they do their job (we've all seen the leaked videos from Uvalde), we're taught to revere and obey the government because they "run the country" regardless of how corrupt and unjust it is, we're told to respect these institutions because otherwise, hyerarchical society doesn't run, because the powerful aren't able to control us.
Thank you for this great comment! You summed it up perfectly!🙌
Its an epic scam stretching throughout human history. We don't consent.
Finally! The Chomsky misconception annoys me because it gives newcomers to Anarchist philosophy a wrong idea and premise. There’s way better way to let people know that organization and order can be, if not only be, done by voluntary and free association and horizontal relations.
that brings forth emerging leadership
@tripleaaakollektiv870 consenting to temporarily follow someone's experience or expertise is not an arbitrary heirarchy and it's consensual. People are lazy sometimes though, and have herd animal instincts. So that tendency to venerate and follow a louder or taller person must be constantly questioned and routed out of our consciousness, just like our tendency to decieve and exploit others as their leader.
I really appreciate the commentary on hierarchy in child-parent relationships. This is something that's incredibly underemphasized in western culture
Andrew, love your content. I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts on how anarchist societies can actually resist hierarchical ones. It seems like the only way anarchy could survive is if the whole world became anarchy at once. Otherwise, if anarchy only sprung up in, say, a single country, then it's hierachical neighbors would see this 'power vacuum' as an excuse to claim interventionism and send their military to take over the anarchic society, which by it's very nature would find difficulty in resisting the hierachical military invasion. If there is a flaw in this reasoning, I would greatly appreciate learning more. It's the sticking point that keeps me from subscribing wholeheartedly to anarchism, though I am greatly sympathetic to it as an ethos.
Right, so to clarify, there isn't meant to be a specific sudden event where anarchy springs up in a certain area. The anarchist vision of revolution is a years-long, ongoing process of both opposition and proposition. Opposition in the sense of direct action against oppressive institutions to dismantle them and proposition in the sense of prefiguration: building robust alternative institutions that reflect the society we wish to establish in a scenario of something called "dual power" wherein two powers - a democratic one developed by poor and working-class people (defined by direct democracy), and the other one capitalist (defined by domination) - coexisting and competing for legitimacy during a transition away from capitalism.
These alternative institutions, as organs of an autonomous society, would include unions, defensive militias, popular assemblies, worker and consumer cooperatives, mutual aid networks, etc & these projects, though rooted in the local, will need to be connected with each other in bottom-up, nested confederations and networks of solidarity. Through class struggle and democratic community organising, these orgs will work in tandem to diminish and supersede the economic power of the capitalist class and the political power of the state bureaucracy. This is the transition period anarchists evision.
You're concerned about outside aggressors. Fair enough. Anarchists hope for global revolution, in these of this dual power struggle occurring globally. But there would certainly be military aggressors seeking the return of a capitalist regime, which is why horizontal, defensive militia groups will be a necessary aspect of prefiguration. The elites will not sit back and let us take our power back. These militias can coordinate their actions through confederations while maintaining the necessary autonomy to act immediately during localized attacks. Temporary commanders could be elected by the militants themselves when necessary, but their powers should be limited and subordinate to recall by the people. The anarchist FAQ goes in further depth: www.anarchistfederation.net/anarchist-faq/anarchist-faq-section-i-what-would-an-anarchist-society-look-like/#toc52
In addition to outside attacks, there will be attempts from within by power seekers and opportunists to seize control, which is why it is vital to mitigate these efforts through direct democracy and the practice of social insertion I outlined in my especifismo video.
Some Marxists may call this transitionary period the dictatorship of the proletariat, but considering how often Marxists and anarchists operate with different definitions for similar terms, I would avoid it. Hope this clarifies some things, and if in doubt, the anarchist FAQ goes far more in-depth than I could in these comments.
I'm not being glib, but you resist through violence.
If your sticking point over anarchism is that you can't imagine what it would look like, you've sort of fallen at the first hurdle. None of us can fully imagine what it looks like because the rules aren't set out or laid down. But autonomous regions and socialist countries exist despite invasions, coups, sanctions. So you kind of need to take your faith in things 'back' from liberalism and neoliberalism, where without your awareness or consent your faith has been pocketed by state and capital to stop you from having to 'worry' about the world. This all sounds vaguely insulting, and... well it is I guess, but you need to believe that it is possible, no matter the difficulty, and it will be difficult. Yes, the genocidal US would try to empire your little autonomous region. You have to sting them again and again until the cost is too high - even then they will still coup you, sanction you, not trade with you. That's how borders have largely been constructed, through extreme violence and extreme resistance.
@@Andrewism this sounds like an amazing topic for a video
@@Andrewism Opposition and proposition. I love that. What a beautiful way to put the work of prefiguring. Thank you for the soul food you share.
Hierarchical militaries aren't better by default - consider the Vietnam war guerrillas against the US, the Zapatistas against the Mexican government, or the Kurdish forces against ISIS.
It's a myth that an authority can provide security, probably because authorities always use that as a justification for power.
I'd love a video on anarchist parenting. Whenever I ask an anarchist to explain how parenting would work without heirarchy they always seem to say that a relationship isn't heirarcical if it is based on love and effection, even if it involves one party making decisions for another. To me this just comes across as dismissing rather than justifying heirarchy which is worse because it doesn't recognize the situation for what it is.
That's true. I think the most important is how as older figure in child lives whether parent, sibling, or others we help a child learn while understanding a child is a whole person that often knows and feels more than we assume. Ensuring they have a say and agency in their lives and decision concerning them. It will be harder and more time consuming than just commanding a child but that is why the people that see the hierarchy in parenthood often says it takes a village. It is intrinsically linked to many other cause like youth liberation, family liberation/abolition, and feminism. I think Durruti anecdote about how he did care in the home for his daughter Collete and his partner Emilienne is important example to not fall into what you described. Anarchy is for the people and the children are people too.
@@muhammadfathonihanif5500 I agree, I see how and why we should make parenting less heirarcical, but I don't see how it can be done without any heirarch what's so ever. For example, if I said that my partner isn't allowed to leave the house unaccompanied, isn't allowed to prepare their own food or decide what food I prepare for them, and isn't allowed to have guests over without me letting them in you'd be right to say that this is wrong and an unjust heirarchy. But if you replace the word partner with new born infant then everything is ok. Obviously as kids get older it is important to instill independence and not use violence but I don't think saying heirarchy has no place in parenting fully describes the picture unless you use some definition of heirarchy and authority that is different from the colloquial one.
Read "Emile" by Rousseau
While I'm not terribly involved in their lives, I know someone who is doing this with their kids. From what I gather, giving your kids the freedom to make their own decisions doesn't mean there's no pushback.
- You can have your boundaries, which you can explain so they understand (to a level they are capable of), which can in turn help them understand their own boundaries.
- If something is not working (say, your regular dinner time) you can work with them to find a solution that benefits you both.
- You can provide advice without expectation that they must follow it (especially since things change and what was true in your day might no longer be).
- You can teach them how to do the things they want to do, or otherwise involve them (if they want to prepare dinner, ask them for help, or show them what you do, or even let them while being there to support them and also being prepared to have a weird dinner/make backup dinner).
- You can provide them a safe space to experiment and experience consequences, with follow-ups to help them understand (like the previous dinner example, or, say, let them find out what happens if they refuse to sleep at a convenient time.)
- And, worst comes to worst, forcibly holding them back from walking into oncoming traffic is not hierarchy. Just make sure you talk about it afterwards.
And you don't need to do it alone. My friend also leans into the "it takes a village" thing. They're technically a single parent, but they are polyamorous, and have several partners who regularly visit and help.
@@AlbeyAmakiir those all sound like great ideas and I agree with pretty much everything that you said. I just think that those are examples of minimizing heirarchy rather than eliminating it entirely.
I may be a fool, but I've always interpreted Chomsky's "That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met" to mean the same thing you mean: in the end, no authority can rightly justify itself/be justified. While it seems that Chomsky leaves the possibility that some authority is justified, or it may even imply that there really is such a thing as justified authority, I've always interpreted that as merely an invitation to critically think about the justifiability of authority, instead of asking us to dogmatically accept, without prior thinking, that "no authority can be justified". In other words, the conclusion is the same: indeed, no authority can be justified, but in one case you took someone's word for it and in the other, you came to that conclusion yourself. It's reminiscent of the socratic method to me, leaving people with the "possibility" that they may know something, but ultimately letting them realize for themselves that they know nothing.
Thank you for making this. I am going to share it with many people in the future
This is amazing!!!! Coincidentally I also released a video breaking down hierarchy just yesterday, and I loooove that more people are talking about the semantics and commons misconceptions behind usage of the term. Your expertise blended with the warm self-assured style of your content is so valuable when it comes to hot topics like this.
I've subscribed and I'll check it out!
@Andrewism oh my goodness, yay! i am both hella stoked and a little terrified 😅
@@Andrewism You should read blackshirts and reds, where Michal Parenti destroys anarchism.
I think how I think of the idea of anarchism as "opposition to all hierarchy" is that it feels like it needs so much explanation in order to justify it. Hierarchy has such a different definition from its original use and the anarchist definition is so different from how it's colloquially used that I feel like it's reckless not to include qualifiers to make it clear how anarchists see it. I do think "justified hierarchy" isn't a good qualifier, but at the same time, it's a good attempt. I think "violently-enforced hierarchy" would be a little more clear, though violence would need to be expanded upon, but I feel like it's easier to explain how violence doesn't have to be physically striking someone and can be more indirect or more material rather than physical than it is to explain how hierarchy doesn't mean vertical organization in general
The general term would be a "hierarchical power structure"
against coercive hierarchy?
@@anandatalia16 I think that runs into the same problem. The thing is that I don't think "coercion" really plays a significant enough role in defining oppressive hierarchies more than "violence". I think it is better for quickly defining what factor makes a hierarchy "bad". It just doesn't lead into a discussion that could convince someone. Though maybe it's better to say a "violently coercive hierarchy" which would get across both ideas pretty succinctly
'Hierarchy' is fine so long as cis straight white men are not the ones in power. Look at any non-European country and you can see how much better the world could potentially be. But first, Christianity must be. destroyed.
@@millykendrill5301 what a strange take. Plenty of majority non-white countries are oppressive. Simply getting rid of "white countries" would open up space for other people to fill the same imperialistic roles that majority white countries fulfill today. No. If freedom is the goal, all hierarchical power structures must be eradicated.
You touched on socialist critiques of anarchism briefly in this video. Could you do a whole video about Marxist-Lenininist critique of anarchism and point out its flaws?
I for sure second this ^^^
It would be a pretty short video to be fair. I don't have much to say. Most ML critiques of anarchism boil down to a handful of basic misconceptions about what it is, flagrant misrepresentations of what it is, and repainted criticisms of communism. I'll think about it. I'll add that Anark has a solid series on the counterrevolutionary nature of the State, so I'd recommend giving that a watch. ua-cam.com/play/PLvwoHdNGq9wVy-iR1oHJKoJY2lh6ypXKZ.html
Yeah it's pretty hard to critique when they simply call anarchists "counterrevolutionary" cause Lenin said so. And call organizing cooperatives or food distribution programs "petite bourgeouis" rather than looking at the theory behind prefiguration.
@@Capitulator what does prefiguration mean in this context?
@@Nanook128 Community developed food security programs and horizontal structures with councils and consensus controling them. Most anarchist programs are designed to eventually be the viable alternative post-revolution with anti-hierarchy already embedded into councils and confederations.
Saw the notification and had to watch. 🤘
Edit: You took me to _class_ and I didn't just learn, I enjoyed it.
2:08 the shade at Leninists is just delicious!
"You give the authority power, and power has an appetite. Authoritarian power is a license to do harm, even if that wasn't your initial intention." This is an interesting statement to me. What is it about power that transforms a non-violent person into a violent person? What exactly do you define 'power' as?
Why do i feel like I had this discussion on r/Anarchism just a few days ago? Great video,you always make them enjoyable
Because it's a conversation that pops up every few days? lol
@@AnRel Probably even more on r/Anarchy101
Reddit user detected
@@KarlSnarks and on r/completeanarchy, but that sub is just unmoderated socdem anyways soo
And r/debateAnarchism. This is why they made AnarchistFAQ
4:34 "but Andrew, what about Engels?" is a missed opportunity for a Batman slap meme lol. Thank you for the amazing videos Andrew.
I don't really understand conceptually how abolishing of hierarchy would work
That's the thing, it wouldn't! Hence why it's such a dumb ideology. Even communists think it's stupid.
I love when a video puts into words things I've been thinking better than I ever could. Thanks for this and all your other videos!
Oooh~ I've been waiting on a new video! Thanks Andrew!
I have a few questions, namely:
How would an anarchic system sustain the complex systems that make modern technology and life possible without breaking down into new hierarchal systems? Certain systems like electronics manufacturing require a vast network of collaboration requiring a division of labor and knowledge that would likely form hierarchal power dynamics, as no individual could possibly know or implement all the specialized tasks associated with say for example, silicon chip manufacturing. Silicon chip manufacturing requires a vast network of institutions which themselves can be hierarchal or become part of a bigger multi-institutional hierarchy.
How do anarchic systems avoid forming cliques or favoritism that may also serve as a catalyst for hierarchal systems?
How does an anarchic system stop individuals from taking power for themselves without a degree of coordination that itself may paradoxically become hierarchal, especially when not everyone can chip in equally to find and stop power grabs or other community transgressions?
How does an anarchic system sustain true egalitarianism if there's an inadvertent power/social dynamic between the student and teacher; the helper and the helped; between generations; the transgressors and their punishers; and the connections we have between friends vs strangers, among others. Perhaps this can be done by letting everyone be a teacher, helper, enforcer, etc. in some way or another, but there's a degree of complexity needed to maintain true egalitarian social dynamics between all parties, which becomes more complicated the more people you add to that system.
Could you detail more about how anarchic parenting works? I feel like that's a good video topic I'd want to learn more about.
Honestly I tend to use the "Unjustified Hierarchy" thing to shift conversations slightly more in the direction I want. I mean, who likes an unjust hierarchy? You don't want that.
Of course I'm still learning and growing myself and I thing internalizing the concept that Authority is bad actually is an important one. I had viewed it as a thing to be used and removed freely, but I understand what was being said so I'll need to sit with this a bit. I mean, creating a local council to that locals elected to do certain tasks that those same locals can meet to remove easily does not necessarily mean that you are giving them Authority as defined.
Thank you for the work you put in to these videos.
Amazing video as always 😌
I can't count how many times I resisted someone framing of anarchism as being against "unjustified" hierarchies, especially in anglophone world. It's frustrating that Chomsky's definition caught up in so many spaces. I was written so many times mini-essays to explain exactly that what this video is all about, but scattering forms of current internet made it lost somewhere. Thankfully now I can point people to this video.
It is curious that many people who identify with that definition of anarchism, when asked what is justified hierarchy, very often automatically start with parent-child relationship. But this shows how it obscure rich history of anarchism around pedagogy and child-rearing. Maybe it's trivial to be bothered by technical aspect of definition, but it very often make people interested in anarchism fall back into generic views - especially so common ones as how parent-child relationship should look like.
Yeah it gets disturbing quick when you wonder which heirarchies would be deemed 'justified'. Especially as heirarchies tend to be interlinked. Children, non-human animals, disabled people, marginalised genders and Black people in general are objectified - and the hierachies over them are tight knit. Women are infantilied like children. Children are animalised etc etc. None of these heirarchies should be given air!
Something about your voice always makes me fell energised. Thank you for all your videos, you're very informative
Great video! Also what bothers me most about supposed "just" hierarchies is that they devolve pretty fast into the other sort at the sight of the slightest disagreement coming from the subordinate side, haha.
another banger like always, Andrew! :D
Here I was thinking I was more socialist/communist leaning, but in reality my thinking aligns with anarchy. Wow.
Nice, although many anarchists are socialists and communists. you should check out Zoe Baker, Anark, Alki, Xee Matthews, and more of the work by Andrewism here!
Societies wouldn't work without hierarchy. In every endeavor that requires some degree of sophistication, you need someone to coordinate things; while no autonomy leads to stagnation, complete autonomy leads to endless debate and gridlock. They both have the same result; for a healthy society you need something in between the two extremes. This is why modern representative democracies work so well, it's a decent compromise between tyranny and anarchy.
Hey, I just found your channel, its nice to see a fellow trini making well verse video essays, keep up the great work.
My favorite channel
Amazing work as always !!!
Thank you so much for all your videos which I discovered today.
Your channel is so inspiring!!
Excellent! Love your work bro 😎
I'm curious about the teacher-student relationship and the organization of militias and other armed forces, like having a squad captain. Or things like the crew of a sailing ship or a spacecraft?
Can anyone elaborate on these please? I'm trying to learn. What do anarchist approaches to the classroom, battlefield, bridge, or cockpit look like?
Words are easy when you change them
Short, to the point, and still so very well explained!
Insightful as always ❤️
This is one of the things that has confounded me a lot. Like, I'm all for leveling systems of power. The problem I face though in reconciling this is that I have found "hierarchy" too useful as a tool of organization. Like, having people who occupy certain areas of responsibility to fulfill, having other people who's responsibility is to coordinate a specific group of people, having another layer of people above that who's responsibility is to coordinate those disparate groups, and on and on as necessary in working toward the completion of a specific project. When there's a disagreement, matter that hits multiple areas of responsibility, or a need for extra support or resources, often that will be kicked up the "coordination chain" to a level where that decision can be made by someone who's area of responsibility involves taking a broader overall view toward the completion of the project. And when the project is fulfilled, the organization can be dissolved or re-organized (to greater or lesser degrees) to meet some new goal. Examples that benefit from this kind of organization are things like a work crew, a development and design team, a manufacturing center, large event planning, or a militant unit.
That doesn't sound quite like "hierarchy" under the anarchist definition of the word that you've laid out here. But I don't quite have a word to describe a "report-to" style of organization other than "hierarchy". Is there some better kind of language that anarchists would use to describe this?
I think that could be considered a network, rather than a full tree. The biggest difference is that reorganization step you mentioned, under hierarchy that step is slow and painful and violent, but it is essential to what makes the anarchic version both faster and more flexible, and also less violent.
@@mikaylamaki4689 Hmm, you did touch on a good word for it though, a "tree" style organization.
I come from a software development background, and tree data structures are a thing that's usually important to understand. I'm surprised the word didn't occur to me earlier. Thank you.
Excellent video. Very clearly laying it all out. Extremely well written video
Wonderfully put! I always encourage people to say, and argue for, the idea of 'being against hierarchies" rather than "unjustified ones" because everyone is against unjust things, as you said.
Fantastic video touching on misconceptions of hierarchy
this is an awsome video. i dont really know anything about anarchist theory or anything but like this sums up really well a lot of the thoughts ive had that have caused me to i guess trend towards anarchism lately
Great video, I am relatively new to your channel and I have know other knowledge of anarchy. I don't yet say I agree with your point but I am. Begining to understand them
What did you mean by "effective" at 5:23?
Is that what you belive or from the perspective of the person you where disputing moments before?
That is what he believes contextually. Idk if Engels talked about work to rule practices. But work to rule practices areee indeed effective forms of protest
Im new to anarchism but is anyone able to help me understand why all hierarchies are "bad"? I understand that the abuse of power is bad but am a bit confused about how the concept of hierarchy is inherently flawed and must be changed. While I think the relationship between employee and employer should be changed, I come to that conclusion due to the materialist analysis of antagonism between the classes, and not at least from my understanding of anarchism now to be an absolutist belief based on arguments of morality.
Also slightly unrelated but I am curious of what an anarchist "society" would look like free from hierarchy. Currently and historically (maybe aside from hunter and gathers) some levels of hierarchy have been used in society. If it be the hierarchy for a group of people or an institution to create laws to the hierarchy to collect taxes. How does an anarchist "society" address these issues? Specifically what gives a commune or other structure of organization the authority to make a law, enforce a law, make/enforce regulations, tax, etc... No one will voluntarily go to jail, making the act of enforcing laws nonconsensual. How is this remedied? (are hierarchies ok in this scenario or is there something else?)
Again just some things I have been curious about. :)
Power is inherently abusive. Society would basically look the same, we'd just organize it based on cooperation rather than serving the needs of a powerful few. The authority to make and enforce laws comes from the people, it's true democracy. It's still a society, there's still consequences for your actions, it's just that we're not forced into submission by people who think they're better than us in order to live a normal life.
@@Lincoln_Bio Why is power inherently abusive?
Also what you've described is Socialism not Anarchism. You also haven't explained how you are going to get people who currently hold power to relinquish it without exercising authority over them.
100% agree -love your channel.
Feel so refreshed with revolution after watching your videos!!
how do you learn about this stuff I would like to know so I can dive into this a bit more
theanarchistlibrary and anarchist FAQ have a lot of great resources on these sorts of topics! outside of anarchist lit, I just read what I can about the subjects that intrigue me
Sheeesh, new video🎉
I have some questions about anarchy: in an anarchist society, are there any laws or common rules that people agree on? If someone does another person harm, or is _accused_ of harming another person, how is that handled? What does an interaction with an anarchist justice system look like, both for genuine evildoers and the wrongfully accused?
seems to me people could still form laws through assenting to a social contract in exchange for a place in a community. id assume exile would be the default judgment for a serious breach.
Disagree highly with the previous reply tbh, though I've heard the exile discourse before. Any laws within an anarchist society would probably be fairly local, and would probably function more as advisements than solid rules of social behavior. You probably wouldn't be surprised to hear this but for most of human history, there were no "don't murder" laws keeping people from murdering each other. Most guidances and rules would be agreed upon by a given community, via a decision making process based on consensus or consent. Things such as the times of day that certain things operate, or the method of distribution for a certain good, would be decided beforehand by the community, or by a federation of such communities, or by the operators of a given mechanism themselves. Some people envision "social contracts," in an anarchist society, and perhaps in some contexts they might exist, but I don't see how one would keep them and who would decide what is a breach of contract etc. to me, an anarchist society would look at anti-social behaviors and ask how those things can be mitigated in the first place, and given that crime is often caused either by poverty/need, profit, or a desire to dominate, certain mitigating factors are baked into anarchist ideology from the start. I'm not super familiar with anarchist criminology, but certainly there would exist the concepts of restorative and transformative justice, which would be employed at the discretion of the harmed party. If exile does exist, I can only imagine it as exile into some sort of intentional community built around rehabilitation, wherein the person who's commited a crime will have access to communal decision making and craft employment. There would likely still be investigators, perhaps a federation thereof who operate across a given region who investigate claims at the behest of the accused (or the accuser or the community). Not sure what that process would really look like, but I havent spent any time really stufying the subject. It might be useful to see how the Zapatistas deal with crime and justice. But there are some books on the subject of anarchist criminology (which I have not read).
For this, I would recommend looking at Thoughtslime's channel on the subject. I don't know for sure if they still have the video up, but basically anything you read on police or prison abolition often dovetails nicely with anarchist thought on the justice system, particularly in terms of it being about *helping* people--i.e. reform and restorative justice, rather than about retribution or punishment. The goal would be to solve conflicts among individuals, and, when necessary, correct "anti-social" or harmful behavior through rehab centers, therapy, etc. Laws are pretty easy (at least in terms of how they're formed, not easy to make or interpret haha)--most anarchists are in favor of some form of direct democracy (though that can take many forms of course, from frequent populace votes to small council communism and forming federations), and in smaller cases there might be contracts people or groups write up between each other to agree to (kind of like we do today, but obviously ideally without the kind of power imbalance, say, a boss or landlord has when you're signing a contract w/ them). I haven't actually seen a lot of discussion about what an anarchist "judiciary" might look like, but i think what could be good is being able to vote for a council, possibly of judges, who then in turn select judges based on their credentials/education, etc, while it's within public power to recall a selected judge at any time if they make a bad decision (and to have a different judge or court review that decision). And then ideally have multiple judges rule on cases. I don't particularly care for the way the lawyer system works, as it seems to essentially be a modern day trial by combat but with WORDS and whoever is better at rhetoric can win over the judge or jury. I would consider keeping lawyers, but have them play a smaller role in the court system, while judges could also directly ask questions of witnesses, investigators, etc, so the aim truly was the truth of the matter, and then, following that, the most just and empathetic course of action to right the wrong, in which the victim(s) and wrongdoer would be directly involved in voicing their opinions/desires/etc. The jury system most likely wouldn't exist, as it's essentially 12 strangers with no background in law deciding someone's fate??? (However the way the jury system works can be useful if you want to do small council rotating representation without political campaigns) Anyway this is just the musings of one anarchist haha SO take it with a heap of salt, but anarchists do tend to be prison and police abolitionists so focusing on things like reforming "criminals" and restorative justice that helps the victims are often commonalities for us.
Anarchism doesn't say how it would be handled, it merely suggests ways in which you can decision-make. You can then apply that technique to this problem, that problem, or other problems. And if a problem is too big to be addressed by that method, you are free to develop an improved or broader method with your peers. I know for most people that's not very satisfactory, but most anarchist philosophy emphasises how you can free to develop a method that works in a particular context, it doesn't prescribe the rules you should follow, because that philosophy was not privy to your current context.
If we talk about how the bankers were let off the hook after the financial crash, most people would say the existing system did not deal with them effectively. Well in an analogue of that situation under anarchy, you might be able to resolve it to greater satisfaction and not have to rely on an entrenched, immovable, unsympathetic system biased towards the people bringing the claims.
Restorative justice
Realizing I was getting suggested but not subbed smfh
Great work as usual!
Heyo whats the artwork in 6:35
I'm not Anarchist but still, I gotta give mad respect for just up and admitting that you're against all hierarchy instead of sticking with this incredibly dubious definition of "only the unjustified ones", no one is for unjust hierarchies, that's the entire point of politics
Indeed, such a definition is equivalent to saying "my politics is against bad things." Meaningless. Unfortunately the unjustified hierarchy line is among the most popular misconceptions about anarchism these days.
First of all unjust and unjustified is not the same thing. Everyone is against unjust hierarchies but not everyone is against unjustified hierarchies. Non anarchist politics do not take an axiomatic stance against unjustified hierarchies as hierarchy is not their main focus. In the end, anarchists are against all hierarchy, nobody says they are only against unjustified hierarchies. However using the "hierarchies must justify themselves" rule you shift the narrative into the default goal-state being an anarchic non-hierarchical one, that only when some conditions are met and alternatives are lacking, should we allow hierarchies to temporarily exist. It also helps with prioritizating which hierarchies to dismantle first.
One thing I do want to ask, out of genuine curiosity, is the best way for the facilitation of international (I use international to refer to global, long-distance) relations and trade in the absence of hierarchical structures? You make a lot of good points, I’m just wondering if there exists any kind of organizational structure which could facilitate things like global relationships or long-distance trade without the presence of hierarchical structures like governments or companies. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just asking for some help in understanding your points.
Never saw it that way before, but hierarchy is such a pervasive fundament of STEM science. The work relations in STEM science are definitely oppressive. Postgrads work more than 10 hours a day, even 12 hours/7 days (obviously underpaid, or with a meager grant) when the experiment requires this attention. While the professor or ‘lead’ researcher gets (almost) all the credit for any discovery (gets invited to conferences to talk about ‘their’ work).
Nice to see unionizing efforts in academia recently.
Bruh.
@@theredknight9314What?
I dunno, I tend to define and "anarchist parent" as "a leftist who doesn't have kids yet"...
Ah yes the old- "I must coerce and threaten my children into submission because it's convenient for me! 🤡"
Great Viddie!
looks i've been an anarchist for some time without knowing lol
Welcome 🙌 check out more videos here, as well as the channel Anark and Zoe Baker, also Renegade Cut for more digestible work
A lot of people are.
Nice video, do anyone of you know a good place to talk about these topics?
How do we prevent autoritarian people to take power and impose hierarchies?
This is a serious question, I would really try to find an anarchist way to prevent the seizing of power by antisocial people.
You should look around the comments since this has been addressed elsewhere. That being said, the suuuuuuuuuuuuper truncated answer is that within an anarchist society there is no institutional power--no systems of domination--to be siezed. A person would not only have to build a base of support, but would also have to build the very institutions through which they can execute authority, and they'd have to do it under the nose of a highly entangled community. Then to do it at scale, they'd have to reproduce their authority across a decentralized municipalities, essentially starting from the ground every time. I suppose the right person might be able to do it with enough time and reaources, but certainly this is a lot harder than simply kissing the right asses or starting a coup. You'd be very hard pressed to reproduce the usual authoritarian means of siezing power. The federated, community-oriented structure of an anarchist society is built around resisting such attempts at power grabbing.
@@otherperson thanks for the answer! Because I always fear that fascists would just come and level anarchist communities like they did in Spain.
@@davidbouchard2499 Spain is complicated, and a lot contributed to the defeat of the anarchists, including other communists. But I think it's a different question to ask how to stop fascists from without than asking how to stop would-be dictators from within. Federated militias and community defense and mutual aid (obviously once again super truncated response here) would be the response to the former.
@@otherperson yeah they are different questions but fascists always have a dictator and wanna be dictators always begin by using militias to do acts of terrorism and seizing power.
Thanks for your answer. I am not at all trying to discredit anarchism because I am an anarchist myself. I just try to find solutions to what I can imagine as problems that would happen in an anarchist society.
engagement! Great video yet again 👏
Best intro to anarchy video I've yet seen.
I'm very glad you mentioned this, Noam Chomsky constantly says parents are justly in charge of their children which is a bummer since he's written reviews for so many Alfie Kohn books
The choice of artwork really helps the essay for me. Wish I could recognise all of them
Great video! I also loved your solarpunk series. Doing some research on these two subjects (anarchism, and how we can self-organize for a future where science and nature can coexist), I found multiple awesome and rigorous papers about Complexity Sciences, and how we can study and comprehend life through its anarchist behaviors such as emergence, mutual aid, constant sesrch towards more degrees of freedom, autonomy, etc. They also offer an explanation of the world's necessity to overcome Western civilization and it's ideology and colonial imposition of hierarchical structures. Here's the name of one of the papers: "Anarchy and Complexity" by Carlos Eduardo Maldonado and Nathalie Mezza-Garcia.
Awesome. Thanks for the book recommendation.
Absolute fire my man
How would conflict resolution happen in such a society?
I don't get the "work to rule" segment? It seemed like you were saying when workers do exactly what the boss tells them thry are effective. Just before you said workers need to exercise their autonomy. Could you clarify?
Not entirely sure, but I think he probably meant *in*effective, and just misspoke.
Great Video Mr.Sage, hope it can be found and watched without bias by some 🙏🏽
I love this. ❤
Superb - admirably lucid presentation.... many thanks for this.
omfg yeeeeessssss i'm here for this video
I've personally always taken 'opposition to unjustified hierarchy' to mean critical analysis of hierarchies whenever they happen with an eye to what their function is and whether it can't be served by something else. But admittedly that's not exactly what Chomsky meant, and even my generous interpretation allows for far too much wiggle room for people who want to justify hierarchy and sort out why later.
I so wish I'd seen your videos a year ago 😅 the way you so concisely and pointedly get this info across would certainly have helped me formulate my own augments back then but I'm glad to be getting this learning in now
The whole point of anarchy is that each individual gets to make their own determination about which hierarchy to which they will submit (and that could be none). (Comment on the remark at 2:50)
Hierarchical power structures presuppose the ability to maintain that structure through force. If it is optional, it is not a hierarchy. It's just a kink lol
Would a common objective compelling an anarchist group to organize be a hierarchy? If defiance of a core idea compelling a greater whole to complete a task results in punishment enacted by the believers of that core idea by way of chastising or shunning then would acting in line driven by fear of such an outcome be operating under a hierarchy? I'm only seeking to learn here.
I dont understand your second question, but the first is a simple no.
All power to ALL the people!!!
lmao i saw this on recommended on my phone, and then searched 'heirachy' on my laptop to find it again.
The first video I see is 'Why heirarchies are necessary' by Jordan Peterson
great video. I always liked reading ziq as well.
Great vid as always! Hard to grasp some of these concepts on their own, but growing up in various social hierarchies - most of the time being somewhere near the bottom - makes it really difficult to imagine oneself free of hierarchies in general. A lot of your vids do a good job of bridging that gap in a non-authoritative way. Peace friend!
The issue has always been Christianity and whlte .people. You have some invisibly sky-daddy throwing lightning bolts and sitting on clouds as 'God', then you have cishef white men as the 'head of the family', then you have the white women, then below them, you have children, POCs, LGBTQ people, Muslims, etc.
You get rid of the Christian God and cishet white .men = true equality.
As a parent, the question of my authority over my child is one I struggle to answer.
I have coercive power over him, and "I know what is best for him better than he does".
For example, if their underpants are full of poop and explaining and negotiation fails, I might have to forcibly clean him despite his protests.
I do try to keep his will into consideration, I listen to his wants and desires, I do my best to talk things with him and see if there is any compromise, but sometimes none of these options work, and I am left only with coercion.
I tell myself that mine is a "self-subverting hierarchy", ie if I coerce him is only so that he can become independent from my power over him, and this idea helps but it doesn't satisfy me entirely.
Children can't be fully autonomous. You're instilling your worldview and values for them to be a good member of whatever society they choose when they become an adult and are no longer your responsibility.
Isolating hierarchical criticism to the sociological context is the reason the term is so misunderstood in the first place. Hierarchy exists not just in human social structures but also exists in nature. The issue that people have been having over millennia is not the existence of hierarchies, but the fact that our concept of power corrupts all hierarchies. The very computer system we use to share our opinions is based on hierarchies for data management, storage and processing. The issue is not with the hierarchy it is with the minds constructing and maintaining them. The various nodes in the network simply run on outdated operating systems. This mean that hierarchies within then network are not as effective as they could be. Simply put we can examine how hierarchies are formed in two sets on organisms from a similar specie. Let us take wolves. It was long held that wolves organize into packs with the strongest male at the top and the weaker runts at the bottom. However, this observation was only made in wolves being held in captivity. The wolves when observed in nature still very much had hierarchies, but these were based on who is the oldest "family" member at the time. That means a weak old female may be the leader of a pack in the wild, or in a wolves more favoured habitat, but in captivity the wolves will organize in a military style. This would make sense as the wolves would perceive the environment itself as a threat. The wolves in their natural environment however, organize themselves according to the family structure.
The reason hierarchies exist is because of data management, and the fact that with larger and larger amounts of data, the need for parallel processing becomes exponentially greater. Hence, hierarchic structures can be found throughout nature wherever there is sign of data processing. These structures allow for efficient data processing within a brain or computer, or a network of either like a community of people or the internet. The fact is that the physical hierarchy is a benefit, but the data that it is processing may not be good. Again go back to the case of the pack of wolves. In the wild, the experience of the eldest pack member has benefits in two folds. One, it can save the pack time and energy by sharing survival information that might otherwise have to be gained through many games of trial and error. Also the ability to pass on experience in and of itself is important in this context. So the second strength of experience is that the oldest member of the pack being at the top of a hierarchy create a situation where there is a higher probability of majority of the skills a wolf needs to survive will be learned early on in life as this would be the priority of such leadership. So not only does the pack benefit from knowledge of old leaders, but individuals benefit as they become more skillful much faster and their survival as an individual is greatly increased. Now contrast the captured wolves who abandon the idea of using the eldest wolf as a leader and instead go for strength. This benefits the wolves in that more time is spent on training and competing for resources, so that the number of wolves in captivity will be low as the weakest won't be able to survive. There is no skill transfer to help the pack survive, but there is brutal training for the stronger members as they constantly look to sway power in their favour. This means that wolves that can survive the harshness of the pack are those willing to fight back against their captives. Their is a higher chance of escape and lower chance of recapture in this scenario.
The behaviours mentioned above can be seen clearly in the contrast between the narratives of pre-Islamic Africa and post colonization Africa and the many epochs in between serve as points of excitation along the spectrum of deeply spiritual and community based to dictatorships and civil wars. The many dictatorships that rose in many countries were a direct result to being exploited and out of shock the population reverting to the military style of governance to give a sense of animalistic security. As I said before, outdated minds working with new methods of exploitation will always respond in a predictable manner, because at the end of the day you cannot exploit an unpredictable resource. The ideas of anarchism are too small and localized to deal with issues that affect billions. There are too many problems that travel faster than the reactions speed of anarchic societies. The true weakness lies in the same predictability of resources versus unpredictability. In other words, there are resources like water and food that can be very unpredictable in certain regions, or periods in time, but the people themselves are predictable. Eventually exploitation will set in as humans are not intellectually equal. This disparity in intellect is probably genetic and cannot be overcome through just education. To compound the issue, the problem is intellectual disparity is dynamic. In one generation you might be smarter than me, but in the next generation my kid is smarter than yours. Hence, there is no true way to predict who will be exploited and who will be doing the exploitation. If we simply rely on social bias, we are playing into the same traps that lead to tribalism, or military rule taking over the pack of wolves who were once traditionalists.
The best thing we people in the developing world can do is strive to become better than the Europeans. This is done by playing their game. Add their strengths to your artillery. Don't run from their powerful weapons of deception, separation and propaganda. We mut incorporate these tools into our narrative instead of letting those tools scoop up hopeless INDIVIDUALS into the exploitation barrel of Interest slavery.
what a long crap that was!
Hierarchy is the natural state of evolution and life itself.
It is constantly changing, ever malleable, but remains there, one creature over another.
Be it in skill or biology, it simply is.
Love the video. I don't know a whole lot of anything (learning is an ongoing process) but I always want to tear my hair out when I hear the ol' "human nature" argument against anarchism and free association society. For starters, it's an incredibly cynical look at humanity as a whole and ignores the material conditions in which people are growing up in. Children aren't born selfish and bigoted - society can shape them into such things. Secondly, as you say, then anarchism is the ideal society for such a species. If people are such monsters then having a society which elevates them is no good for anyone.
It's ironic that authoritarian folks use that argument because they talk about humanity as if they're not part of it and see themselves above all of us. They believe themselves our masters. They're exactly the kind of people we don't want in positions of power.
The problem has always been Cnristianity and cishet whlte normalization. You kiII those things and you get a .better world. Look at any non-European country to get an idea of what a better. world could be for the west.
People tend to stick with what they know because challenging it is taxing on the individual. People just want to do art, engineering, learning about the world, etc, and constantly questioning power structures doesn't help that goal.
I feel like i understand anarchism enough to know that i believe it works, but i dont understand it enough to know how to argue every point made against it.
I still fail to give anarchist answers to how an anarchist society/region would defend itself against a major world threat like a hostile nation.
Still though, its incredible and beautiful to get to learn about it, as it feels like almost every anarchist creator or writer i learn from helps make education feel spiritually fulfilling! I deeply appreciate these videos
I think the Anarchist FAQ is an excellent resource in this regard: anarchy.works/
I'm glad you appreciate the videos.
A video about anarchic parenting would be interesting + what are your sources to say that the Mbuti and Hazda practice it?
I have a video on anarchic parenting. Sources are in that video's description.
@@Andrewismthankyou for the clarification
Was really needing this. Summation is not my strongest suit
Thank you! You've articulated something I've struggled with before. Much appreciated!
Im a teacher in training and I'm being pushed into a leadership position. I'd like to be in more equal terms with my students, because besides being ideologically opposed to this hierarchy, it also doesn't really suit me. I love teaching, but I want to explore alternative ways of doing that, which the mainstream teachers and books don't describe.
Has anyone got any sources on anarchist teaching styles that can give me concrete tips I can use in the classroom?
I would disagree on one point , that authority is merely a social construct. If only it were that easy. A common critique of anarchism is that hierarchy is inevitable, because it is human nature. Referring to one of our closest relatives, chimpanzees, along with countless other social species, we can see that the constant striving for authority is not just our own burden to bear. Power grants authority exclusive access to a prosperous future, while providing some semblance of stability and security for the followers. Hierarchy is not ideal, but it is usually a good enough solution to the urgent problem of warring factions that arise in a power vacuum, which not only are a threat in of themselves, but disrupt the wider group's cohesion, leaving them vulnerable to predation, resource scarcity and damaged health from prolonged acute stress. When you hear dismissals of anarchism as a viable concept, this is what is feared.
Such a view would be compelling, if it was not committing the naturalistic fallacy. Hierarchy *is* a part of human nature, but that doesn't mean we have to just live with it. As Graeber pointed out, all human sociability is based on primitive communism, and this too is as an intrinsic trait of human beings, albeit much younger than hierarchy. We are perfectly capable of living without hierarchy, because many of us do so every day with family, friends, neighbors, colleagues and comrades. We also have the inborn capacity to structure our relationships through mutual agreement, rather than domination. If anyone suggests that hierarchy is natural, they are right. If anyone suggests that we must be hierarchical because it is natural, they have either surrendered their will to a tyrant, or they wish to become a tyrant. Hierarchy is famine. It is disease. It is war. It is a force of nature and it is one we mush seek to banish from humanity, and it would be wise to suspect the motives of anyone who would suggest otherwise.
The recognition of the naturality of hierarchy makes the job of anarchists both harder, and easier. Harder because a natural force is much harder to dispel than a mere social construct. Easier, because recognizing the problem for what the problem truly is: an affect common to all animals, the sense of power. Authority is the feeling of whether you could beat someone in a fight, physical or social, who is dominant, and who submits. Weirdly, I feel like the BDSM community would be a great ally in this respect, being so practiced as they are in using this emotion consensually and for mutual benefit. Another thing anarchists can do is sensitizing themselves to power dynamics in as many different contexts as possible. Anarchists can then use that sense to gather knowledge about how power dynamics play out, and use that knowledge to develop consent-based organizations that are more resilient to unwanted interference.
I wish I could like this more than once
Yeah enabling one enables many. No one's above anyone. I hope things get easier and nicer. 🍀🍀🍀
Good shit. Thank you.
I consider myself an anarchist, but I used the ' justified hierarchies ' definition and it's incorrect turns out.. I hadn't thought about describing it in the way of social relations. Makes it much clearer.
But I got a sincere question: in a hypothetical situation where an army exists under anarcho communism, can they function without hierarchy? I thought they couldn't, but maybe I am wrong?
Also, in a situation where a child has learning disabilities and relies on the authority/decisions from his or her parents, how should we act if we oppose all forms of coersive relationships? Do I have to regard this as a different kind of relationship? It seems like than the justified hierarchy definitions should apply better in that case.. Can someone explain this to me?
I'm not here to poke holes or anything, just curious what you all think. Thanks!
The Anarchist FAQ has a section discussing how the militias operated during the Spanish Civil War that you can check out wrt to your first question. As for your second, I would defer to anarchists more equipped and informed to handle the topic of neurodivergence.