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?
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?
only necessary in military for coordinated action. however, if you’re living in anarchism and a big group decides to form a hierachy, it can suddenly be them vs a bunch of less strictly organised ppl and the hierachy will likely prevail and be cemented. the outcome is not guaranteed tho
Thats not true. Hierarchy in convential and historical militaries is used for many reasons, such as that the military serves the interest of those at the top.
Other conflict scenarios such as riots show that hierarchy is not necessary to win or reach certain goals.
That seems to suggest an inherent reason as to why anarchism may never last?
If you view it from that angle, that would be the case for any political system. they are all just dust in the wind.
No but you said hierarchy would likely be cemented, which suggests other forms of political systems are more likely
some are harder to get rid of, if they get a foothold. it’s undeniable. it depends a lot on what they’re doing. for example, if they appoint guards very soon they’ll be around some time. if they don’t, you can, for example, just slaughter them within a few days to restore the region to equilibrium.