Emergent temporary leadership beats hierarchy
Most of us have only ever known systems that assume someone needs to be in charge- someone always needs the final say, and a structure needs to be there before anything starts. Without that - or so the story would go - everything falls apart. "It says so in the TV shows/movies I watch" "its pushed in my workplace" "its clear in my school".
But what if that story is just muscle memory? A memory that has been propagated by significant finance, political reinforcement and state or local enforcement.
We’ve seen how people come together after storms in crisis and in grief. Who decides what needs done? No one and everyone - it just happens. Roles appear and then dissolve. Leadership shows up in moments and then fades not by decree or dictated design. People step in, step back, move around. It's messy but it works. When it works - no ones clinging to control. They're just doing what makes sense - because it needs done.
The problem isn't that we don't know how to act without hierarchy. The problem is we've been psychologically manipulated and trained away from trusting that we can - as a species we have operated without the consolidated form of it for longer than we haven't. We've been sold the idea that structure = safety. Order must come from above - good things come from strong leaders and clear chains of command - and we swallow this and internalize it. Hierarchy is just fear wearing a suit.
What does this pervading culture tell us? It says we need leaders when things need done quickly. But urgency isn't a free pass for control. It's a test of how strong our shared understanding is. If we know each other and we've built habits of listening, if we've practiced moving together - we don't need a boss when the clock runs down. This truth has been practically and repeatedly proven in so many places its not worth citing here.
"Leadership is natural surely?" Yeah in certain circumstances someone might step up. But they should step back just as easily. Emergent leadership isn't a throne. Ideally it could be like a stool you stand on for a minute and then hand over to someone else.
Sounds easy but it’s hard. Because when we get scared or tired or lost then the call of control gets louder. "Someone do something!" "Someone decide!" "Someone lead!". And then were back exhaulting, consolidating and repeating the shape of the systems we thought we left behind. I don't think we can avoid all structure. We should watch when it starts to stick though - like when helpful patterns become rules and roles become identities and support becomes authority.
I'm not pretending everything works out if we just believe in people. Because we know what doesn't work - a group should watch closely how power emerges, how status calcifies, how control creeps in. It’s about being brutally honest with ourselves and each other: who benefits from this? who is silenced? Who's left carrying the weight? Being aware of how quickly trust gets replaced by authority, how easily a workable group rhythm gets replaced by structure, how often collaboration becomes compliance. This does take effort and attention and not just slogans or "vibes" - more gritty practice. Most of us know this - we've seen it work and we've felt it in moments of clarity,crisis or care.
The point isn't to romanticize the mess, or reject all structure its to refuse the lie that only top-down control gets things done or even that its the best way to organize people - its not.
There's a pattern beneath the noise. It isn't simple. But it is 100% there
Do anarchists underestimate how deeply cultural myths like "we need strong leaders" are embedded—and how easily they sneak back in?
What tools do you use (or see used) to unpick and resist cultural conditioning around hierarchy, authority, and urgency?
What examples have you seen of emergent leadership working—or nearly working—in ways that avoided hierarchy but still got things done?
Comments
I actually regard hierarchy…
anon (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 16:56
I actually regard hierarchy as pompous arrogance in a suit. I attack all hierarchy by not fawning to the arrogant ones. I will make scathing deconstructing critiques of their materialistic foundational value system TO THEIR FACES!
I will give them disturbing and intense glaring eye-contact, even across a meeting hall or further up the train carriage!
when have we ever seen our…
tentatively a … (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 20:13
when have we ever seen our projects actually exist without implicit hierarchy? it is of more value to analyze the power we hold when we hold and are using it than pretend it doesnt exist. there is implicit power in being the person at the infoshop who is standing behind the counter with the keys, telling patrons that you'll be closing up soon and its time to leave. because of your status as a participant in the project/member of the collective, most will politely respect your authority rather than taking a stand and demanding more time to browse, even if that is what they desire. likewise, i can meticulously edit an essay like "tyranny of the clock" to be about gay sex instead of time (tyranny of the cock,) and despite my labor, someone with the power to deny my submission to theanarchistlibrary.org will turn it down, using their presence within the collective to deny me a platform on the basis that at their personal discretion, my submission is not worth taking seriously. as egalitarians, must we not seize the opportunity to be endlessly critical of power? im just saying, we must stick to our principles lest we forget that we live in a society
Please learn the difference…
anon (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 20:50
In reply to when have we ever seen our… by tentatively a … (not verified)
Please learn the difference between power and authority in the anarchist context. Contemplate it for at least six-weeks. When you feel that you have a better grasp on anarchist vocabulary return and read what you wrote above. Follow up. We'll wait.
There is no shame in learning before WALL-OF-TEXT.
did you notice that your…
anon (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 22:12
In reply to when have we ever seen our… by tentatively a … (not verified)
did you notice that your examples are situations where there is insiders and outsiders? Where there is an infoSHOP with a counter, an object of division, separating the outside from the inside. Where there are keys. Where there is time to be "open" or "closed" to begin with? Where a there are "submissions" to an inside group from an outside?
what you are noticing is structural. But there are structures without insides and outsides. Collectives can be self-serving. Information centers can exist without administration like a pile of books in the woods.
you are smelling what im…
anon (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 23:12
In reply to did you notice that your… by anon (not verified)
you are smelling what im cooking. i will send you a psychic beacon and from there we can discuss between our dissolved non-selves things such as Autonomous Thatch-Hut Information Centers and Sucking Each Other Off. we are better than everyone
you can psychic bacon…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 10:15
In reply to you are smelling what im… by anon (not verified)
you can psychic bacon yourself in the butt.
You don't need to dissolve yourself into a collective group identity to model projects on collective frameworks instead of frameworks where there is a group of people (insiders) doing the thing and then another group of people (outsiders) getting the product. Infoshops suck because they usually produce exclusive divisions of labor or division of production from consumption that other organizations do not. Most internet forums suck for the same reasons. Is everything like that? No, it isn't. Not every form of social or collective interaction creates those divisions.
Not the other commenter but …
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 11:24
In reply to you can psychic bacon… by anon (not verified)
Not the other commenter but "division of labor" is a badly-outdated Marxist term. It's more about the separation in general, which is a fundamental aspect of how the entire socio-political system works. But it's true about in/out dynamics, that produce and are this very separation. "Anarchists" who can't notice -or care about- this aspect clearly are lacking a DEEP ANALysis and shouldn't deserve an invitation to the invitation-only gay orgy after the bookfair!
HAHAHAHAHAHA "division of…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 11:32
In reply to Not the other commenter but … by anon (not verified)
HAHAHAHAHAHA "division of labor" is not a Marxist term
My two cents. The infoshop…
Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 02:51
In reply to when have we ever seen our… by tentatively a … (not verified)
My two cents.
The infoshop example illustrates how roles (like holding keys or closing time) can create functional power, which differs from authority-as-domination. Theorists distinguish between force (practical, situational agency) and authority (systemic, coercive hierarchy). The person closing the infoshop acts with force which is a temporary consensual role needed for collective functioning - but this becomes problematic if it morphs into unaccountable authority - like gatekeeping without transparency.
Your submission rejection highlights curatorial power from collective standards. I think its right to have accountable processes: rotating roles, participatory editing, or open criteria for submissions. I prefer to critique authority while trying to decentralize it ensuring it remains fluid, justified by need, and answerable.
contrary to those making a…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 09:15
In reply to when have we ever seen our… by tentatively a … (not verified)
contrary to those making a power=/=authority argument i think you are right that authority sneaks in in small ways, it can reach almost anywhere. The infoshop keeper could make the dynamic clearer by saying it like "hey, im closing up, so get out, or fight me." inviting noncompliance while specifying the level of gravity at hand (could just as well have said "or tell me you want to stay longer." inviting the 'no' can help, but ultimately neutering that authority role is on the patrons, bc only they can choose to ignore/push back/reframe the issue proposed by the in-group. this is why the social pursuit of antagonism is important. you can't dethrone someone while acquiescing to them...
and unfortunately it seems like different temperaments/personalities will identify different structures as authoritarian while overlooking others--there's no way to make it a matter of democracy, hence the importance of respecting others' right to deny/disobey.
The infoshop example…
Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 09:37
In reply to contrary to those making a… by anon (not verified)
The infoshop example reproduces capitalist dynamics such as ownership, patronage, management responsibility and then asks us to play anarchists inside that frame. But once we’re speaking in terms of the shopkeeper’s right to tell others to leave, we’ve already accepted a property logic that legitimizes hierarchy and exclusion.
Sure, you can ask the manager to phrase it in a way that invites refusal, but under the current system, they don’t have to. They can just call the cops. And that’s the core issue - trying to apply anarchist principles inside capitalist frameworks tends to collapse into personal performance or an internal moral navel gazing struggle.
these points are cogent. now…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 09:47
In reply to The infoshop example… by Non-nihilist (not verified)
these points are cogent. now ya mention it i was definitely thinking in the framework of "anarchists" living in "the existent." it reifies the idea that anarchy is a collective potentiality but not an individual one. otoh, autonomy is an individual inevitability and not a collective process. bc we're living in the existent we kinda only get to choose how to wield our autonomy. i doubt humans are theoretically capable of adopting a stable society that constantly neuters each micro authority, but i do believe individuals have the autonomy to make choices, and so making choices is arguably the best we can get. the particular choices will always have contradictions and discrepancies from person to person, but we're chillin i guess
cultural norm
Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 14:01
In reply to these points are cogent. now… by anon (not verified)
Maybe the goal isn’t to constantly neuter every micro-authority (thats hypervigilant and unsustainable), but to make it normal to talk about. If it becomes a cultural reflex -something we expect to surface and examine - then it stops being awkward or defensive and starts being part of how we relate. Like a well-trodden path, not a battle every time. Itd be more work than chillin for sure, but most things that matter are.
yeah dude there's totally a…
anon (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 20:54
yeah dude there's totally a difference between the good power/authority and the bad power/authority and as a good anarchist i must orient my politic around playing bullshit semantics games. if im not jerking off about which hierarchies are justified im doing it wrong. oh enlightened master, i will follow your heed and resign myself to being hung from the rafters as a reactionary
If you secretly hand over…
anon (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 21:24
In reply to yeah dude there's totally a… by anon (not verified)
If you secretly hand over the keys, you may be pardoned and exiled, because usually the instigator or leading "good anarchist" has a seething ressentiment which thrives on authoritarian rule, and they will soon become, as you did, a despised abuser of power, and likewise be cancelled by the rotating door of righteousness/moral indignation, the friend of ressentiment.
Ressentiment logic bomb
Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 04:08
In reply to If you secretly hand over… by anon (not verified)
Ressentiment is real and worth naming but here it gets used like a logic bomb dropped to shut down anarchist effort before it even begins. Yes power corrupts. That doesnt mean we disappear into ourselves or abandon external action. It means we stay alert, we build with care, and we leave no room for dominance to take root.
Naming the pattern isn’t the end - it should be the beginning of building differently. If your politics are just call-outs and gatekeeping, yeah, you’ll end up replicating what you hate. But if youre growing food, reclaiming spaces, showing up for others you’re creating something that drains power from the system.
Rage doesn’t need to be purified or repressed, it needs direction - not central control, just purpose. Healing isn’t a solo project while your neighbors are crushed. Navel gazing whilst the world burns. Real healing happens in solidarity, not solitude.
It's not "bullshit semantics…
anon (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 21:32
In reply to yeah dude there's totally a… by anon (not verified)
It's not "bullshit semantics games", you ding-dong noob. It's fucking basic. If you're going to sit at the anarchist table and want to talk anarchy with anarchists, at least learn the fucking language.
you sound like a leninist
anon (not verified) Mon, 04/28/2025 - 23:07
In reply to It's not "bullshit semantics… by anon (not verified)
you sound like a leninist
Now you're just listing…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 00:38
In reply to you sound like a leninist by anon (not verified)
Now you're just listing words you don't know the meaning of HOW EMBARRASSING
fuck you asshole ive been…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 01:52
In reply to Now you're just listing… by anon (not verified)
fuck you asshole ive been addressing scumbags like you in the second person since i was in preschool. the whole time i could talk even
Another poster here. Ahaaaah…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 03:00
In reply to fuck you asshole ive been… by anon (not verified)
Another poster here. Ahaaaah, you've just revealed your true nature, the arrogant authoritarian who seeks power for their own prestige! Just your body language screams out, I would spot you straight away if you were seated amongst genuine anarchs at a table. I would grab you by the scruff of your neck and evict you!
Semantics important?
Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 03:07
In reply to yeah dude there's totally a… by anon (not verified)
Yeah, I hear you getting stuck in debates about “good vs bad power” can feel like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If were just arguing definitions while clinging to unspoken hierarchies in our own groups, were missing the point entirely.
I prefer to ask are we accidentally building the same crap we hate - just with a radical paint job? Obsessing over semantics is useless if it becomes a cover for folks to act like mini-dictators. But dismissing all distinctions can blind us to creeping overlords where the usual suspects still hold sway - the loudest, the most connected, the ones who’ve been around longest.
Its not sexy but doing the boring work like rotating who makes decisions, creating clear guidelines together, and calling out anyone who acts like their voice matters more is good. If we cool the jargon maturbation we can keep the focus on practices that actually flatten authoratative power. That said if we cant laugh at our own contradictions while doing that were taking ourselves way too seriously.
just as well as rotating you…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 09:19
In reply to Semantics important? by Non-nihilist (not verified)
just as well as rotating you can also do the utterly disorganized "everyone does whatever, whenever," which can situationally flatten the hierarchies provided that the people don't get offended by undoing others' work or spinning their wheels a little.
I bring neutral power to the…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 04:51
I bring neutral power to the stadium of anarchs I narrate to. Initially, I do a small pirouette then stop facing the eager horde,,,,,and then I whisper into the microphone,,,," Who are you, where are you from, w.h.e.r.e. a.r.e. y.o.u. g.o.i.n.g.?" Then I pause looking to the left and right of the horde, and then I scream,, " YOU ARE HERE NOW AND YOU ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE,,,,,,,," Then softly I say " Free refreshments will be served in the foyer " And the horde erupt into cheering and howling. Then I hold up my hand and a silence returns to the horde, I smile and say " We are all born with equal power, let's keep it that way " I bow and leave the stage amidst deafening cheering. I could have manipulated and moulded them into any form or action, but I gave them all,,,,,,,,neutral equal power,,,,,,,
meta critique?
Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 05:52
In reply to I bring neutral power to the… by anon (not verified)
Is that a meta critique? Im only here for discourse, to trade ideas, collaboratively think, and resist the kind of soft power youre possibly critiquing. Not offering purity or performance. Just personal perspective.
Yes. and I only offer purity…
anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 17:31
In reply to meta critique? by Non-nihilist (not verified)
Yes. and I only offer purity. *pirouettes and exits keyboard*
it might be that a bit of…
they,pedantic (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 07:24
it might be that a bit of definition could prove helpful. I don't have THE definitions but there are differences between power, strength, force, authority and violence.
"i want to browse more but…
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 08:44
"i want to browse more but the anarchist shopkeep wants to go home" is perhaps the stupidest thought experiment i've seen. might explain why the rest of the analysis of power is a pile of trash in the hot sun
i fucking love semantics
alex (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 08:53
the reason i like semantics is that it is, in my belief and experience, one of the most potent tools that most people have immediately available "to unpick and resist cultural conditioning around hierarchy, authority, and urgency." i'm not at all sure that this is true of digital spaces but i will briefly try to defend this. the point is not to find the precise definition of terms. that is, itself, an authoritarian drive (in the sense of attempting to establish and uphold an authority), if one assumes that a precise definition exists and can be found and then shared. the point is that the meaning of words are contested in the act of speaking to one another. definitions are formed socially, continuously and dynamically. therefore, surrendering the definition of a word to another person or an authority, such as a dictionary or a particular work of theory or whatever, is exactly that: surrender. it is to say, i am willing to operate under this or that banner. which is not to say that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing to be aware of, and to critique, not in the sense of merely asking which banner is the best, but to ask: what does it say about this person that this is the banner they are holding out?
as a simple example, say a man and woman in a coupled relationship living together in a house are talking about "work." they may assume that they agree with each other about what "work" means. but work is a complex concept that often has other concepts compounded into it when people talk about it. the man might be using his idiot mouth to say the word "work," but in fact mean something like "(natural/necessary/delegated (by god)) work" while the woman means something like "(necessary/maintenance/shared) work." if they discuss the meaning they might find that they disagree on these points and as such do not in fact have any kind of agreed upon plan or process for living together, and perhaps should not. if they however assume that they already agree, they will talk past each other until something forces the issue.
in practice (not online, it is pointless i think to try to do this online), the way i approach semantics is to think critically about the position(s) of the person i am talking to, try to understand what compounded meanings and concepts they are deploying within a particular spoken word, and then "walk around" that word/topic by picking up and addressing the different components and constitutive parts that the person had been leaving unaddressed. this is to avoid arguing over precise definitions which i dont believe exist and instead to address what the person is doing by using the word in the way they are. then, if the conversation goes well, i return to the original topic/word and address it directly, now equipped with some level of shared understanding of what we think/feel about all those other things: something closer to a whole picture. this is, in my view, a version of what stirner meant by invading/seizing the chapel rather than merely circling it. because the problem with definitions is not what they precisely are, but what is being withheld and claimed as settled in advance
Nice post. David Graeber is…
Anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 11:01
Nice post.
David Graeber is a great source of information on societies that use better forms of organisation than dog eat dog while criminal oligarchy gets richer.
Of course the problem is that the deranged criminals in power have all the weapons. There is no force in the west that can currently overcome that problem. Our "democracy" is built to ensure nothing ever changes in our favour and they grow more bloodthirsty by the hour.
The entire establishment (politics, media & forces of violence & technology) are built to destroy all equality at all costs. They will jot allow us to vote that away. So how do we overcome that?
Replying to my own post cos…
Anon (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 11:55
In reply to Nice post. David Graeber is… by Anon (not verified)
Replying to my own post cos I don't want to harsh on the op. Solidarity is essential and all attempts at growing it are to be encouraged.
One thing I've noticed in the squeezed middle is a complete lack of understanding of the fact that all that is happening to the middle classes and working class has been done for a very long time without respite to minoritised people and the working and middle classes did nothing to stop it so it naturally grew and now includes them. Perhaps we should now educate ourselves and face the full and terrible truth of that and then allow the minoritised people to take the lead and we should follow with all our strength while keeping our mouthes firmly shut. An enormous debt is owed by us to them and we need to repay it in real solidarity. That is the only way forwards as I see it.
Graeber’s work shines a…
Non-nihilist (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 14:10
In reply to Nice post. David Graeber is… by Anon (not verified)
Graeber’s work shines a light on what's possible when people aren't locked into manufactured scarcity and competitive hoarding. You're right though were not dealing with just "bad policy" but entrenched systems backed by force and narrative control. We can't vote it away because the whole game is rigged to make sure real change never reaches the ballot.
I think the question becomes: if direct confrontation with power leads to getting crushed, what are the subversive strategies that build outside the system while slowly eroding its foundations? How do we scale mutual aid, economic disobedience, and awakening in ways that aren’t just reactive, but actively generative? If we know they'll never hand us a win how do we stop playing their rigged game altogether?
I think what Graeber does…
anon (not verified) Wed, 04/30/2025 - 01:25
In reply to Graeber’s work shines a… by Non-nihilist (not verified)
I think what Graeber does best is open the door to possibilities with detailed real and scaled examples of different and better ways for society's to organise themselves.
Your question is a very good one.
The issue of what is and has been done to minoritised people and how we help make ammens through supportive solidarity remains and without that being remedied I think we are all lost as those listed as minoritised expands ever outwards to include more and more people.
substantive equality
Non-nihilist (not verified) Wed, 04/30/2025 - 02:28
In reply to I think what Graeber does… by anon (not verified)
Totally agree that restorative solidarity is key- but I keep circling around how to do that without accidentally building new hierarchies. How do we level the playing field without creating a new rulebook that just replaces the old one?
Maybe it’s about starting with a shared baseline like substantive equality - something a community agrees on as the floor (decent housing, food, tools to participate). If someone’s below that, mutual aid kicks in automatically. No means-testing or identity gatekeeping -just “you’re here, you get support.” Less about fixing the past, more about building a floor everyone stands on.
That said, your point about listening to marginalized voices is very key. Open forums, storytelling circles - spaces where people can name harms and needs without bureaucracy. Not “reparations” as a transaction, but as ongoing accountability. Keeps the whole group from drifting into collective amnesia.
I wouldnt want it too rigid. Every system risks becoming a cage. Maybe the answers just staying messy, adaptive, and leaving room to ditch what doesn’t work?
Go away, please
anon (not verified) Wed, 04/30/2025 - 06:24
In reply to substantive equality by Non-nihilist (not verified)
You are the worst ever contributor to this site, which is quite the achievement. Congrats!
never meet your heros
Non-nihilist (not verified) Wed, 04/30/2025 - 06:37
In reply to Go away, please by anon (not verified)
Absolutely devastated - that comment really truly floored me. Youve always been a hero of mine anon. I might go as far tearing down my posters of you and stop telling everyone that were budies now!
I think the point I was…
Anon (not verified) Fri, 05/02/2025 - 01:09
In reply to substantive equality by Non-nihilist (not verified)
I think the point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't try to build anything, we should fall behind minoritised people and do as they ask and not take it over, just give them our strength.
They are the most aware of the actual problems and actual injustices so they are best placed to fix them and build better.
Yes vigilance against new tyranny but our attempts to build without them or over them would be even more tyranny still.
woke paternalism
Non-nihilist (not verified) Fri, 05/02/2025 - 03:08
In reply to I think the point I was… by Anon (not verified)
Yeah dont want paternalism - but just a more liberal version - which could be what that sounds like. Anarchism isn’t about swapping one hierarchy for another, even if it’s framed as following the most historically oppressed.
The problem isn’t who leads, but the idea of calcified leadership itself. If solidarity is to 'fall behind and do as they ask’ the risk is turning lived experience into a new authority - like a well-intentioned vanguardism that still replicates the dynamic of masters and followers. Marginalized people aren’t a monolith and i dont want to anoint new guides - it should be cooperative.
Some hierarchies are okay…
Norm Chumpsky (not verified) Tue, 04/29/2025 - 19:57
Some hierarchies are okay... it's the unjust hierarchies that are bad. But then when the just hierarchies become unjust, then just vote Democrat. Problem solved.
Freedom to disobey
Bob (not verified) Wed, 04/30/2025 - 18:08
The three practical freedoms defined in Dawn of Everything is the freedom to disobey, freedom to move and be accomadated, and the freedom to rearrange one's social relations.
A hieararchy implies a system of coercion, force, and threat of force, or in other words central control by force of arms. Absent this perhaps there's an imaginary ranking system, but if people don't choose to adhere to this than that's it. Ideally leadership is spontaneous and changing depending on the situation and who is best suited to take on such a role.
Concerning the infoshop example, if the person running the space trusts the people who want to stay longer, but still wants to go, then maybe the lock autolocks when the door shuts after a certain time, so there's no reason to stick around.
In response to what is to be done against systems of domination, another example from Graeber is how the people of Madagascar after the withering of the state outside of the city pretended like the state apparatuses of administration and violent enforcement were still functioning, but they otherwise carried out their generally egalitarian day-to-day ways of living together. When told to do something from a state buearacrat they would passively agree then not do it and carry on their way if doing things. The day to day, along with social material infrastructure, social imaginary like myths and such, and ideology, combine to make a social base to mobilize against domination and for freedom.
"A hieararchy (sic) implies…
anon (not verified) Wed, 04/30/2025 - 21:17
In reply to Freedom to disobey by Bob (not verified)
"A hieararchy (sic) implies a system of coercion, force, and threat of force, or in other words central control by force of arms."
Such a bad take... If you think hierarchies are only coercive then this means you got pwned by so many hierarchies already without even realizing. Also this poor retrograde narrative denies the purpose of propaganda, peer influence, deprivation of knowledge and normalization of values, representations and beliefs. As power is also exerted by "ruse".
Power isn't real, it's not…
Abdushara (not verified) Wed, 04/30/2025 - 22:49
In reply to "A hieararchy (sic) implies… by anon (not verified)
Power isn't real, it's not even symbolic. All these takes are bad.
No, brow. You're thinking of…
Actual Semiotician (not verified) Thu, 05/01/2025 - 09:12
In reply to Power isn't real, it's not… by Abdushara (not verified)
No, brow. You're thinking of birds and/or the non-spherical shape of the Earth!!
But also, the word Power appears in the HOLY BIBLE 1123 times! First occurrence is Gen 6:11:
The population of the earth was corrupt absolutely depraved—spiritually and morally putrid in God’s sight, and the land was filled with violence desecration, infringement, outrage, assault, and lust for power!
How DARE you question the HOLY BIBLE?!
Just kidding. That was for the christofascists in the back.
But seriously, maybe you're just drunk and thirsty for engagement? Also learn what symbolic means in either the cases of symbolic thought or signifier/signified. You'll feel more dumb but eventually less dumb.
OooOooh!
Power by ruse
Words (not verified) Fri, 05/02/2025 - 09:29
In reply to "A hieararchy (sic) implies… by anon (not verified)
The examples involving manipulation that you list are coercive i think. In other words soft and hard subjugation, or the carrot and the stick. To be free means individual and collective self-determination. Ideally, people will see the world in themselves and their self in the world.
I agree in a way with you, that ideology may obscure what is occurring in reality if its unadaptive. Also people may lead through charisma, but without enforcement mechanisms people in that context are free to disobey. Convincing others to do what you want them to do involves a deep(-ish) understanding of who they are, their motivations, beliefs, and identity, and so on and so on. The inverse, involving people in positions of power over others, they don't have to do the interpretive labor to understand others under them. The lowest common denominator is the use of violence to force people to do what they want them to do. Hence the ignorance of management about what's actually happening. They have no idea! People doing the actual work have a much better understanding of reality.
Of course we're susceptible to misunderstandings because of culture and such. This highlights the need to further create social material infrastructure, ideology, imaginary, and day-to-day ways of living which form a social base for freedom. This would involve a plurality of beliefs and identities, because there is no one truth about reality. A beauty of anarchism is its disposition towards action and process.
Ladders climb upward,…
anon (not verified) Sun, 05/04/2025 - 17:04
Ladders climb upward,
Shadows stretch beneath their weight—
Silence grips the rung.
Add new comment