Yeah, the idea that the vanguard party would randomly betray the revolution (the signs would already be there in the form of potential corruption, lack of response to the demands of the proletariat, theoretical errors, etc.) is a misunderstanding of how vanguard parties work; if they did become corrupt and distanced themselves from their original purposes, it would be after some amount of time, not instantaneously! Also, if the track record of anarchism is anything to look at, we would have an infinite amount of revolutions instead of just the two mentioned here (they fail every time).
These exchanges are hilarious. These people have equated the concept of Heirarchy with a synonym for immoral or evil. It’s really amazing how some can dance around a topic like hierarchy, creating long dialogues with increasingly distinct terms, but never actually approach the basis for why hierarchies exists at all. Every attempt of theirs to do so just loops around to Heirarchy are established bad bad people because they bad.
Pointing out that hierarchies are constructed to fulfill a material purpose that’s measurable and observable must be dismissed or else the moral categorization of hierarchy falls apart.
“Guidance is not leadership”
Okay so what is guidance? How is it functionally different. If you provide guidance to your anarchist cell on how to adminster medicine, and they carry it out too the letter, than what’s the difference between them electing you to lead the project on administering medicine?
Or, more pressing in my opinion, what if you guide your fellow anarchists in how to adminster medicine, but a few of them decide that their home remedies are superior to your medical experience, and they choose not to use your guidance, which ends up killing a dozen or so patients? The establishment of a hierarchy, where the most medically educated leads the effort with the others recognizing their authority, would then lead to less/no patients dying due to malpractice.
If hierarchy = evil, then those dozen deaths are more morally acceptable due to their emergence from adhering to strict anti-heirarchy. Those lives then matter less than the the adherence to anti-heirarchy. Ironically, a hierarchy of priorities has been produced where human life is subordinate to anti-heirarchy.
Anti-heirarchy sits above all upon the hierarchy of ideals for anarchists. However, unlike all others, this is a justified hierarchy.
Yeah, the idea that the vanguard party would randomly betray the revolution (the signs would already be there in the form of potential corruption, lack of response to the demands of the proletariat, theoretical errors, etc.) is a misunderstanding of how vanguard parties work; if they did become corrupt and distanced themselves from their original purposes, it would be after some amount of time, not instantaneously! Also, if the track record of anarchism is anything to look at, we would have an infinite amount of revolutions instead of just the two mentioned here (they fail every time).
NLH:
You critiqued him for:
Yet elsewhere he styles himself “Mr. “leadership is not hierarchy.”” and claims “You can have leadership in anarchy :)”, for which he got denounced, ironically yet predictably by many of his anarchist ilk (one exchange: parts 1, 2, 3).
Anyway, considering NLH’s clout-chasing behavior, guess who does NLH think shall be “delegated leadership” in NLH’s fantasized anarchy?
These exchanges are hilarious. These people have equated the concept of Heirarchy with a synonym for immoral or evil. It’s really amazing how some can dance around a topic like hierarchy, creating long dialogues with increasingly distinct terms, but never actually approach the basis for why hierarchies exists at all. Every attempt of theirs to do so just loops around to Heirarchy are established bad bad people because they bad.
Pointing out that hierarchies are constructed to fulfill a material purpose that’s measurable and observable must be dismissed or else the moral categorization of hierarchy falls apart.
“Guidance is not leadership”
Okay so what is guidance? How is it functionally different. If you provide guidance to your anarchist cell on how to adminster medicine, and they carry it out too the letter, than what’s the difference between them electing you to lead the project on administering medicine?
Or, more pressing in my opinion, what if you guide your fellow anarchists in how to adminster medicine, but a few of them decide that their home remedies are superior to your medical experience, and they choose not to use your guidance, which ends up killing a dozen or so patients? The establishment of a hierarchy, where the most medically educated leads the effort with the others recognizing their authority, would then lead to less/no patients dying due to malpractice.
If hierarchy = evil, then those dozen deaths are more morally acceptable due to their emergence from adhering to strict anti-heirarchy. Those lives then matter less than the the adherence to anti-heirarchy. Ironically, a hierarchy of priorities has been produced where human life is subordinate to anti-heirarchy.
Anti-heirarchy sits above all upon the hierarchy of ideals for anarchists. However, unlike all others, this is a justified hierarchy.
I can’t help but find it amusing is all.