How do you stop non-hierarchal free associations from creating hierarchy and fascism?

Wouldn't some people have more utility than others? How do you stop natural hierarchies forming?

Again, if you need to ask

you need to stop posting and read what you are critiquing .

"To each according to ability and need"

Thus, creating new fields, new careers, new ways of thinking.

Fascism is reformist nonsense that will not accomplish anything short of pretending to be radical when it is quite the opposite and nothing short of reformist "principled" identity bitchfits

so in the end it does end in hierarchy.

If one does not fit into established needs above another, a new set of requirements is made, developing new modes of creative expression and reasoning, as well as keeping populated lower needs jobs that are today, minimum wage and require you to fight for a right to even life itself.

Again, if you need to ask

you need to stop posting and read what you are critiquing .

So are you saying that if a group of individuals want to wave their decision making power and let others call the shots that they shouldn't be allowed to?

They wouldn't want to when the alternative is presented and far more seductive.

you miss the point. higher needs jobs are natural hierarchy.

Arm the proletariat

There is nothing natural about hierarchy in the work place. Communal living is entirely natural, however.

You express and divide into different tasks aboard the same ship, not stick your thumb up your ass for an hour about how well a ship can or cannot be maintained by people you condescend to.

This is just the facts of life. Humans are team working, communal animals.

Hierarchy and organization are not always oppressive. Thank you for answering my question.

a ship has a captain

and always features a hierarchy, either along age, sex, strength, etc lines.

Read Bookchin, hierarchy is an entirely human constructed concept and doesn't exist in any non human community

this is a joke right

A captain is a role just as critical as an engineer. It is a niche.

You apparently, lack the capacity to even understand what hierarchy is.

Animal behaviorists have long realized that primates that give tasks to each member of a troop tend to survive the longest while troops that outline hierarchy tend to rip apart far shorter.

Humans are primates. Humans are communal. Difference is not strength.

This is a completely loaded question, because if you believe hierarchy needs to be stopped from somehow being created out of a non-hierarchical association then it follows that non-hierarchical associations wouldn't be possible in the first place.

Your understanding of "Captain", as a natural subset of existence is laughable. It is an income bracket higher among ranks in the modern military.

In operation it is a niche just involved in the work of a "ship" in this metaphor as anyone else. One stops, the rest falls apart and mutiny.

You give everyone a way to live.

that's not at odds with a hierarchy though, you are just arguing u need the other parts in the pyramid to function

It in fact, is. Because there is no need to even have hierarchy exist in the first place if you adapt to such a capacity all manners of labor are expressed.

the free society must be able to defend themselves by any means against the ones who want to impose hierarchy

democracy is therefore not on the side of anarchists

not all manners of labor are as valuable as others

Maybe you should read Bookchin and get your head out of the trashcan. We equate the "queen bee" to a human monarch when it is nothing of the sort. This concept of natural hierarchy is only developed from our society which believes that hierarchy has always existed in human community when in actuality it hasn't.

they will only be effective if they are trained and led properly. I present the historical failure of American Militia units against the British regular army during the War of 1812, and the War for Independence as evidence. We must not allow ideology to keep us from effective methods of revolution.

but it has, some are stronger than others. we are not born equal.

How? Your idea of naturalism is "M-MUH CAPITAN" while I am explaining to you as to why believing in such is nonsensical and in fact against nature you argue for.

Science is on the side of collectivism at all times and in all evidence and theory, but unable to do much outside show you the facts.

You truly do not understand that social darwinism is not a mode of organization among primates.

"Strong" does not mean, not equal. It is a niche.

equal is a spook

This explains hierarchy, how? Someone did his job, good for them. That proves the point.

All humans are equal in they all die and they all live. There is nothing hierarchical about the mortal worthless flesh lived in.

it was your metaphor of a ship that skipped the most important part. the person who gives the orders so that the ship functions.

show me the science

that's a narrow view

A captain is not a hierarchy, it is a niche.

You are arguing nonsensical self defeating methods of organization. You are wrong.

It's the truth of the matter.

It's still a hierarchy.

you could extend it to animals and plants.

Nope. It's a niche.

Yep. You could. You are not different.

Read Bookchin

Nope, hierarchy.

So what are the animals in a farm?

I'm not going to make predictions about what people would or wouldn't want, I'm defending a particular kind of organizational structure. If people want to defer to others rather than make decisions themselves then that's fine. If Comrade Ivan from worker's soviet #130682 says he ought to be head manager of the factory because he's more qualified than others, and everybody else agrees and accepts that, then you have just formed a voluntary hierarchy.

If something fails without it, then it is not a hierarchy. Your idea of hierarchy is even ridiculous.

George Orwell was a libertarian socialist, but also a liberal snitch.

I would.

correct, the animals are below us and part of the hierarchy

and if mr bigrock is the strongest person in the tribe and decides to tell others what to do what has he formed?

Language is not universal. Linguistics is.

You are not above an animal, as you eat, shit, and die.

Bullshit that won't last.

ikr there's no way that would work irl

I am above the animal I eat.

It would.

For a time.

You will be eaten when you die. Does that make worms better than you? Or do you want to be cremated?

What about the plants, or oceanic fauna?

Probably organ donation, as the living are above me.

What about them?

So you delay the inevitable?

If you get cremated and throw your ashes at the ground or ocean.

Now we're arguing over superiority by consumption upon expiration.

What if you die under unforeseen circumstances?

This is ridiculous shit now. You know I'm right. That's what makes you uncomfortable.

Right about what? That there are multiple hierachies in nature. I think you assume the whole world must fit one perfect spiderweb of hierarchy when hierarchy exists between every set of things.

When I'm dead I'm less than the living.

Organization by niche being most natural.

Society does not organize by expression a bastardized simple form of evolution. It exists through coordination, natural forces express success.

Our power to create, is now being matched by Earth's natural expression to destroy us now.

Nothing is stronger than denial I suppose.

That's fine, but really, this has nothing to do with labor organization.

Calling something a niche does not mean there isn't a hierarchy. Stop that. They are not mutually exclusive.

There is no hierarchy outside of natural restrictions which all humans suffer under in different ways simultaneously

That's the biggest bullshit cop-out in all of political philosophy. Whenever somebody points out a flaw in your argument you can just gloss over it by saying "well nobody would want to do that because [insert massive generalized speculative statement about human psychology]".

False.

Majority does not work against their own benefit, that even works in America. It's why nobody fights.

There is no hierarchy outside of natural restrictions which all humans suffer under in different ways simultaneously

If one is better or different in many ways, than there is no one superior man if he has also drawbacks.

That brings out, niche. What you believe does not make sense.

Which is why millions of proles vehemently defend capitalism right?

The American Revolution had an ideological love for the concept of Militia. Citizen soldiers who elected their officers and could dismiss them. This system failed to make well drilled units that could maneuver quickly or withstand a bayonet charge. The red coats drove the militia from the field of battle in nearly every encounter. For the patriots to succeed against the British, they had to accept traditional military command structure and hierarchy.

Then that wouldn't be a voluntary hierarchy and I wouldn't support it.

Stop that. Niche and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive.

enjoy having your head caved in

...

didn't they use guerilla warfare?
(except for washingtons regulars)

So I cave in mr. Chieftain's head, or slit his throat in his sleep. What's your point? All I said was that if people voluntarily decide to form a hierarchy that's fine, and if it's imposed on them then it isn't.

Getting rid of it, they believe, would remove order that gives them meaning.

Which proves my point.

Cool.

That does not disprove what I just said.

So what you're saying is that war between social organisms means that social organization is hierarchical in nature

No

Yes they are.
There is no hierarchy outside of natural restrictions which all humans suffer under in different ways simultaneously

If one is better or different in many ways, than there is no one superior man if he has also drawbacks.

theres more of us than there is of him

(also guns)

If you feel you can that's fine. Make yourself leader. All I'm saying is hierarchy can be formed, regardless of whether it's voluntary or not.

Wrong, you sound like marco rubio now. Repeating sentences won't make you right. The world is proof you are wrong.

Guns, the mighty equalizer. But watch out of any larger groups of people with more guns.

Wrong, you sound like marco rubio now. Repeating sentences won't make you right

I accept your concession.

But you've been repeating the same things nonsensically.

Social organization does not exist because Muh Hierarchy, despite everyone being weak and mortal.

You can try, but it won't last long as it possibly could have.

In fact Earth and outside forces are working on getting rid of us with environmental pressure.

Shh. You had your chance.

a myth. Muskets are inaccurate and have a slow rate of fire. They are only effective when massed and volley fire is used.

So now you're going to put your fingers in your ears cover your eyes and go lalalalalalala nothing can be better than me lalalalalala

Shh, you tried.

Now what

You can try arguing the OP point again. Now that we know hierarchies are possible, how do we stop them?

But they aren't in social organization that is not a niche. Organization by social darwinism does not last, you cannot emulate nature.

Anti Oppression praxis, centring the bodies and life experiences of oppressed folks. Calling muh privileged people out on their shit

Stop.

No. Coordination by separation is by itself weakness before nature, which is really the only superior force if all have draw backs

Irrelevant.

How so?

Arguing a strawman.

It isn't. If success is everything superior in life, and you're arguing that social organization by biological superiority is effective as is emulation of natural process of hierarchy, than if it doesn't work in the long term how does that effect the method itself, or those who do or do not argue for it to begin with?

It doesn't matter because you won't be alive to have that argument because you're no different than anyone else in that you have equal drawbacks to over come for equal strengths.

Making method outside social darwinism preferable, as competency would be better applied universally than selectively, and nature would not choke out the civilization made easily.

This is how human beings became as organized as we were until agriculture came to be.

There is no point in arguing this as is just fact Even from agriculture until now is the blink of a large scale eye and it will collapse as all short sighted things do.

Even after agriculture, the only successful driving force against natural suppression was coordination and cooperation on mass scale.

fuck off with this strawman

The issue with your statement is that the American Militia had to fight with Muskets which required troops to line up to be effective. We now have automatic weapons which are versatile, various ways to create bombs, ways to communicate over long distances and a better understanding of camouflage. These tools support militias and small unit tactics which if used correctly can stop much larger forces.

Never suggested as such but we are not outside primates, so modeling effectiveness of how a society operates outside of primates is a bit fucking stupid actually.

and yet our closest neighbours form hierarchies

Our closest neighbors as I've already established have different rates of success among social organizations lasting. Humans appear to be not so dissimilar.

Yessir

they have naturally formed hierarchies for a million years and will continue to do so until we kill them all. luckily we will remain to form hierarchies.

This is not static. Some troops last longer than others. They happen to be, as we are, coordinated.

By hierarchy.

Again wrong, it is not the hierarchy that makes them successful as unsuccessful troops that also rely on the same things are not as successful by arguing over boundaries among themselves

Nature is a giant testament to the success of human civilization by means of coordination than any other factor alone, and so to argue and stamp your feet about anything other is counter intuitive.

That's beside the point that hierarchy forms naturally and exists everywhere.

It exists to prove its role in success against nature is limited at best and vestigial at worst.

nature has already lost

Nature doesn't lose as you are not seperate from it. You exist with organisms crawling around inside you that you would die if they weren't. and organs and self sustaining functions that are not significantly different to make you taxonomically separate from anything human.

And really, nature exists outside the solar system. Human extinction can come from all forms and manners from asteroid to climactic change making enviornment hostile.

Nature hasn't already lost, you are part of it still and have only existed in such a state as an invasive species of hominid for a blink of an eye in scientific terms.

Human history is no ladder, it is ribosome. As is all success or failure rates of social primates.

Your arguments are fucking ridiculous and despite your appeals to nature, nature actually appeals to the opposite characteristics.

Hierarchy is clearly not a successful strategy on organizing if nature has selected it for extinction.

Lol what is this post.

...

But you are also appealing to nature to your argument, so now you're just fucked because you said nature would crush anything non-hierarchal.

When confronted that nature in fact, does not, and hierarchy appears to be left over in terms of primate behavioral success, than what the fuck is it that you are arguing about society on a grander scale you were before?

Maybe you should be asking yourself that. First you argue hierarchy doesn't exist, now you accept it exists but you claim something else completely unrelated about nature killing us. Hierarchy happens, deal with it.

Trust me I'm asking myself why I'm arguing with someone who appeals to biology he doesn't even read of plenty.

It does not exist as a primary function of human behavior as you suggest it does. If primates mostly have more hierarchy based needs (needs that suspiciously tend to branch out the farther taxonomically they are from hominids), then what makes you think nature selected hierarchy to be the adaption we most benefit from when it appears to be one of our lesser terms of success and outwardly our closest relatives reflect such? Even outside of that.

Even something so far away as baboons have troubles dealing with hierarchy all in similar ways that coordination does not fix.

The remainder of evidence here seems to suggest "hierarchy", if it does indeed exist in primates, is a vestigial remnant behavior that at worst causes destruction of long term organizational goals among a species primed for organization.

My point is also that, on top of being offensively wrong on biological fronts, you are also offensively wrong on all fronts.

There is no hierarchy amongst people that is not, as society envisions, a ladder to organize.

It is actually a means of different niches even the disabled can explore, as indeed many great thinkers throughout time were disabled and would not fit in the society you envision as natural, which would seem to suggest nature does not strictly select these people for lack of participation in our society than it does anyone else.

Nobody is really all that special, and in the grander scheme of things, all evidence points to the contrary that you are wrong on every single fundamental level that it is ever a good idea to organize around individuality than lack of it.

You already admitted hierarchy exists. You can stop posting.

I am admitting it is not the reason we organize, and you don't even understand what it does or means.

You simply got your political understanding from the internet.

No. Goodbye.

Hierarchy exists some of the time, holarchy exists always its built into the structure and nature of reality

I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish.