Can anybody explain to me why leftists consider hierarchies as something bad?

Can anybody explain to me why leftists consider hierarchies as something bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

1. They produce unnecessary suffering and hinder the development of society
2. We arent benefiting from those hierarchies.

1. not smart or charismatic enough to climb these hierarchies
2. restricts flow of gibs

yeah stalin was definetly against hierarchy

Hierarchies are just transitional stage, dummy

Define "suffering"

Essentially any kind of discrepancy in performance between competing groups is oppression according to ancoms. Any kind, doesn't matter how each individual performs. If you're talented at being a manager it doesn't matter because oppression :DDD

To each according to his ability and need is a more efficient way of dealing with these issues than capitalism can currently offer.

but what if there's not enough free shit for everyone? it's easy to want free shit for everyone, but as soon as you start producing free shit for everyone, or any productive effort at all, you run into operational costs, you have to make priorities, you have to categorize what is important and what is trivial, what is effective and what is wasteful, you have to make… hierarchies

That's why you transition to a planned economy and maximize the output of products to meet human needs. As a result you also alleviate human labour and remove pointless jobs.

If your defense of capitalism is that it produces shit most efficiently, well… read a book.

mate, where the fuck are your planned economies? its you who should pick up another book, free market economies are outproducing all planned economies precisely because they dont need to waste 90% of their capital and manpower into enforcing their planned economy

you leave people alone and they produce shit for themselves, who would have imagined eh? if they decide to compete, the more productive one wins, who could have predicted such a thing wew

Holla Forums is actually this dumb

Poverty and the issues that come along with poverty along with powerlessness and the issues that come along with powerlessness.

Wow, read a book anytime.


Get a job


regressed to capitalism, unfortunately.

Even Adam Smith, they guy that coined the term "capitalism" disagreed with you.

western market capitalist countries are much more free than soviet "you dont have a permission to be here, off to gulag" block

To live shit lives, it's true.

wow read a book any time

It was the emergence of hierarchical modes of social organisation that gave birth to the idea of dominating nature. Hierarchy itself is at the root of our ecological crisis.

Are you ok of being a tool of another more powerful man who exploits your ass?

am I seeing the shit you wrote right? are you a proud uncle tom or what.

Heirarchy only benefits you if you're at the top of the pyramid. It's a slave ideology designed to lull workers into a sense of complacency and acceptance.

yeah… simple as that. holy shit.

kill yourself anytime

Only hierarchy in existence should be between gulag prisoner and gulag prison guard tbqhwyf

It's also a slave ideology for those at the top. When/if you're a the top, you don't have to prove anything anymore, you don't have to justify anything, you don't have to stand for yourself, you don't have to confront reality. You just get obeyed to automatically, which is what power is.
This why the will to power has nothing to do with political power, and why Nietzsche is compatible with the left.

Hierarchies depend on a lopsided distribution of resources to maintain power and makes most people worse off than they could be.

A ton of politicians are not smart and charismatic they're just born super rich. Hell your president is not smart or charismatic he was just born super rich.

It's not only about "merit" has never been.

Nietzsche was salty that the anarchist offered a way to escape master/slave dichotomy and he couldn't tbh.

Nietzche is more comparable to Stirner. Not "the left" never a generality but a uniqueness.

Remember left vs right is all spooky bullshit in the end. What is reality is: Power.
Power can be used to oppress therefore creating Authority, Hierarchies.

It has always been a struggle of The Free vs The Authorities/Despots. Thats the proper Left vs Right.


Nietzsche is only comparable to Stirner in hat their thought is diametrically opposed. The only people who say they are alike are those who have never read a page of Nietzsche. While Nietzsche aims towards the overcoming of the self (this is what the ubermensch/overman actually is, constant self-overcoming) Stirner's iconoclasm stops shorts at the self, his supposed project of profaning everything only works to erect another idol. I suggest reading Deleuze on the debate over Stirner's influence on Nietzsche where he says that Stirner only possibly had a negative influence.

Some of contemporary anarchism does, however if you look at how classical anarchists (Bakunin, Kropotkin) conceived the state, the individual, and freedom, its clearly fueled by reactive sentiments and slave morality.

hierarchic organisation invites structural paranoia, inside competition fuels backstabing. ammount of effort put into seizing power leads to unrealistic expectations in regards to proficiency of organisation


It's been a very long time since I've read him but I don't see why we would want to use his ideas even if they are compatible.

Odd coming from a leftcom.

Early Nietzsche was more heavily influenced by Stirner, albeit somewhat indirectly. Surprisingly good rundown here
Deleuze openly states he wants to fuck the great thinkers in the ass to make poo baby monstrosities, and is dishonest about his influences. He actually said this pretty much verbatim. His readings are meant to be taken with a grain of salt.

It seems u have posted using the leftcom flag. Ur post has been archived. Thank u.

I only got a problem with unjustified hierarchies.

But the hierarchy-justifying knowledge is a function of hierarchies and power relations.

There is no evidence Nietzsche ever read him and their thought is diametrically opposed - if there was influence, it must have been negative. Deleuze's buggery has nothing to do with lying about his influences though, as the monstrous child would, as he clearly says, necessarily be the author's. Not to mention that Nietzsche and Philosophy is one of the best secondary works on Nietzsche.

ayy good point.



The evidence is mostly circumstantial, but seeing as Nietzsche was familiar with two books mentioning Ego and was acquainted with several people who had read or claimed to know Max, it is not too much of a leap that he did read some of Stirner. And post tits.

you first brainlet

never change Holla Forums

Wage Slavery

Hierarchies benefit an elite minority at the expense of the majority.