r/DebateCommunism • u/Perfect-Highway-6818 • 18d ago
đ” Discussion Are communist opposed to hierarchies like anarchist are?
7
u/Qlanth 18d ago
Hierarchies are not inherently bad. They help keep us organized. Engels used the example of a ship on the ocean. Theere is a hierarchy and authority there, but without it the ships crew are harder to keep organized and the people on the ship become imperiled.
We need some kinds of hierarchy. We need some kinds of authority. It's part of staying organized.
With that said, hierarchy should always be changeable and accountable. Mutiny is a kind of democracy - when we feel its time to change the hierarchy then it's time to change it.
1
u/C_Plot 18d ago edited 18d ago
I would add to your on-the-mark comment by adding that the hierarchy (if that is what we call it), in Marxist socialism/communism, is solely in the service of ending oppression and dominance.
The material (positive) entry point for socialist science is that we, collectively, all of us, as conscious minds, confront the material totality (even as our consciousness is an emergent property of that material totality). The normative entry-point is an agapÄ golden rule morality informed social Justice that guides the demos: the People. In this inherent material condition, that necessary collective is inherently foisted upon us: which necessary collective is called âthe polisâ. We can easily and without controversy (if weâre adhering to a golden rule moral postulate entry point) assign authority over the natural resource of each body to the conscious mind that body hosts. Each sovereign conscious mind then exercises full authority the bodily domain.
However, that then leaves an immeasurably enormous set of other natural and other resources comprising our common resources as a separate domain that also requires stewardship. We all, as the polis principal, require a faithful agent to steward, administer, and act as the proprietor for our common resources (common wealth, a.k.a. common assets, and other common concerns, a.k.a. common liabilities). The socialist solution to this origin material condition, that we as a polis necessarily confront, is to assign authority over the common resources to a fiduciary agent (what Kautsky dubbed the âcommunist Commonwealthâ) to wield in a strictly limited manner, solely to secure the equal imprescriptible rights of all and to maximize the general, common, and mutual welfare of the polis.
These material conditions and the golden rule morality postulate comprise the political scientific conditions and entry points from which political scienceâa.k.a. the science of socialismâproceeds. The so-called social contract is whatever social arrangement forms from these a priori preceding material conditions. In that sense, thereâs no way to avoid a social contract as so many bourgeois vukgaris insist. What they mean by rejecting the social contract is fully surrendering to the present tyrannically imposed terms so that they do not need to engage jn eternal vigilance.
This science of socialism is what leads Engels, paraphrasing Saint-Simon, to say:
The government of [dominance over] persons [in each their personal sphere] is replaced by the administration of things [things as in our common resources] and the direction of the [collective and common] processes of production.
Class antagonistic social formations instead accede to absolutist or near absolutist authority over common resources, in a ruling class, without any strict limits imposed upon that ruling class, (no limit to secure rights and maximize the general welfare). The subterfuge the capitalist ruling class propagates is the mendacious ideology that to demand a faithful agent communist/socialist Commonwealth is to impose tyranny and dominance (rather than in truth, to end tyranny and dominance).
The faithful Commonwealth might draw upon proven governmental institutions, such as mutual contracts, usufruct of real property, tenure in fixed improvements to real property, trespass and right to roam, personal property, civil remedies, as well as civil and criminal punishments, proportionate defense, and so forthâto faithfully stewed, administer, and act as proprietor over our common resources (the common resources of the polis) so as to secure the equal imprescriptible rights of all and to maximize the general welfare of the polis. These institutions expand the personal private sphere beyond merely our bodies (as we enjoy usufruct of real property and personal property possessions) and thus provide material conditions for our own independent utility maximization as a complete to the faithful Commonwealth agent maximize the general welfare in our public affairs (res publica).
The polis thus holds the original authority (sovereignty) over these common resources but delegates its authority to the faithful agentâthe communist/socialist Commonwealthâto wield that delegated authority (a.k.a. polis power or more vulgarly called âpolice powerâ) on behalf of the polis. The authority over our individual bodily sphere remains with each of us (augmented by our communist usufruct and other communist property).
Our collective sovereignty remains with the polis. However, as a practical matter, we exercise that collective sovereignty by delegating proxy authority (not the originating authority called sovereignty) to the polis (it is not that âgovernments are instituted among menâ in the passive voice, but the active and more precise voice that âthe sovereign polis, universal collective of all persons, institutes a governmentâa socialist/communist Commonwealthâto secure our rights, including our rights beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights, to maximize the general welfare of the polis as our rightâ; the passive focus lulls us into complacency, when only active eternal vigilance can ensure a faithfulness agent to the polis principal).
If there is any hierarchy at all in this, it is the hierarchy of the polis principal over the Commonwealth agent that must serve faithfully the polis. Just as the work of God must he done by disciples, the work of a faithful Commonwealth must he done by faithful politicians and civil servants. They are a part of this hierarchy, and eternal vigilance is indispensable from the members of polis to maintain a Commonwealth agent as faithful to the polis, as well as to ensure the civil servants and politicians (of our polis power agent) likewise always act as polis fiduciaries.
Polis (where all sovereignty resides)
=> Fiduciary Commonwealth
=> Civil Servants and polit-itians
=> institutions defining and demanding an absolute inertial frame for golden rule morality informed Justice mediating and moderating the material and spiritual conflicts between persons
If that is a hierarchy at all, it is a hierarchy intended solely to entirely end domination oppression, repression, and suppression. Socialism/communism entertains no other formal hierarchies (anyone is enabled to submit themselves freely to another, but a socialist social formation will provide no conditions of existence to favor, impose, or coerce such âfreeâ submission).
The complete absence of the socialist/communist fiduciary Commonwealth agentâor the presence of a socialist/communist Commonwealth agent with declining faithfulness to the polisâleads inexorably to a domineering hierarchy and a reemergence of rampant class and factional antagonisms: a reemergence of the war of all against all.
đ„
1
u/C_Plot 18d ago
I should add a bit more to round out my response to the OP and your comment.
The ship captain, on a communist vessel (as with the chief administrator of a commercial communist enterprise), wields an authority entirely in submission to the sovereign the sovereign authority of the polis comprised of the passengers and crew of the ship (or the workers of the collective commercial coöperative enterprise).
As Earth bound persons we unavoidable form a polis comprised of all persons on the Earth: the cosmopolis (cosmo-polis). However we also comprise various sub-poliis entities as we, through free association, form households, communes/communities, commercial enterprises, commercial enterprise franchises or combines, municipalities, metropolises (metro-polis-es), continental and other ânation-statesâ, and so forth.
Each hierarchical level defines a polis, hierarchically arranged geographically or logically. That is a hierarchy completely different than the domineering hierarchies such as the feudal hierarchies (King, Duke,âŠ) In the cosmopolitan communist Global Commonwealth, the faithful service goes from Globe on down to commune and individual, whether in a role freely associating, or alone. The power or authority delegated is from the bottom up, from polis formed of the universal collection of all individuals, and can he revoked and regranted at any time (âThat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happinessâ).
3
u/HintOfAnaesthesia 18d ago edited 18d ago
They oppose some hierarchies, not others.
The trouble with basing analysis on hierarchy is that it is essentially the outward form of a relationship. The authority of one individual, group, org, etc over another is always a product of social conditions. Power is the outcome of countless social relations, that always act upon both subjects; can't really explain this with hierarchy all the way down, you need to think about how affairs are actually reproduced. This is why even organisations that are specifically constructed to be non-hierarchical nonetheless reproduce informal hierarchies in practice.
Marxists in particular are more concerned with the structures that give rise to hierarchies than the hierarchies in themselves.
2
1
u/Next_Ad_2339 18d ago
Yes and no.
Some are not, they belive in a party democratic centralism.
Some are but they oppose party centralism and are more open to union hierarchy.
1
u/Neco-Arc-Chaos 18d ago
In favour of reduced hierarchy compared to capitalist systems. Hierarchy is necessary to some degree to maintain organization and productivity, until we can reach a point where hierarchy can be eliminated.
1
u/Girombola 18d ago
All long answers. Communists opose hierarchies like they exist today. But not all. Like in socialism still would have hierarchies and it is ok, as long they are pro people and follow the benefit of all. Anarchists do not accept any kind of hierachies, not even in socialism. They believe in a change from the actual state to communism, with no between.
1
u/kgbking 18d ago edited 18d ago
I am pro hierarchy and dictatorship, but only at the beginning.
After a successful revolution, we need, on the one hand, a Vanguard dictatorship and, on the other, compulsory re-education camps for the masses. However, this would only be for the first few years.
After the period of forced re-education, we can start to slowly dismantle the Vanguard dictatorship. Everyone will have their set place in society and things should run smoothly. Through the initial dictatorship and re-education period, we can achieve the subsequent melting away of the state.
2
u/Perfect-Highway-6818 18d ago
You said only the first few years, has any socialist country ever dismantled its vanguard dictatorship?
1
u/kgbking 18d ago
It can really depend on your perspective. If these socialist countries end up existing for thousands of years, then 80 years of a vanguard dictatorship is really a mere drop in a bucket compared to the long history of that country.
Furthermore, if the socialist country still requires a vanguard dictatorship after multiple decades, then something has gone wrong with their re-education program. To fix this, they need to double down on the intensity of the compulsory re-education of the masses.
1
u/Grumpy-Max 17d ago
You didn't answer the OP's actual question, you answered a different question.
1
u/kgbking 17d ago
Oops, I was just trying to help OP understand hierarchies within socialism
2
u/Grumpy-Max 17d ago
I see. Well, as far as I know, no socialist country has ever dismantled its vanguard dictatorship.
1
u/lombwolf 9d ago
Big difference between hierarchies and structures. There are class, gender, racial, sexual, etc hierarchies under capitalism. I believe that all hierarchies should cease to exist, but a genuinely democratic workers state is not a hierarchy unless it becomes corrupted which has often been the case in many past socialist experiments.
But the absence of any leadership at all typically does not end well because without authority individuals with bad intentions can infiltrate and threaten the gains made by the proletariat in a revolution.
1
1
u/Vermicelli14 18d ago
No. All Actually Existing Socialism was hierarchical, both in state power and in social structures such as patriarchy.
6
u/Ebbelwoy 18d ago
Because they didn't achieve Communism which by definition would have been classless
4
u/Grumpy-Max 18d ago
A classless society could still be hierarchical eg patriarchal.
5
u/Complete-Plankton943 18d ago
The material conditions that give rise to patriarchy would be abolished under communism.
2
u/Grumpy-Max 18d ago
I agree that material conditions are important, I disagree that material conditions dictate all power relations in a system.
1
u/ScoutTheRabbit 18d ago
Can you expand on this? Patriarchy isn't specific to capitalism and Alexandria Kollontai has many writings on how she was frustrated by how persistent the gender hierarchy was in the USSR despite changing policies. It's hard to understand what material conditions communism would inherently change that eliminates patriarchy without there having to be concerted, careful effort on the part of the party to address it.
1
u/Celestialfridge 18d ago
Yes, although I think many socialists can see the benefits in utilising what already exists to achieve socialism but once that is done the need for it is gone and it is dissolved.
1
u/HarmenTheGreat 18d ago
Not as a means to an end. Hierarchy is nothing inherent, it really depends on the context
0
u/Phantombiceps 18d ago
Neither anarchists nor communists were opposed to hierarchies. They were opposed to the combination of, and institutionalization of economic and political hierarchies. This is actually a common traditional or conservative position in many cultures.
0
u/Ebbelwoy 18d ago
From my understanding Anarchists are ultimately Communists but they aren't aren't socialists
0
u/99ShahedOfBakuOfNine 18d ago
Have you already ask r/Anarchism, r/Anarchy101 and, not the worst r/anarchocommunism ?
1
u/Perfect-Highway-6818 18d ago
My question wasnât about anarchism it was about communism. I already know they are against hierarchy
0
u/99ShahedOfBakuOfNine 17d ago
I asked because, like everything in anarchism, there is multiple points of views, even about hierarchies- it's definitly a question you should ask to AnComs btw.
-8
u/TheWikstrom 18d ago
Some are (like council coms), but most want to establish a worldwide network of dictatorships (that they euphemistically call "worker's states") before they abolish class society (which they won't because power justifies itself)
2
u/ComradeCaniTerrae 18d ago edited 18d ago
You need some kind of administrative organs at bare minimum, you need standards on medicines, on engineering, on gauges for rail and size of roads, you need a lot of administrative infrastructure for an industrialized modern society.
The only way you're getting to "anarchism" in reality is to go anprim, but even then hunter-gatherer societies have hierarchy. Human groups have hierarchy, generally. In most circumstances, depending on how you define the term.
Many anarchists will tell you that the parental-child relationship is an unjust hierarchy. While I agree the nuclear family is problematic and that a community should be integral to the raising of a child, that (Anarchist) shit is insane--that's literally that no bedtime anarkiddie bullshit. But it's a quite popular position: "Parents are cops." Children require guidance in life to grow up, part of that is discipline on occasion. Is that a hierarchy to you?
You can make the democracy as horizontal as possible and remove as many systems of oppression as can be named and you can make a totally inclusive consensus mechanism that doesn't dominate the minority and you can do all these things, and you will still have forms of hierarchy in society--depending on how you define it.
How do you define it?
1
u/TheWikstrom 18d ago
Can you elaborate on what you mean by administration here? I've actually got a degree in process engineering and that sort of stuff is deeply fascinating to me
-4
u/SensualOcelot Non-Bolshevik Maoist 18d ago
To quote DMXâ âsmart niggas get niggas killed for realâ.
Itâs best if nobody knows who gives the orders.
32
u/ComradeCaniTerrae 18d ago edited 15d ago
Weâre opposed to systems of oppression, but not all hierarchies are oppressive (arguably) and some are essential for a given system to function whether or not they are oppressive. Engelâs example of this is a ship captain. For a ship to function at sea there requires discipline and obedience. Hierarchy. Even the anarchistâs favorite horizontally democratic sea pirates had hierarchy. Ships kind of need it.
Even, as far as I have seen, hunter-gatherer band humans have hierarchy in all studied cases. Depends on how you define it, I guess. Obedience generally isnât enforced with punishment in such societies (beyond shunning, which is quite powerful in tight-knit groups), but the elders tend to have more esteem, children are expected to obey them in certain instances, and respect them in genral--among other forms of traditional human hierarchy.
In the event of an industrialized society, hierarchy must be required to some extent to enforce labor discipline. Collaborative projects of great importance cannot be left to pure whimsy of the individual. Not showing up for work at the right time may have dire consequences in situations such as operating and maintaining a nuclear reactor (or imagine any other crucial or volatile infrastructure you like).
But aside from that kind of bare bones potentially necessary hierarchy, weâre not really fans. MLs are sort of a minarchist or council communist in their idealized final society. I would say it lines up with anarchism of most stripes, in that the ideals and principles are more or less the same--anarchists just tend to take them to absolute extremes and not like to compromise with reality much.
We're, imo, much more pragmatic in our approach and ideology--much more willing to work with material conditions as they exist towards the goal we want, realizing it is a process that occurs in both time and space and cannot happen overnight. You must transform the economic base and superstructure of an entire society--of the globe, perhaps--to reach actual communism.
Of our Anarchist comrades, I think the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-communists and anarcha-feminists are the closest. I tend to find Anarchist traditions of thought to be overly individualist, and while they're materialist in many ways, they have specific ideals they will not compromise on whatsoever, and which they want reality to comport to without an...explainable material process of how to get there. My source: I was an anarchist for decades and I've read most the important theorists of the trends thus far mentioned (Rocker, Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, etc.); and Iâve debated with many, many anarchists.
I still love my Anarchist comrades, but a lot of them loathe me for thinking a hierarchy can ever be anything less than intolerably oppressive. The Covid pandemic years disabused me of any delusions I had about anarchism ever possibly being practicable. Want to have a fun time? Ask an anarchist how quarantine during a deadly pandemic world work. The best answer youâre likely to get is âcreative struggleâ. At worst youâll get outright statements of Social Darwinism. Whole lot of Anarchists were on that âMy Body, My Choiceâ train regarding masks, social distancing, and vaccines during Covid. When asked, many told me it wasn't their problem if anyone around them or downstream died because they didn't mask, "bodily autonomy" was the cry of the day. Disgusting. Can a society of such people even function? I do not think so--not for long, before something has to give.
Historically, most anarchist societies, even ansynd and ancom experiments, have had very rigid hierarchy. Catalonia enforced both military conscription and labor discipline. Falling asleep on guard duty, in the revolutionary forces of anarchist Catalonia, was punishable by death. Not showing up for work repeatedly without cause was punishable as well. In Makhnovshchina military conscription was also enforced and the officer corps loyal to Makhno, his inner circle, were notorious for rape--their armies in general were notorious for plunder. For stealing from the peasant farmers and the city workers and for even joking about ever paying them back. Volin is the anarchist historian who documents this. Souchy for Catalonia. Catalonia had what they called "concentration camps" for captured fascist soldier POWs of Franco's forces, etc.--an unfortunate name, but by Souchy's account they were banal POW work camps where labor was expected of the inmates, but they did get to call their captors "Comrade Guard". So there's that, and apparently they were well treated--but it's still a prison. An anarchist prison. Essentially a gulag.