Tankies do not reject the totalitarian nation state, much less hierarchy
Yes they do, at least in theory, they just see tyranny and a state as a means to an end.
I’m a Bookchinite communalist.
I find it fascinating how every time I go online I always come across political hipsters who find some extremely niche and hyper specific ideology that has never been tried and nobody has heard of to sound cool.
What was it about my comment that led you think I’m a tankie?
Actually quite a few things. For starters, you don’t seem to understand that a nation state is just a community on a larger scale. Like what do you think a nation state is? If your community found itself without the protection a state, guess what? It’ll will develop a hierarchy to govern itself, it will enforce borders for protection, it will centralize for efficiency, and it will develop methods to punish those who don’t abide by the community rules. Actually that’s already the case for a lot of communities.
Also you seem to have this unfounded superiority complex over the “libs” despite not knowing what liberalism even is, let alone what liberal values are. Idk where your unfounded sense of confidence is coming from. If you think people create or support countries because of nostalgia then you’re living in some alternate universe.
Oh, and calling for the death of a country that’s home to 340 million people? Real classy, that totally doesn’t make you a scumbag.
The question is flawed because it treats hierarchy, domination, and oppression as similar concepts, when they’re fundamentally different. Hierarchy isn’t inherently oppressive or bad. It is a feature that we evolved as a social species to coordinate action and reduce conflict. Hierarchies is precisely how we organize. The issue isn’t hierarchy itself, but whether it’s accountable and responsive. Domination and oppression arise when hierarchies become rigid and unchallengeable. So no, those outcomes aren’t inevitable, they’re the result of how power is structured and maintained, not of organization itself.
I understand. You think that hierarchy is an inevitable outcome of social organization, but that it need not lead to domination or oppression. Correct?
Hierarchies aren’t an outcome, they’re a requirement for social organization. If you think that you can socially organize without some hierarchy in place then you’re delusional. Trying to equate a concept this basic with oppression just demonstrates your ignorance tbh
Yes they do, at least in theory, they just see tyranny and a state as a means to an end.
I find it fascinating how every time I go online I always come across political hipsters who find some extremely niche and hyper specific ideology that has never been tried and nobody has heard of to sound cool.
Actually quite a few things. For starters, you don’t seem to understand that a nation state is just a community on a larger scale. Like what do you think a nation state is? If your community found itself without the protection a state, guess what? It’ll will develop a hierarchy to govern itself, it will enforce borders for protection, it will centralize for efficiency, and it will develop methods to punish those who don’t abide by the community rules. Actually that’s already the case for a lot of communities.
Also you seem to have this unfounded superiority complex over the “libs” despite not knowing what liberalism even is, let alone what liberal values are. Idk where your unfounded sense of confidence is coming from. If you think people create or support countries because of nostalgia then you’re living in some alternate universe.
Oh, and calling for the death of a country that’s home to 340 million people? Real classy, that totally doesn’t make you a scumbag.
Do you think that hierarchy, domination, oppression are inevitable outcomes of community organization?
The question is flawed because it treats hierarchy, domination, and oppression as similar concepts, when they’re fundamentally different. Hierarchy isn’t inherently oppressive or bad. It is a feature that we evolved as a social species to coordinate action and reduce conflict. Hierarchies is precisely how we organize. The issue isn’t hierarchy itself, but whether it’s accountable and responsive. Domination and oppression arise when hierarchies become rigid and unchallengeable. So no, those outcomes aren’t inevitable, they’re the result of how power is structured and maintained, not of organization itself.
I understand. You think that hierarchy is an inevitable outcome of social organization, but that it need not lead to domination or oppression. Correct?
Hierarchies aren’t an outcome, they’re a requirement for social organization. If you think that you can socially organize without some hierarchy in place then you’re delusional. Trying to equate a concept this basic with oppression just demonstrates your ignorance tbh