this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
42 points (82.8% liked)
Memes
55675 readers
534 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes the terrible oppression of the child by their parent, the nurse by the doctor, the nuclear power janitorial staff by the safety staff
epistemic authority ≠ oppressive hierarchy - stop with the strawmans and go read some theory..
I’ve read anarchist theory, from Bakunin to Kropotkin to Stirner and beyond. My disagreement is not because I have failed to encounter “theory”; it is because I find anarchist theory weak, abstract, and far less applicable to actual social transformation than the Marxist tradition of scientific socialism.
And no, it was not a straw man. The claim made was not “some hierarchies are oppressive” or “illegitimate authority should be abolished.” The claim was that hierarchy is inherently oppressive. That is a much stronger and much worse claim.
If hierarchy as such is inherently oppressive, then the relation of parent and child, doctor and nurse, teacher and student, engineer and apprentice, safety inspector and worker, commander and soldier, party and masses, all become oppressive by definition. That is obviously false. These are not all the same social relation. Their content depends on material conditions, class character, function, ownership, accountability, and historical role.
What you are doing by saying “epistemic authority ≠ oppressive hierarchy” is the same semantic retreat anarchists have hid behind for generations. The moment useful, necessary, or socially productive hierarchy appears, you rename it “epistemic authority,” “coordination,” “expertise,” “delegation,” or some other softer term, then pretend it is no longer hierarchy. But changing the label does not change the social relation. As Engels put it: “These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.”
A useful analysis does not ask whether “hierarchy” exists in the abstract. It asks: what kind of authority, serving which class, under what mode of production, with what relation to property, discipline, expertise, coercion, and social necessity?
A capitalist boss commanding workers for private profit is not the same thing as a surgeon directing an operating room, a revolutionary army maintaining discipline, or a workers’ state organizing production and defense. Treating all hierarchy as inherently oppressive collapses real material distinctions into moralistic abstraction.
That is in my view the core weakness of anarchism: it mistakes the abolition of domination for the abolition of hierarchy (and thus authority) as such. The aim should be to abolish class rule, exploitation, and the material basis of oppression. Not to pretend complex society can function without organization, discipline, expertise, or authority. The question thus is not whether authority and as such hierarchy exists. It is which class controls it, for what purpose, and under what social relations.
I won't retread what QinShiHuangsSchlong already said very well, I want to expand by saying I don't find it compelling at all when someone uses the "read theory" argument. Essentially, it says "I can't argue with you well, so I recommend you look into those who can." Demeaning someone and then giving them homework is a horrible way to get them to do so!
One of the best ways to comprehend theory is to try to simplify it for others, and be capable of clearly expressing your points without relying on "quote-mining" or "phrasemongering."
This isn't an argument against theory, but in favor of more effective discussion, as I was once extremely guilty of dumping recommendations for Marxist theory without properly explaining it, causing the argument to slide off like water on a windowpane. It also assumes a lack of competence on the other party's part, which can quickly backfire if it indeed turns out that they know what they are talking about (such as QinShiHuangsSchlong here).
Frankly, I feel like I'm alone in this take, but I think people shouldn't spend so much attention basing their politics primarily on references to philosophers who died more than a century prior.
These are important figures for historical study, but we don't base our modern understanding about genetics on the work of Darwin and Mendel: we base these on the work of Watson, and Crick, and Franklin, and Margulis, and Sanger, and hundreds (or thousands) of people who carried the work forward since.
We still teach starting with the early folks to give context. But they aren't the basis for our beliefs.
This goes for Marxists AND anarchists (and everyone else): sell your ideas in the modern age.
Domenico Losurdo, Michael Parenti, Assata Shakur, J. Sakai, Frantz Fanon, Antonio Gramsci, Roland Boer, Jones Manoel, Mao ZeDong, Xi Jinping, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Cheng Enfu, Li Shenming, Wang Weiguang, Hou Huiqin, Zhang Weiwei, Samir Amin, Walter Rodney, Vijay Prashad, Gabriel Rockhill, Zak Cope, John Bellamy Foster etc.
Foundational theory also clearly still applies unlike much of early genetics work:
Marx’s theory of surplus value, the value produced by labor still exceeds the wages paid to workers, resulting in profit for capitalists.
Marx’s theory of class struggle society is still shaped by antagonistic class interests.
Marx and Engels’ theory of the state, the state still remains in place protecting class rule and property relations.
Lenin’s theory of imperialism, monopoly capital, finance capital, export of capital, sanctions, debt, unequal exchange, and spheres of influence are still central to the world system.
Marx’s theory of capitalist crisis, capitalism still produces recurring crises, unemployment, overproduction, austerity, and financial instability.
Engels’ argument in On Authority, revolution, large-scale production, war, and state power cannot be handled through pure spontaneity or anti-organizational moralism.
Marx and Engels’ theory of ideology, ruling-class ideas still dominate media, education, culture, academia, and “common sense.”
Lenin’s theory of organization, capitalism is organized, armed, global, and disciplined, so serious opposition to it also requires organization, strategy, and discipline.
And so on...
Marxism is not mainly a list of old opinions; it is a method for studying society, class power, exploitation, imperialism, ideology, and historical change. In that sense it is less like treating Darwin or Mendel as the final word on genetics, and more like still learning Newtonian mechanics in physics. Newton was not the final word, but you do not understand physics by skipping the foundations.
Also, most people do not actually have a meaningful grasp of the foundational works in the first place. They have half-remembered summaries, liberal caricatures, or internet slogans. And Marxism has not been “superseded” as capitalism’s core relations remain intact across much of the world: wage labour, surplus value extraction, class rule, imperialism, and crisis. Much of the foundation is still clearly very relevant.
I want to clarify my point. I'm definitely not dismissing the importance of these figures or the value of reading them.
What I'm saying is that I think people put too much emphasis on what their opinions were rather than just learning from their ideas and synthesizing them with the ideas of their contemporaries and intellectual progenitors.
To go back to my example, there's a meme among creationists that Charles Darwin recanted his theory of evolution on his deathbed. It's baseless, but more importantly it's irrelevant. The value of his ideas are not dependent on what he believed. He's notable because he contributed to a framework on which we hang a larger understanding.
Similarly, I think Marx et. al. contributed ideas that are still very useful to our collective discourse. But their opinions are not prophesy, and I think people should focus more on the collective wisdom of the fields that they birthed rather than the specific opinions they personally held.
QinShiHuangsSchlong beat me to the punch, there are countless modern Marxists and Marxists since Lenin that have continued to apply the Marxist method to new eras and new conditions. Marxism-Leninism is referred to as an immortal science because it's based on an ever-adapting framework for understanding the world, dialectical materialism, which in all this time have proven adaptable and fundamentally correct. We may teach Marxism in a new way with new conditions as we discover new eras, but the baseline is still applicable and necessary.
Perhaps I didn't communicate this well, but that was kind of central to my point: the work they did has grown enough beyond their initial writings that we don't really need to fixate so much on the original texts.
For instance, I really liked China Mieville's "A Specter, Haunting". He kind of summarized The Communist Manifesto, and I thought it was more readable than the original. It was easier for me to engage with, and he placed it in modern context.
To put my point another way, I think we should focus more on the ideas rather than the thinkers.
I hear you, there's definitely merit in simplifying or trying to refresh older works if done well, the problem is how demonized Marxism is in the west and the fact that a lot of older works are still valid today. I like Red Sails because it combines the new with the old in an approachable way. Many older works are still valid, and being primary works means it's less likely to be misinterpreted.
There's also the importance of studying history, and the process of how ideas came to be. This part is especially critical, Marx, Lenin, etc. aren't brilliant because they were born that way and had great ideas beamed into their heads from nothing. They existed within definite circumstances, and this shaped the development of Marxism-Leninism. Returning to the classics, and drawing a steady line of development to today, is the only way to get a great idea of what's going on.
For example, if you see a snapshot of something, it's very hard to tell what will happen next without also knowing what led up to it. Take any screenshot from a random movie, and it's unlikely you can predict the next scene. Now watch the movie from the beginning, and you can usually predict the next few seconds, maybe even major plot points. You'll also likely be wrong on some theories, or need to adjust them. That's a microcosm of the Marxist method!
You can smug post all you like doesn't make this
any less silly and detached from reality.
Not really, all of you love to be disingenuous and apply what I said to random shit and not human constructs to make it appear silly so you feel superior instead of directly engaging with what I said.
They are all directly engaging with your claim and disproving via instances of human hierarchy that exist.
I did engage I provided examples off the top of my head of non oppressive (and some would say necessary/positive) hierarchy. You're the one refusing to engage, smug posting instead of engaging with the fact that if non oppressive (or necessary/positive) hierarchy exists then the idea that hierarchy is inherently oppressive is silly. I also engaged by further expanding my thoughts in the reply to zeezee on top of engaging with the idea of "epistemic-authority" and how in my view that is merely a semantic retreat substitutimg changing the name for changing the thing.
This was not engaging it was mocking, you can fuck around all you want I see what you are doing.
Definitely not the most polite tone you're right maybe I was being a bit mean but it was still engaging with your point more than your smug posting reply was engaging with anything at least.
I'm not responding seriously to mocking and dont act like I should? Lol wild.
You don't have to respond, but I do want to echo QinShiHuangsSchlong's point: many hierarchies exist due to necessity or sheer practicality in a way that far supercedes any problems arising from being a hierarchy. For example, horizontally organizing a nuclear power plant is a recipe for disaster, and managing and coordinating the production and logistics chain of sufficiently complex but useful technology like smartphones requires vertical elements to administration.
The fact of this then brings us to the Marxist critique, that hierarchy isn't the problem inherently, but class and the products of class society.
Thanks, Cowbee. But I'll just stop talking. Its not fun. I fucken hate BrainInABox, and you are the only one out the gate who is interested in discussion. Everyone else is mocking, and then wants to respond in detail once I call it out and at that point I'm already turned off to discussion.
I understand, but once you cool down I think it's worth revisiting, if not with anyone here, on your own.
It wasn't mocking it was a genuine point delivered not as polite as could be (there is a difference). You said hierarchy is inherently oppressive I countered pointing out it seems silly to call the hierarchy between parent and child oppressive or between safety staff and other staff at dangerous industrial locations or between doctors and nurses. If these examples are not oppressive and in many cases actually positive it then brings into dispute the idea of oppression as some inherint or intrinsic aspect of hierarchy as opposed hierarchy simply being a useful social construct that can be used in many ways depending on outside factors such as class content etc.
You added all of this after the fact. The original response was a one liner meant to be a zinger. I really dont see how else I was supposed to read that. Yes, this has a point, I just don't ever see hierarchy being used by anarchists in any other context than community and governmental. With that context, we can see exactly what I meant. But it honestly doesn't matter. This place loves to dogpile instead of talking. We factually cannot exchange ideas because everything is binary and you are either ML or wrong lmao.
You made a statement about the intrinsic nature of a social relation: that hierarchy is inherently oppressive. I do not believe that relation holds such an intrinsic attribute, so I responded by listing several examples of hierarchy that, in my view, do not inherently contain oppression. To me, saying oppression is inherent to hierarchy is similar to saying flammability is inherent to liquid. There are many flammable liquids, but liquid as such is not inherently flammable; that depends on other factors, such as chemical composition. Likewise, there are many oppressive hierarchies, but that does not mean oppression is intrinsic to hierarchy as such. The fastest way to challenge a universal claim like that is to list counterexamples.
You could have read/responded to that in several ways. For example, you could have explained what you mean by hierarchy if you do not think the relation between nuclear plant staff, doctors and nurses, or parent and child counts as hierarchy. You could also have explained why those examples should be distinguished from the kind of hierarchy you are criticizing, or shown where oppression exists in those examples in a way I may not recognize. Those would all be substantive responses to the point I was making.
Also, I very much did not dogpile you and had no intention of doing so. I was the first person to respond, and at no point did I insult you. My first response may not have been as polite or elaborated as possible, but it was meant as a counterargument, not as mockery or an attempt to shut you down.
Oh my God, you precious little baby
What's up shit talker. Thats all you do. Is look for dogpiles to talk shit in.
Given how you respond to people actually trying to engage with you by throwing a little tantrum, why the fuck wouldn't I just shit talk you
Because you can scroll through my comments and see its not my default interaction with anybody but you and the libs. Its cool though thats just who you are to me, a wanker
I can scroll through your comments and see you chucking a tantrum when anyone disagrees with you, "wanker".
Also, learn what a liberal is, moron
Wild I could say the same about you, and besides, I never interact with you until you talk shit to me. Thats our every interaction.