I'm a bit late to this but…
These are his responses to anarchists from his most recent interview with Joe Rogan. How do you respond?
Jordan Peterson Hierarchy Thread
I'm a bit late to this but…
Other urls found in this thread:
Not necessarily. Nature is never a good argument unless you can back it.
He can't be this retarded.
Tyranny is a buzzword.
Liberal thought process. This absolutely doesn't prevent failed hierarchy.
What in the fuck does this part even mean.
Depends but it's definitely possible.
Literally not at all supported by empirical evidence.
By the way I'm not an anarchist I just hate liberals and Peterson makes people who do actually justify hierarchies look bad.
Anyways I'm going to bed.
Completely ignores competing interests, even if we are to make the assumption that hierarchies are mostly meritocratic.
Then hierarchy inevitably fails.
If a plumber is an employee, that's a hierarchy.
Peterson has either never had a manager or he is a bootlicking fag. Probably both.
As you go up there is more power to be wielded, but often times the personal consequences diminish greatly. Just look at the golden parachutes given to CEOs who run companies into the ground or how Trump's lawyer that just got convicted is getting 3 years in prison and has until march until he turns himself in. Those of us from lower positions in the hierarchical system would get fired and sued for far less than the CEOs and any nigga here who gets charged is going straight to prison without 4 months notice to hide his shit.
Kermit the Fraud is a bootlicking fag and his followers are cucks that would cheer on porky as he pounds their poopers. Given his repeating of liberal ideology backed up by appeals to "nature" to justify class collaboration, his denial of class conflict, his assertion that "tyranny" is the result of failure rather than a function of hierarchy, and his claim that "free speech" is solely able to prevent "failed" hierarchy, I have to say that Peterson has made some of the dumbest criticisms of anarchism I have seen in my 4 years of posting on a board frequented by illiterate reprobates whose political knowledge comes almost solely from memes and recycled propaganda. That's quite an achievement even by the standards of liberal intellectuals, and fitting for a youtube professor who knows absolutely nothing about Marxism or post-modernism.
plumbers have hierarchies…
At bloody last; a serious attempt to present an alternative to Peterson's views instead of shrieking "hurrr, he said lobster" like a bunch of masturbating chimps with strychnine poisoning.
Hierarchies ARE natural. Caring for children and teachers educating students are example situations were one individual must assume dominance over another. Claiming that this in any way supports a planetary scale system of population control where most of the participants are allowed only the minimum allotment of free time and resources to maintain that system is a massive overreach.
Peterson is also correct that free speech is the only way to prevent a failed hierarchy. Anarchists: are not the hierarchies Peterson defends failures by definition, as all hierarchies are tyrannical? Is not the use of free speech to spread anarchist ideology the best methods of removing and preventing these failures?
What he's describing is obviously idealistic, but more importantly it's banal as fuck. In fact the whole reason this idiot seems to have a fanbase at all is because he gave a bunch of dad advice well adjusted people received from parents, and also shit on SJWs. None of his fans care about his other bullshit where he exposes himself as a willfully ignorant moron with questionable mental health.
The fact he's regarded as a profound intellectual by young men is proof that kids are stupid and our post-modern era really is degenerate.
A bad, failed, hierarchy is an unjustifiable hierarchy.
Plumbers have hierarchies. The expert and the novice.
Managers are middlemen ass-kissers for the owner class and if they make enough money they're incentivized to become just as sociopathic as they climb that ladder.
As you go up the ladder there is a decrease in responsibility.
What a dip
Neither of you brainlets actually disproved a single thing he said.
Welcome to leftpol enjoy your stay
No, hierarchies aren't natural in humans, as hunter-gatherer groups often lacked a social hierarchy, rather maintaining horizontal social structures that only ever became hierarchic when agricultural societies began to form and wealth began to accumulate, which imo kinda short-circuited humans as one didn't have to labour for wealth anymore. Marx noted per-agricultural societies as primitive communism, and likely developed the notion of communism through Hegel's triadic process, looking at society in-itself (the idea in a vacuum isolated to be better understood, in this case civilization), out-of-itself (the Outside of an idea, often giving a context with which the idea exists in relation to, in this case Primitive Communism), and in-and-for-itself; Communism, that is to say, present civilization synthesized with it's primitive traits towards a civilization that facilitates ideas from both. Modern hierarchy is illegitimate in that the capitalist doesn't need to labor for their wealth, and Peterson is a faggot for falling for the just-world hypothesis which makes him no better than any other liberal.
Just as it is what commiecucks can unironically defend :^)
"Man the Hunter is a collection of papers presented at a symposium on research done among the hunting and gathering peoples of the world. Ethnographic studies increasingly contribute substantial amounts of new data on hunter-gatherers and are rapidly changing our concept of Man the Hunter. Social anthropologists generally have been reappraising the basic concepts of descent, filiation, residence, and group structure. This book presents new data on hunters and clarifies a series of conceptual issues among social anthropologists as a necessary background to broader discussions with archaeologists, biologists, and students of human evolution."
You can dig through citations here, if you want: en.wikipedia.org
Saudi Arabia claims it's existence by divine mandate. Many, more pragmatic, examples apply impending pain and death to dissenters as self-justification.
You seem more than a little confused.
Egalitarianism isn't somehow incompatible with the existence of hierarchy. Compared to modern society, "hunter/gather" societies were ridiculously hierarchal. Whereas today we have many equalizing factors like "firearms" and "currency", the biggest, strongest swingin' dick called all the shots back in the day.
All monarchies divine right are unjustifiable hierarchy
Have you ever heard the word "chief" before?
Amerimutt detected, but that's actually rather interesting to note, given Native American tribes didn't adhere to the same nomadic lifestyles that other hunter-gatherer groups did everywhere else. I think for that reason, Native Americans had a sorta proto-agarian trait to them, which given the settlements, indicated a centralization of resources, contradicting the hunter-gatherer definition as lined out by the conference given the absence of nomadicism. Shit tier argument tbh
Nonetheless, the only way this is justifiable as an example of hierarchy as a naturally occurring phenomenon among humans is if you advocate polygenesis as a theory of human origin, which is incredibly stupid because it divorces animals from their environments which can only be justified by denying shit like evolution and some weird mental gymnastics. Hunter/gatherer societies that preceded the proto-agarian Native American tribes were unanimously egalitarian.
By his own definition the tyrants must be the most competent since they rose to the top.
There's a few suggestions in this video around 21 minutes in on how to "push back against Peterson."
A professional philosopher speaking says critique won't be that effective because he's not in the same business. "Peterson is not in the argument business."
He says if you have " a snarky podcast" you could make fun of him.
But the tactic he says which has most chance of winning over Peterson fans is to ask them a few questions.
Earlier in the video he mentioned a man called Andrew McVicar who went to see Peterson speak, and was featured in a NY Times piece about it. 45, a waiter, Mr. McVicar said "it was good to hear someone talk about how hierarchies are okay."
So being 45 a waiter, he could be asked "how's that economic hierarchy working out for you bucko?"
When is this chickenshit going to debate Papa Wolff already? The gauntlet has been thrown down.
No but they certainly are more likely to be at least sociopaths than the rest of the general population. Kind of surprising Peterson would make this argument considering the empirical studies that have been done on the subject. Is he really an academic?
Where's the word salad?
Why are you surprised? We're talking about lobster chaos dragons dude here.
And Peterson never proved a single thing he said so there you go.
Right-wingers at it again
Then all hierarchies are failures, since everyone at the top got there through some form of tyranny/corruption. Nobody gets to the top by being a good, kindhearted person.
Worst of both worlds?
So is cancer.
Being competent doesn't mean they have the interests of the others. In fact, by virtue of having a different position they have different interests. In order for the most competent people to serve the people's interests, they would have to share those interests in common.
Nothing about that is necessarily a "failure" as far as a hierarchy is concerned. Defining it as a failure in terms of hierarchy is arbitrary. And what counts as tyranny is also arbitrary. This is the whole "but it's corporatism" argument.
Only if it inspires action against the hierarchy. This is always left out of the whole "free speech has the power to change society" ideology. Free speech is only useful insofar as it enables people to take meaningful actions.
This would indicate that hierarchies are not necessary and should lead you to question the above statements about hierarchies being "natural" as if the universe is a fractal and structured the same way everywhere and at all scales.
Managers aren't the real problem. They are generally rubes who exist as a buffer between porky and proles. Most of the time they're not psychopaths, just retards or autists or otherwise people who are socially incompetent and frustrate and distract workers so they don't engage with the power structure the managers' existence obscures.
In what sense of the word? That people with more power are responsible for more things? No shit. That people with more power are more responsible as in virtuous? Fatuous bullshit. High positions are biased toward risk takers because more risk correlates to more rewards so the successful risk takers end up in the highest positions. And it doesn't even raise the issue of to whom this person would be responsible. It reveals the ideology that public good = private good and that the system is harmonious. This kind of thinking leaves no room for genuine inquiry into how the system works (or doesn't).
If you are an infidel.
Peterson is nefarious because he diffuses potential radicals, and hides behind a veil of intellectual mystique. You'll notice his fans are typically young men who lacked a father figure in their life, so Peterson gives them meaning while also steering them away from radical political opinions. See here:
Don't like how shitty this system is? → clean your room
Don't like people higher up screwing people lower than them? → hierarchy is good, accept it
Don't have religion? → invent some fake spirituality for yourself
kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson
agent of capitalist brainwashing cunt fuck him vkill petersonkill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson kill peterson
the absolute worst thing about peterson's grift is how unoriginal he is. Everything he believes in is your standard conservative christian moralism and anti-communism but because he likes to quote jung and cry about pinocchio he's hailed as a groundbreaking philosopher
this but unironically
NO. Social organization is natural. There endless examples of BOTH hierarchical/vertical and egalitarian/horizontal societies, as well as in-betweens. The entire premise of anarchism is that unjust authority should be dismantled.
Capitalism and authoritarianism lead to unjust hierarchies, which is why anarchism opposes them. Anarcho-Syndicalism recognizes the leadership of people with expertise as valid, and allows for them to have a slightly greater say into a firm's actions, if agreed upon democratically.
Failed according to who? If that's the definition, then any system where those at the top profit more than their labor would equitably earn have a "failed hierarchy," and that would include capitalism in general.
And who's protecting that free speech? If those in power assumed power undemocratically, then it's illogical to trust that they will protect the interests of the people they rule over.
Yes they do. Plumbers have apprenticeships, business owners, etc.
BULLSHIT. Factually incorrect. It's a statistical fact that sociopaths/psychopaths make up a disproportionately high percentage of CEOs
Not really. Anyone who's held working class and middle class jobs can tell you that a lot of working class jobs are way more tiring and demanding than the middle class jobs. Further, while there are obviously some innovative, creative minds a the top, there are also some lazy fat cats not doing much of anything. A lot of middle management is more important than a lot of the people at the top.
Peterson is a fucking hack. I don't know how people take him seriously.
He won't. Zero books have another video out on why he won't youtu.be
hierarchies, like some people are better at math that you and you should listen or gtfo
1. le natur pseud argument is dumb. It's a spook.
2. Not really. When the heriarchy is new tho its usually the founders, in a revolution military hierarchy is good to have people who are good with tactics, strategy, diplomacy, etc.
3. that counters his own views of power since tyrany is just an authoritarian usage of power doesnt means its failed on the contrary its successful but does that state's power represent the will of the people anymore? nope.
4. lol. muh freeze peach. Nah, direct democracy is. Something the US and other modern capitalist states wouldn't even dare to put to practice that socialist societies have.
7. Sure, but there is also an increase in exploration, corruption & the resources you actually need & don't.
There are ways to make organizations without hierarchy too. Communism is that, it's technically an state, there is group/friend's law (don't rape a comarades, don't kill a comarade, do not assault a comarade, etc or there is punishment) but no heriarchy.
bad accumulation of resources that they actually dont need but the rest of society does, to have a healthy society.*
If you make an organization without hierarchy, then you just a shitty organization. I don't want assholes to bud in on a lecture.
You got most right but I think there is an increase in "responsibility" the higher up. As ruler even if you're an asshole, even if life is indeed easier since everything can be done for you by your underlings, you gotta prevent your working ants from revolting or taking your place someday since they can easily kill you if they get organized in favor of their own interests.
The working class is the strongest class thats why the responsibility of the ruling class historically has been purely about undermining them, controlling them, keeping them in check.
The anarch is different tho, he enjoys a lot of freedom because he does not have to rule and isnt really loyal to any cause only what is in line with his own interest so he isnt really ruled either.
Anarchism is worth understanding because its an enlightened philosophical position but one shoudlnt discard either the higher forms of freedom (protection of your "rights") that law allows. Not bosses, not ruler as an individual but law, the idea of things that shouldnt be violated or there is punishment, the "I wont allow to cross this line" or you will face collective power. Thats the dialectic of law, the philosophy of right. Thx to Hegel bby~
Not really. Depends on the scale & era you're talking about.
A commune does not need hierarchy & its a very comfy way to live without much pressure at all if you're into that sort of thing.
You cant generalize so much since thats an easy way to be wrong, thats what Peterson is all about thats why he is a retard, thats why he will never be on the level of Zizek hahahah
communes usually have membership barriers… you have to have mechanisms to kick out people who fuck things up.
thats law. not hierarchy.
it is exactly what I explained above lmao.
kid I have read a fuck ton of hegel you're not on my level just sayin.
if there is a heriachy here rn its
philosophy is 99.9% shit and it gets even shittier as you add content. it doesn't matter how smart or educated you are, the feedback is too slow.
norbert wiener > philosophers
lol smooth brain.
I already explained. you dumb af hahahahahah
you can't code 20 lines without producing errors
and that's with rapid testing
stick to hammurabi, monkey brute politics > communism
hahahah fucking retard is mad af
a lawyer once said you shouldn't spend decades years months days hours minutes etc reading hegel and so i'm not going to
politics is hierarchy, hegel just lead you on for 400 pages until you fucked up
read self help books instead of hegel
holy shit he is sooo mad because he couldn't differentiate between law and hierarchy LOL
there's no example where it isn't
theres anarchists online complaining about how illegal immigrants are ruining their worker coop. they buckle down by making membership opt-in, creating two classes of employees.
what lmao are you high? if so just go to sleep man I understand.
what your example has to do with ANYTHING????
ok first of all since i have no fucking idea where you got your "source" or what are you even on about there I will just predict what kind of "anarchists" these are and tell you that ancaps are not anarchists.
Second of all its possible to be a secret club but without hierarchy at all. Everyone so far has been telling you around the thread about horizontal organization that is pretty much what communism is. It technically has law, military, resource production but it is autonomous.
nobody gets exploited & nobody exploits another individual there is no ruler & ruled. The only "ruler" is law. Which is enforced collectively, production too is decided collectively, everything. The decision making is in its most parts direct democracy, the other ones law about how severe violation of "rights": right to live, right not to be raped, right to not be assaulted, etc. Are to be punished, this law is also figured out with the direct democracy of the people/workes.
Marx a known hater of subordination in general explained it so well, as well as others did in their own ways:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Im not explaining all this to you specifically btw but to the general public since you just wont get it hahahahah
anarchists who have a fetish for 'workplace democracy' but dont want to let in people who would just sell out the organization
illegal immigrants = cheesburger american who don't care about workplace democracy, figure of speech implying you build walls
you know i like rule of law but it's a fantasy, we approximate it by having police officers beat your face in and stuff
two tiers, police officers role play as "the law" (until they fuck up and get away with it) >>>> the public
yeah… definitely you're high af rn.
Well for the public… To answer why in short a person (aka an asshole) who doesnt want workplace democracy isnt accepted in a place that is all about yknow workplace democracy… is because he wants to get rid of law of the very essence of this type of organization, this law in this case is the very fact that allows workplace democracy ironically its the collective interest, the collective might.
the people's law
rules > the people
makes, decides, enforces, etc > the people's law
What law & freedom are is ever changing tho. The popular wills of the time. Its the engine of contradiction. That is dialectic. The wills change, the zeitgeist too.
By contradiction I do not mean Communism will become Capitalism! one day! lmao no. Although it is possible to regress instead of progress
The best & smartest thing Communists say is that nothing is immune to change (contradiction), to constantly become & so far history has proved them right. What law & freedom are, are those arbitrary ideas that are constantly "becoming". In a fair society they constantly "become" according to the will of the people.
Its fantasy depending on the scale of such society which is why I said specifically "Not really" to the claim that: "societies without hierarchy are shit". Not even in modernity. I pointed my finger at communes, several modern communes (small scale society) are actually communist, ruled only by the law of the people, made by the people not hierarchs.
As to answer your notion yeah I assume you mean large scale communism huh?
So far technology doesn't allows communism on a larger scale, some argue that it does because of the industralization of modernity that allow humanity to produce in mass, even a lot of useless shit that only ends up becoming more garbage for the garbage pile already contaminating the planet lol. Actually to be honest im not sure it might be possible but mentally the people in a lot of places just inst ready and there is still a lot of reaction contra-progress individuals (usually those benefiting from the current unfairness of modern law, hierarchies, etc) want things to stay like they are but so did the monarchs of the past & they were eventually decapitated. Politics are too much in the way & humanity overall is still too immature for it is what Im getting at. So it is a slow process.
rn what is a good political goal that would lead towards communism in the future is humanitarian politics what people call in modernity socialist or even some progressive politics anything leftist does help except if super authoritarian I'm myself not into that, some MLs are I really dont know why. I think that in the future more communism(s) will be easier to be practiced by the people with technology (accessible means of production) that allows them to have autonomy, once autonomous they can form whatever communist societies they please. Its not that there will be one communism worldwide like some believe but more realistically several different communist societies around the world. Thats what DeLeon says there, socialism/communism late stage at least happens when hierarchy pretty much becomes unnecessary, obsolete for society. Law however seems to be eternal. Law like Freedom is one of those arbitrary ideas that change forever after ad infinitum & just adapts to the current society ideally to the popular will not an individual hierarch ruler will over the peasant's wills. Thats something Hegel came into the realization of by studying history a lot.
"History comes to an end when the difference between master and slave ends, when the master ceases to be master because there are no more slaves and the slave ceases to be a slave because there are no more masters."
History actually never comes to an end but its just Alexandre Kojève's of explaining the end of unjustified hierarchy. Sounds more badass if you call it the "the end of history" after all.
Great discussion btw, bois
I answered what I could answer for the leftists who want to learn interesting stuff that is in books.
not for the moron that is clearly a Zig Forumstard Jordan Peterson fan lmao.
Whats funny is that Peterson will never pass into history as a philosopher or anything of the sort, not as an intellectual ever. He will just be that psychologist who argued with twitter bot accounts and was batshit insane himself.
You know maybe thats why he studied psychology, he wanted to know how mentally insane he was.
JP fans getting rekt in the top replies too.
While Zizek is both antagonistic toward SJWs and (memes aside) does actually have a coherent political position, he also has at least a sentimental attachment to PoMo and (like Peterson) an obtuse rhetorical style. Zizek vs. Peterson would be amusing to listen to, but like I said last time this came up, Chomsky is pretty much the only person I can think of suitable to completely BTFO Peterson on his (IMHO affected, phony, and completely opportunistic) opposition to PoMo and willful misunderstanding of socialism.
Prepare to roll your eyes
So are polio and wiping with one's hand.
No, failure can be a grassroots thing too
No, but it is one of the things that might prevent one
They pay taxes to the government
No, there are figurehead royals and fortunate sons with no official responsibilities
The only hierarchy Jordan Postmodernson believes in is
Feelings > Facts
His denial of climate change and hot takes like this should be enough to disqualify his opinions that are outside his field of study at the very least.
I don't think he is taken seriously, except by his right wing fanboys. But I also think the only reason he's bothering with climate change denial is to appeal to those people.
I do hope this affects his career though, because it does make him look completely ridiculous. Hopefully it will alienate people in the middle, who might've been open to him except for this.
Not a good argument. It is assuming an axiom (it is "natural"), without actually proving it. There is no proof to his claims I bet he would comment on how wolves, or other animals, often have leaders of the pack; I could counter-argue that plants live very well in total anarchy, and more importantly, humanity has proved again and again that whatever is considered "natural" can suck our balls (how "natural" is opening our chests and introducing a device capable of regulating our heartbeat, anyway? Only AnPrims, Amish people, and some specific brand of religious idiots would argue this is bad), and thus, arguments about nature or other animals are naive at best, sophism at worst. After the first point has been invalidated, everything else just falls after it.
The single best argument against complete anarchy is that not everyone is a good leader, nor a good decision taker, so expecting everyone to make a good decision to achieve unanimity is delusional. Does this mean that "anarchists" should just to put someone "better" than you above them, and expect to do his every will? No, it just means, at least in order to still be considered an anarchist, that they have to swallow their will, and admit that the guy who is a good coordinator and administrator should be giving them orders, because he has the skills. They have to accept him as their "leader", or supervisor/tactician/strategist/overseer/intelligence in more anarchy-friendly terms, and trust him to command you correctly. He hasn't been appointed above them, THEY have decided to be at his command. It is like one of those exercises in trust, where you are supposed to fall on your back, and some guy is supposed to pick you up before you fall down.
Which is exactly why anarchy sounds well in paper, but it wouldn't work in practice. Not everybody wants to swallow their pride to be commanded because everyone thinks they can do better, so you would have several different factions fighting for "power", so you end up with a lot of different groups with different interests who would end up accomplishing nothing at all.
Totally the same thing user
Why is comparing people to wolves okay? Because it makes you feel more "alpha"?
the only hierarchy I approve is white on top, yid on the bottom and red all over.
And that's bullshit as well, based on bad science. But it was picked up by (popsci) media in the past and today because it provides a "justification" for shitty behaviour.
So you're a fascist. Good to know.
great upvote btw
fucking hell, he got free speech people saying they wouldn't debate radicals. The cognitive dissonance here is hilarious
noam couldn't win a debate
I had to look that up, and I used to live in Boston :|
I wonder if he's shifting the problem of economic hierarchies to social hierarchies to hide the fact he's one of the highest income people in Canada now thanks to patreon donations
A new video from Zero Books, on Peterson, and in particular whether production without hierarchy is possible. The gist of it is, lobsters notwithstanding,yes it is, because if something exists, then it must be possible.And Non hierarchical production exists, in worker co-operatives.
There are problems with worker co-ops ( under capitalism) like when you're in one you have to internalise market dictates (to compete), instead of your boss being the external enforcer of them.
But that's not to detract from the fact that production without hiierachy is possible.
He was retarded.
How did you get that from a "Calvin and Hobbes" comic?
If you mean he's trying to claim class is human nature then of course, justification of domination is the purpose of ruling ideology. But it's worth noting that "social hierarchy" as in positions of power not necessarily tied to a relationship to production have the same issues as economic hierarchies and have similar justifications.
this video is irrefutable proof of why the left will lose.
Well it's certainly true that you loose whatever's in the *background*, when stripping down everything into formal logic. Whatever it is that people care about, in particular, which is what makes rhetoric so effective. (Another video, which has a bit on this, from Aristotle's ideas about rhetoric, at 19 minutes : youtu.be
Sometimes you need to strip things down, though.
My motorbike broke down. I need it for work, so all sorts of worries were swimming through my mind. I got it into my mechanics who stripped it down, new alternator and repaired some wires( which were smoking, ominously). £150 total, and I was back on the road.
What parts do we need working to get communism working?
We can strip it down:
Non hierarchical production
property held in common
No, you see, you just don't understand him, you don't really get what he is saying.
Dr. Peterson is the most misunderstood person in the world, come on guize, cut him sum slack.
They are the same thing though?
i mean like lobsters
Sounds exactly like the "crony capitalism" argument. Like, have faith in the system, man, it's simply been corrupted. We can fix it! Just need to remove all the "leftist" residue that accumulated over it.
Even if I accept the argument as made in good faith, I remain unconvinced. I mean, sure, the system is fucked up way beyond mere hierarchies and/or exploitation of surplus value. But it's always been that way, and nobody ever bothers to refute the zero hypothesis that hierarchies/exploitation are the root of the problem. You'd just have to accept their beliefs on faith.
I wholeheartedly agree, neocons were saying the same shit about a need for a cultural mythos and moralism thirty years ago. It's the same shit Leo Strauss was saying but now its gaining popularity thanks to the internet.
You never really have true free speech. There are always those who can amplify their speech much above those of others. This might not be legitimate, for example in the US you have 6 individuals at the helm of large media corporations, it means they have a huge speaker on their speech and can dictate what other people think. Free speech doesn't naturally mean that there is an environment to have free speech.
A hierarchy would only be just if it's one based on merit and has safeguards in place that the hierarchy is purely based on merits not on inheritance, royal status or wealth. Otherwise it would always lead to decay, corruption and mismanagement. Hierarchies that are purely meritocratic can be very efficient for whatever goal they exist though. For example in education it's very efficient to have one who have merits regarding knowledge to transfer that knowledge to those who have not.
I think he meant that hierarchies are natural in a way that hierarchies naturally form due to much in an economy following power law distributions (at least I assume).
hierarchies are convenient sometimes thats it. they are in fact not natural at all its a product of man's conceptual thinking and intellectual organizational skills.
its most of the time a spook of a ruling class upon a subordinate (unjustified heriarchy) but sometimes its a useful concept and not a spook (justified hierarchy). Leftists in general seek to exercise justified hierarchies.