I made a post on hierarchy a month ago but I have some more specific questions now.

I’ve been hit with the claim that mass production industries that are needed today would not be possible without a hierarchy. That due to regional limitations and the logistics of smartphone manufacturing, technology cannot be produced on the needed scale without a hierarchy of managers.

This is quoted in PCB fabrication, as well as other areas such as medicine and other mass produced goods.

It is also said that managers are needed for efficiency, though I don’t understand that.

Because the anarchist movement, abolishing hierarchy, “runs counter” to the “global direction of humanity and progress”, it is acclaimed to being “doomed to failure” and “idealist”.

What would be the anarchist response to this? Would appreciate detailed responses and/or resources.

I want to improve my anarchist understanding

      • youcantreadthis@quokk.auEnglish
        4·
        5 days ago

        Tldr unions get real big and do more and more and knit together more and more with less and less use for money and stuff until there’s literally no more excuse for the bosses and governments or close enough as to make no difference it was way more plausible a century ago when unions ran things like social clubs and hospitals even in anti labor places like the united States but it took a pretty big hit when the shitlibs blockades Spain except German and itallian weapons during the civil war

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          2·
          4 days ago

          Yeah, anarcho syndicalism was so threatening as a concept that both the Nazis and Stalinists tried very hard to kill it, the first from without and the second from within.

          • youcantreadthis@quokk.auEnglish
            1·
            4 days ago

            I’m willing to kind of give the stalinists a pass here they just didn’t know how to help without being dicks no way they did more damage than the fucking piece of shit libs who said only Nazis can go in and out

            • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              2·
              4 days ago

              You must not know about the level of infighting and shit flinging they did, and still perpetuate, to this day, labelling anyone who didn’t fully support Stalinism as a Trotskyist and traitor to communism.

              There are very, very good historical reasons for why Anarchists are weary of ‘Marxist-Leninists’.

              Nearly everytime they’ve tried to cooperate against capitalism, the Leninists or Stalinists then betray and or kill all of the Anarchists or others who weren’t fully aligned with them.

              • youcantreadthis@quokk.auEnglish
                1·
                3 days ago

                I’m not defending them I’m just saying you can’t really talk shit to them in this instance while the war was ongoing and not since without mentioning the global libs yes they do tend to be backstabby I’m well aware

                • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  2·
                  3 days ago

                  … I can talk all the shit I want.

                  ‘Allies’ who backstab you and try to kill you after they appoint themselves as the leaders of the movement that you started in your own country… are not great allies.

                  • youcantreadthis@quokk.auEnglish
                    1·
                    3 days ago

                    They’re not I wouldn’t choose them at least they showed up and brought guns it might not have been worth it but it was something the libs agreed nobody but the fascists was allowed to do that feels worse