Is the abolition of all hierarchy a noble goal? Are anarchists?

>>1401008
You would have to abolish human genetics to abolish hierarchy.

File: 1465763303146.jpg (17KB, 258x257px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 258x257px

>>1401326
>he thinks the most fit are the ones who rule

>Is the abolition of all hierarchy a noble goal?
technically most countries don't even have hierarchies. People who talk of "class" talk about informal and de facto terms that can be used against anyone that has some power. Kinda a buzzword at this point

>Are anarchists?
not really since it allows the ignoble to rule uncontested (I mean who's goinna stop them? the police? the army?)

>Or is some hierarchy necessary, or even good in itself, to maintain order.
if you accept the buzzword seriously hierarchy occurs naturally like plants or bacteria.

>>1401326
Maybe some day...

But to answer the OP, I think it's a noble, yet impossible goal. Noble as it may be, it ought not to be pursued because it is futile and will only bring suffering.

>noble goal
Well spook'd my friend. "Noble" as with many human constructs is dynamic and changes definition in time with accordance to the collective.

>>1401326
if you're talking about humanities instinctual tendency to organize themselves in groups then I agree

if you are talking about some mythical "master race" that has all the "superior genes" that is destined to rule then
>tfw Nazis gotten raped by Soviets because they were more fit in Russian winter then they were
u mad nazi? u mad?

>>1402586
>not really since it allows the ignoble to rule uncontested (I mean who's goinna stop them? the police? the army?)

>believing this meme

>>1402616
>believing in the "all humans were peaceful until the big bad gov't" meme

even if most were the few that aren't can probably dominate the former without problems.

>>1401008
Hierarchy is quite natural. It is self-evident in nature.

The complications arise when systems that are supposed to determine hierarchy are incomplete and/or obsolete, that is, they impose hierarchy instead of revealing it.

>>1401008
>Is the abolition of all hierarchy a noble goal?

Depends on the hierarchy in question. A hierarchy based on meritocracy is not the same as one based on the ruler's whim.

Are anarchists?

They're ideologues. All ideologues think of themselves as noble, because they think they've discovered the One Correct Way and have convinced themselves that anyone who opposes them must be evil or stupid.

>Or is some hierarchy necessary, or even good in itself, to maintain order.

There has never been a society without hierarchy, not even in places like the Paris Commune or Republican Spain. Hierarchies form naturally from human interaction, in many ways they -are- human interaction.

>>1402673
Does alpha wolf in pack "reveals" his position or imposes it?

>>1402689

Not that faggot but a bit of both. Wolves are social animals like humans, and like humans they naturally seek out hierarchy. Every wolf knows where he fits in the pack, in a chain of dominance. This is simply how wolves evolved, their social organization is instinctive, much as our own is in many (most) cases.

>>1402689
Most wolf packs are just families with the father as the 'alpha'.

It's not really like a bunch of male wolves fighting it out to see who gets to be alpha.

>>1402689
Are wolves human?

>>1401008
>the overman gotta be littered with the blood of the nihilists
over-looking the choice of "littered", why would the overman be stained with the blood of the men who filled the chasm for him to walk over?
>Paul [...] was probably german as well
>attached at the end of an insult
?

As for your post, no, having a hierarchy is good. The working men must support the state so that artists are safe to create and give society its meaning, while the dominant war-making or soldier class allows the state to continue existing.

Anarchism is a bad idea. Anarchists, even those who are simply rebels against the established order rather than actually seeking out Anarchism as a concept, really cannot be called "noble". All they seek to do is destroy and create nothing in their wake. Rebels and Revolutionaries are necessary for the development and implementation of new ideas, some of which will of statistically good, but that does not necessitate them being violent revolutionaries depending on the medium of change.

There are only two ways to bring about equality and the destruction of hierarchy. The first is for everyone to become equally meritorious. The second is for everyone to become equally vulgar and disgraceful.

Due to genetic differences between individuals, and differences in learned ability and effort, the former is impossible.

Therefore any attack on hierarchy and any promotion of equality is an attack on excellence. Cries of equality are almost always cries of envy. Those who imagine themselves to be superior never claim equality, only those who imagine themselves in some sense lacking.

>>1402746

You clearly don't know much about Anarchism. They are full of ideas for how to run a society without hierarchy, leaning on such concepts as autogestion, syndicalism and even communism in their models. You can certainly make the point that none of these ideas seems to actually work in practice, but it's not true to say Anarchists simply want to destroy (tho ofc there are people attracted to Anarchism who do want just that).