Classes, as per Marx, are foremost identified by the economical position of people, and not necessary a hierarchy as such, that’s a secondary effect of how classes happen to work towards their own self-interest. If, in an anarchist utopia, one population freely chooses to live in a high-tech skyscraper doing engineering work, and another neighbouring one grows coffee in the rain forest, then their economical position is vastly different and they have different interests, thus they are different classes, but that doesn’t mean that they need to be nasty to another.
Most importantly though this is all just arguing semantics and Marx didn’t get anarchism anyway, mixing the theoretical bodies is usually more headache than it’s worth.
Yeah… I’d argue, from my anarchist view point, that Marx nearly had it. Humans and unjust hierarchies have existed longer than economics, so, I feel that to be an oversight on his part. To my thinking, economic division is a mechanism of creating or sustaining a hierarchy of classes. The problem isn’t purely economic nor sociological but both, that is socio-economic (like electricity and magnetism are make up electro-magnetism).
Economics (wealthy disparity), religion (castes), and violence are all mechanisms used to separate people into hierarchies of power and allow a small number to exercise power over others. Any hierarchy of societal power results in repression. The Soviets betrayed the Makhnovists, rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia to prevent self-determination, and committed genocide via forced relocation of “problematic” ethnic groups to destabilize any resistance to their hierarchy of power that made all subservient to Moscow.
Anarchy means “without hierarchy”. Classes are a hierarchy, so by definition it wouldn’t be anarchy if you don’t dissolve class.
Classes, as per Marx, are foremost identified by the economical position of people, and not necessary a hierarchy as such, that’s a secondary effect of how classes happen to work towards their own self-interest. If, in an anarchist utopia, one population freely chooses to live in a high-tech skyscraper doing engineering work, and another neighbouring one grows coffee in the rain forest, then their economical position is vastly different and they have different interests, thus they are different classes, but that doesn’t mean that they need to be nasty to another.
Most importantly though this is all just arguing semantics and Marx didn’t get anarchism anyway, mixing the theoretical bodies is usually more headache than it’s worth.
Yeah… I’d argue, from my anarchist view point, that Marx nearly had it. Humans and unjust hierarchies have existed longer than economics, so, I feel that to be an oversight on his part. To my thinking, economic division is a mechanism of creating or sustaining a hierarchy of classes. The problem isn’t purely economic nor sociological but both, that is socio-economic (like electricity and magnetism are make up electro-magnetism).
Economics (wealthy disparity), religion (castes), and violence are all mechanisms used to separate people into hierarchies of power and allow a small number to exercise power over others. Any hierarchy of societal power results in repression. The Soviets betrayed the Makhnovists, rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia to prevent self-determination, and committed genocide via forced relocation of “problematic” ethnic groups to destabilize any resistance to their hierarchy of power that made all subservient to Moscow.