Oh, sorry. I was confusing this thread with another one. So those last answers of mine were a misunderstanding.

I was hoping you could give an example on how to link those two ideas without going on a rabbit hole on anarchist theory. If you don’t have one that’s fine.

I’m not sure if I agree with you about the bullies, but lets put that aside for now. I really like your reply. Can you further elaborate on linking hierarchy with the common notion of coercion?

So hierarchies as social structures that affect relationships, where there is a power imbalance between entities that allows for constant coercion? I’d say that’s a pretty solid definition for a casual conversation. Do you think it is possible to popularize such definitions, or do you think this is not the problem we’re facing as a community, but rather the other confusions you pointed out?

All you said is valid, none of it answers my question. Except for maybe “It is tricky […]”, but that’s not much help on it’s own. Yes, it is tricky, do you think it is possible? If so, why and how? What would be a good standard definition?

And that’s a good answer, but I argue it is to the detriment of the definition that this needs to be answered. Maybe there is a better way to define hierarchy, or a simple definition for “systems of domination or institutions of subordination” that could be given along side that already answers that.

I think this is a good start, but still too little rigid. This definition still requires one to define Systems of Domination or institutions of subordination. The examples are a big help, but it is still unclear what falls under those categories.

Do unions fall under those “institutions of subordination”? As an example of ambiguity under this definition.

Never read that article. I’ll give it a study and come back.

However right out of the bat I see “anarchists” being used as a blanket term and mentions such as Bakunin, which makes me feel like although useful, this is not the best answer for the problem I am (or at least trying) to mention. Read My other commentary for more context.

I hate most of Chomsky’s views, but he is so prominent its hard not to mention him.

I agree, we don’t need unified definitions, but if we can at least have a couple standard ones we can refer to, I believe that would make communication and organization easier. An example of what I’m talking is the definition of property: There are a couple of standard ones that are of easy access, and when talking about property its always easy to explain if you mean “private property of the means of production” or “personal property” or “real property as the mainstream economics definition” and even if the person who you’re talking to has not read a lot of theory (or at all), they can probably grasp those concepts with a quick google search. Compare that to “hierarchy”, which is a term that is thrown around all the time, many times with quasi-conflicting meaning and understanding the definitions is a rabbit whole of research reading different authors. Could we not just summarize the most important aspects for the main (i.e. most relevant) definitions for easy digestion, just like what happened with the word property?