You wouldn’t have to guess if you were politically literate

Pure Anarchism is nonsense to anyone living in the present reality

That’s a thought terminating response. What I actually call nonsense is claiming things that are directly at odds with what we observe in the real world to be true. The question anarchists never seem to ask themselves is why hierarchies form in the first place, and what problem they solve. There’s a reason why in over a century of anarchist theory, no large scale or long lived applications of these ideas exist in the real world.

Hierarchies play a structural purpose facilitating scaling of organization. These are cognitive and organizational tools that enable large groups to coordinate effectively. It’s a form of abstraction, providing mental shortcuts that enable us to engage with complex systems at a meaningful level of detail, without being overwhelmed by their inner workings. Our ability to abstract is what allows us to manage the near infinite complexity of the world.

We don’t perceive people as trillions of individual molecules. Instead, we view them as individuals with intentions, ideas, and actions. Doing so allows us to focus our attention on relevant interactions rather than microscopic details. In fact, focusing on a manageable level of detail also governs our self-perception as well. Our minds don’t concern themselves with the granular operation of our organs, digestion, blood flow, or muscle contractions within our bodies. The decision to pick up a cup is processed at the level of intent, not the orchestration of muscular movements required to accomplish the task.

Similarly, using a phone app for internet browsing involves operating at an abstract level, interacting with website addresses and content, rather than the complexities of phone hardware, software execution, or network protocols. This abstraction allows us to utilize sophisticated tools effectively by focusing on the relevant layer of interaction.

The same principle applies to groups of people trying to accomplish a shared task. A team working on a shared goal can be viewed as a single unit. Outsiders don’t need to know every internal decision or workflow. They only need to understand the group’s inputs and outputs in order to engage with it effectively. This abstraction is enabled through delegation where groups nominate representatives to interface with other groups, and these representatives can then form higher-level teams of their own. These nested layers allow organizations to scale without requiring everyone to grasp every detail of every project.

Hierarchies naturally arise in systems that necessitate both specialized labor and complex coordination. We can see an example of this when we examine the multifaceted operations within a manufacturing plant. Instead of each worker individually constructing an entire product, the workflow is partitioned into distinct sets of responsibilities.

The production of any product involves a series of key roles. Design engineers initiate the process by conceptualizing and blueprinting the product, detailing specifications for each component. Material handlers then take over, procuring and transporting the necessary raw materials to various workstations. On the assembly line, teams of workers are responsible for producing individual parts and their assembly into the final product. Simultaneously, specialized technicians maintain the machinery for continuous operation. Quality control inspectors ensure standards are met by examining finished goods at various stages. Supervisors play a crucial role in overseeing specific sections of the production line, ensuring adherence to schedules and acting as communication nodes for their teams, addressing immediate issues. Ultimately, production managers coordinate the entire flow of work across departments, optimizing resource allocation and ensuring that all production stages align with overall targets.

A hierarchical structure, with its clear division of labor and defined lines of authority, maximizes efficiency by allowing individuals to develop deep expertise in their specific roles while establishing clear channels for communication and accountability across the entire production process. The partitioning of work arises out of strategic necessity for managing the complexity inherent in large-scale manufacturing. As a direct consequence of this inherent demand for both focused expertise and effective collaboration, a selection pressure emerges that favors the hierarchical organizational model. The example of the advantages observed in structured production environments are not unique to manufacturing. Hierarchies are a common feature across diverse industries, political structures, and pretty much every type of endeavor where large numbers of people with different types of skills need to collaborate to achieve common goals.

Conversely, the limitations of horizontal structures become apparent when considering communication overhead. In a flat organization, every decision requires consensus among all members. Meetings grow unproductive as more people join, and time is inevitably wasted on debates irrelevant to most participants. Specialists spend hours explaining context to non-experts, making any meaningful progress impossible. Countless studies show that large groups of people struggle to function horizontally. Complex tasks, like coordinating a national healthcare system or a general strike, demand roles and delegation. Hierarchies streamline communication by compartmentalizing responsibilities where engineers can focus on technical problems, organizers on logistics, and representatives on inter-group coordination.

The same need for managing complexity through structured roles extends to the realm of political organization. A party acts as a hierarchical abstraction layer. It synthesizes grassroots input into actionable policies, balancing decision making with accountability through feedback from below. Centralizing expertise allows for efficient use of resources necessary for effective action. The division of labor afforded by hierarchies allows movements to manage complexity, specialize labor, and act decisively. Meanwhile, flat structures limit organizing potential to small, disconnected groups that cannot meaningfully challenge existing power structures which are themselves hierarchical.

Anarchists tend to argue that hierarchy necessarily leads to oppression, but this conflates hierarchy as a structural tool with the way this tool is applied under capitalism. The actual problem lies with lack of accountability of those at the top of the hierarchy to those at the bottom within power structures that serve private profit rather than collective needs.