Cowbee

Inter-class hierarchy exists, ie bourgeois and proletarian, but intra-class hierarchy also exists, ie worker and manager. The Marxist critique of class involves the fact that there's hierarchy, but that's not the focus, the focus is on class as a social relation to production as informed by ownership. I'm more than willing to agree that your critique is the general anarchist critique, and I'm okay with you preferring anarchism, I just think that if you're trying to argue that Marxism isn't a communist ideology because it doesn't hold the same view of hierarchy as anarchism does, that that's a bit myopic.

no. the power is always among the people who choose the delegate, formulate their mandate, and can recall them at any time. the delegate has no power over the people, nor is the delegate coerced into their role.

Just because the delegate was elected and is subject to recall doesn't mean it isn't a hierarchy, though. Unless your point is that the delegate can only do what 100% of those who elected them want, and if any oppose them then they have no power, but in that case everything would collapse to a halt. The PRC has delegates and elections, and recall elections too, so I'm not sure I understand your criticism with that.

As for not considering the PRC socialist, are you saying it doesn't fit the anarchist conception of socialism, or the conception of socialism that includes Marxism as socialist? Ie, is your argument that the PRC does not meet the Marxist understanding of socialism as well as the anarchist? This is something that needs heavy judtification if so, but if you just mean the anarchist conception then I agree, the PRC isn't anarchist and isn't pretending to be.

Sure, depending on which tool you use for a job, there is a different process of working. Some nails and materials work better with bigger hammers, some are fine with smaller hammers. The process of coming up with equivalent end-products while reducing labor-time and reducing injury is a part of improving the productivity of labor, which can, in socialism, be used to provide what people need while minimizing working hours.

There aren't any rules against replying seriously, and it seemed to me that you were taking it pretty seriously later on.

It has little to no effect on the outcome, in this hypothetical. The way the conclusion came to be is different, but are you making an argument that the outcome is different on the ideal plane or something?

Yea I know, but you clearly made it after making an AskLemmy post.

Communism is generally held to be about class and state abolition, not hierarchy in general. Delegates in your model still have hierarchy, what's important is accountability and that the general interest is upheld. As for the PRC, it's already socialist, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned. It certainly isn't anarchist, nor is it a stateless, classless, moneyless, global society, but it's socialist.

Yes, you said process. I fail to see what you're accomplishing in calling a program a process vs a tool.

Hierarchy isn't something antihetical to socialism, it exists in all systems. Further, I still don't really see how this model handles global systems of production and supply chains, and further still, I think you're just redefining socialism to only include anarchism, which is a semantical argument and not a logical one.

If you couldn't tell the difference between the two, in what manner is the utility different?

Or maybe I did, and I disagree with your interpretation.

Asbestos is not AI, a frog is not a squirrel. This is silly.

Tools have different social functions in different modes of production. A hammer in the hands of a yeoman does not alienate them from the product of their labor, but a hammer that is owned by a capitalist alienates the proletarian from the product of their labor. The hammer didn't change, its social role did.