>>1830699Yes I did. And i think I get why you disagree, and maybe it's just that I need to be more careful with language or maybe hierarchy is too loaded a term.
Beyond ISAIF, if you read the letters in e.g. Tech Slavery it's pretty clear that his problem is not with hierarchy in the abstract but hierarchy as manifested under the System.
Or if you read Anti-Tech Revolution, he is quite pragmatic about the need for a movement to be organized, disciplined, gatekept, etc etc and he allows for leadership.
All I mean to say re: hierarchy is:
His end goal is not the abolition of hierarchy, his end goal is the abolition of the technological system. One could argue that many pernicious and artificial hierarchies are downstream of the technological system and would be wiped out in the flood. I don't think TK disagrees with that anywhere. But I also don't think TK spends much time deliberating what social order(s) will follow and for whom, and I don't think he would state that societies after the anti-tech revolution must be non-hierarchical (though they perhaps will inevitably be less hierarchical).
You're totally justified in stating that he does "take a stance for or against hierarchy," but it's not really the same type of hierarchy your modern Western anarchist speaks of, which is why I tried (failed?) to make the distinction.
