Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Reposting a comment from the previous thread I made very late.
Idea: all else equal, a terrorist group that believes in hierarchy being not bad (or even good) is more dangerous than one which does not support hierarchies.
A group that supports the idea of a hierarchy will naturally create one in the process of coming into being, and an organized group is more effective. In contrast, a group that does not support hierarchies will have a tougher time organizing until effective. Of course, both are dangerous once formed, but the former will learn the need/lessons of structure more easily.
If this is reasonable, it suggests that the former type should be monitored more closely and actively disrupted over the latter.
But this would also suggest that between a brewing Nazi group and a brewing Antifa group, the former is more dangerous and needs to be handled first and foremost.
Is there some idea I'm missing?
It seems plausible to me, with the caveat that "all else equal" doesn't really exist. I don't know how you'd construct a neo-Nazi counterpart to Antifa.
Possible failure modes:
Disbelieving in hierarchy probably won't avoid forming one. I would expect most every small group to form an implied hierarchy if not an explicit one. This is going to be a function of individual charisma rather than ideology. C.f. the astonishing variety of "cults of personality."
Conversely, forming a hierarchy is not a guarantee of effective organization. This is where the neoreactionaries get off the bus. The roadside is littered with authoritarians possessed of more ambition than sense just as the ditches are piled high with uncoordinated revolutionaries.
Effective organization is also far from the only factor in assessing danger. I don't think left/right comparisons are very fruitful given your "all else equal" criterion, but not all ideologies can be implemented equally. The expected level of violence would be higher for more actionable movements--Greenpeace can go after perpetrators of environmental injustice, but who can their bizarro-world counterparts target?
Finally, modern technology also serves as a force multiplier that lets the smallest, least coordinated groups punch above their weight. In the words of a certain extremist,
Implicit hierarchies suffer from ambiguity. If no one can take responsibility, or people are allowed to think a minor offense is grounds to disobey the group, then you can't act as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link