I think that others have done a sufficient job of answering the main question. I have things to say about the secondary questions:

how badly damaged is it?

I am wondering how it would be possible to reverse or remove that opinion of so many.

I’ve actually put quite a bit of thought into this problem. Countering the intentional destruction of language in general seems to be basically impossible to do directly because of how many people there are who have no particular interest in figuring out what the word really means, and who just perpetuate the current zeitgeist via sheer inertia. It also doesn’t help that there are a great many who claim to be anarchists who actually want the term to be misunderstood. The nihilistic version of anarchism that you’re calling out is perfect for sociopathic individuals who want a world without accountability.

My conclusion is that the word itself has become effectively destroyed and unusable (except in contexts where you know that your audience is made of the small subset of people who actually understand what it is supposed to mean) and needs to be replaced. However, attempting to just invent a new term for the same ideas won’t quite work either, because it will just be equated to the old one, and destroyed by the very same actors as before. We may be able to buy some time, but we need to do something about the forces that work to destroy the language itself if we want a lasting solution.

We need to learn how to protect ourselves from the actors that consistently sabotage our efforts to communicate, form communities and institutions, and actually accomplish objectives. We need to learn how to recognize those actors reliably, and keep them out of our spaces. Feds and such aren’t really the main issue here - it’s the people that claim to be our allies but instead subvert our rhetoric and activity to their own selfish ends that we need to be most wary of.

Once we can keep our spaces clean, we’ll have control over our language again, and we can use a new term or the old one. Those who are actually interested in doing good can be kept safe from the interference of bad-faith actors as long as they are able to find their way into these spaces.

You want to learn about narcissism, narcissistic abuse, and, in particular, what happens to the victims of sustained narcissistic abuse. The victims end up suffering from ‘codependency’ or ‘self-love deficit disorder’ depending on who you talk to. Your mention of ‘pathologically stable attachment’ is pretty close to talking about one real aspect of codependency. There are attachment disorders (like anxious attachment disorder) that will cause people to hyper-attach to others (especially abusers).

I do not say this to name-call, per se - but rather to give you some keywords that you can use to learn more about what’s going on. I will also recommend this youtuber, and in particular her Glossary of Narcissistic Relationships playlist. She’s also written books if you would prefer that format instead. Most information on this topic focuses on interpersonal relationships (intimate ones, especially), but it is trivially applicable to other (larger) contexts.

One of the best things you can do for someone who is suffering from codependency is to help them learn about narcissistic abuse, so that they are even able to recognize what is being done to them. A big part of the apathy that you are observing in people is just plain normalization. They literally don’t even recognize that they are being abused. Once you get past this barrier, helping them heal from the trauma and develop far healthier responses to abusive situations becomes a whole lot easier.

Goliath’s Curse by Luke Kemp

Not directly about anarchism, but instead about anthropology. I find that a lot of discussions about anarchism end up going awry as soon as people start injecting some common myths about anthropology into the mix. False assumptions about history and human nature will lead to ineffective conclusions about how to deal with it.

It’s not like it was never alluded to:

“Then as elites extract more wealth from the people and the land, they make societies more fragile, leading to infighting, corruption, immiseration of the masses, less healthy people, overexpansion, environmental degradation and poor decision making by a small oligarchy. The hollowed-out shell of a society is eventually cracked asunder by shocks such as disease, war or climate change.”

(bold added to highlight indirect mention of overshoot by other names)

The reason that overshoot isn’t really a focus in this article is because the author has recognized (correctly, IMO) that overshoot is just a symptom of a much deeper problem - large-scale domination by narcissistic/psychopathic individuals.

deleted by creator

When I am talking about narcissism, I am talking about something much broader than NPD. The ICD 11 revised the whole section on personality disorders so that they are no longer separated into clusters (A, B, and C) and are now characterized on a per-individual basis by a combination of atomized descriptors. One of the major reasons for doing this was because there is a lot more overlap between them than the categorization of discrete disorders implied. The lack of empathy that characterizes narcissism was present in basically all of cluster B and frequently occurred with several disorders in clusters A and C.

Narcissism is way more common than you think. I estimate that they make up at least 1/3 of the population, and probably more like 1/2 (and exactly how I’ve arrived at these numbers is something I’d want to write about). Those “regular” people who are “pushed” into egotistic behavior? They’re actually low-grade or covert narcs who are being given permission to be narcissistic by our culture.

The capitalist system does work as intended, but the reason that it is intended to work the way that it does is because it was designed by narcissists from the very beginning (another topic we’d be discussing, with sources), and it serves them very well. They weren’t a hidden cabal, though, and the emergence of modern capitalism didn’t happen overnight. The system gradually emerged piece by piece as various people tried to solve various problems (and it probably all started with the issue of distributing portions of tribute to one’s lackeys).

If you’re going to vilify an entire group of people, do so based on their actual behaviours and not on the personality trait(s) that they share.

We are villifying them based on their actual behaviors. It just so happens that when you look at the reasons for those behaviors, you see that it is caused by a personality type/disorder, and as such, naming the group that behaves badly in this way also essentially names the personality type/disorder. You simply cannot separate the two concepts, because they are causally/definitionally linked. As such, it is paradoxical to simultaneously condone discriminating against the behaviors and condemn discriminating against the personality type.

So yeah, I know what you are talking about, but what is that new community exactly supposed to achive?

The central thesis or hypothesis, if you will, is that all of the issues that we are dealing with today (authoritarianism, late-stage capitalism, fascism, sexism, racism, systemic ecological destruction, the destruction of the concept of truth, etc…) are fundamentally rooted in narcissism. The point of the community is to explore this relationship, and take advantage of that perspective to discuss effective strategies for dealing with these problems (generally via dealing with the underlying cause - the narcissism itself). When you start casting the polycrisis through the lens of narcissism, a lot of the conventional ideas about how to address those issues fall apart (including many ideas that are common in anarchist circles).

I expect that the bulk of the content would be focused on analyzing the connection between the psychology of narcissism and various aspects of politics/economics in both historical and contemporary contexts. For example, one thing I expect that we would spend a lot of time discussing is exactly how authoritarian societies emerged from the egalitarian ones that were ubiquitous prior to the development of agriculture. We would also discuss things like how the dynamics of capitalism map really nicely to the transactional nature of narcissistic relationships, or how various elements of modern social etiquette practically seem to be designed to enable narcissistic abuse (e.g. Gossiping would pretty thoroughly defeat a lot of narcissistic “splitting behaviors”, and yet it is often taboo).

Besides analysis, we would also discuss effective strategies for dealing with common problems in a way that is narcissistically-aware. Moderating communities, both real and virtual, would probably be one of the most common topics of discussion in this regard. Maintaining a space so that it is inclusive, especially one that is public, while also preventing abusive behavior is really challenging, and there are lots of subtle ways that things can go wrong that a lot of people overlook because they don’t realize just how insidious bad actors can actually be. We can talk about more conventional direct-action strategy stuff too, and in a lot of ways I would expect those discussions to look a lot like similar discussions between anarchists that you’ve seen elsewhere. It’s just that we’ll be taking into account the fact that we have an actual psychological model for how the bad actors will really behave, and so we will be able to adapt our strategies accordingly.

I hope this helps you understand what I’m going for here. I’m not trying to make a hate-club or anything. I think there’s genuine insight to be had here that could be very helpful for a lot of people.

This argument could be made much simpler by observing that centrism is simply the middle of the road fallacy turned into an ideology. As the middle of the road fallacy is unsound by definition, any positions taken on the basis of such an argument are liable to have nothing to do with reality, and any decisions made by such an argument are likely to have unintended or harmful consequences.

Of course, some people will also hide behind this argument because they want to use certain extremes as strawmen so that they can use centrism as a smokescreen to hide the true toxicity of their real beliefs that they want to push. In these cases, the middle of the road fallacy will often be accompanied by many other fallacies as well.

In any case, it should be sufficient to point out the fallacious/illogical nature of their ideology and arguments to show that these people should not be listened to or taken seriously at all. (It isn’t sufficient in practice, because most people are too far removed from reality/epistemological soundness to be saved, but it should be. It will be for anyone with a functioning brain in their heads.)

Outside of spreading the definition that I’ve given, I don’t know what else you’d need or want to do. I’d like to think that this comment thread doesn’t really qualify as an ‘anarchist theory rabbithole’, so if the explanation I gave worked here then perhaps it can work elsewhere. I don’t think that this definition is likely to be controversial.

I’m not sure what you are asking for. I’m just saying that it would be good for people to understand hierarchy in terms of coercion, generally, so trying to establish that definition as common knowledge would be a good idea.

I think it would be a very good idea to make the link between the notion of ‘hierarchy’ as anarchists like to think of it and coercion a part of common knowledge, both inside and outside of the anarchist community. I think everybody being on the same page with terminology would help clear up a lot of miscommunication about anarchism.

I don’t think that this is the primary problem that we’re facing, though. I think that part of the reason that it is difficult to pin down a definition of ‘hierarchy’ that everybody agrees upon is because there are some ‘anarchists’ that don’t actually want anarchism, but instead want a lack of personal accountability - in other words, the freedom to do whatever they want to whomever they want without consequences. If you frame this in terms of ‘personal freedom for everybody’, it sort of sounds like anarchism, but because it emphasizes positive freedoms to the point of discarding negative freedoms almost entirely, it actually ends up being a self-contradictory position where bullies have power because they’re willing to penalize their victims into submission, and there are no collectively-enforced consequences for engaging in such oppressive behavior.

I think that the #1 problem that we need to solve is the issue of these individuals generally being an accepted part of our group (or society at large, even). Anarchism isn’t actually a magic bullet for oppression, because even an anarchist society would eventually be corrupted into an oppressive one if bullies like this are allowed to persist and manipulate people into following them and their disordered ideology. To actually create a truly ‘good’ society, we need to learn how to reliably recognize these bullies and keep them out of our spaces. Anarchism helps enormously, because collective power is much harder to subvert than hierarchical power, but it isn’t a complete solution on its own.

That said, being able to recognize coercion and manipulation in all of its various forms would help a lot with that goal, and so the goals of establishing such a common terminology and also teaching people how to recognize bullies in all of their various forms are synergistic.

Hierarchy happens when some people are ‘above’ others, or, in other words, can make decisions for other people and enforce them without their consent.

I intended for this to basically be the definition, but I can try to rephrase to make it clearer.

‘Hierarchy’ is any social structure or relationship where someone has coercive power over another person, and where that coercive power is a normalized part of the structure or relationship. This normalization could be a social contract or the result of patterns of abusive behavior, it doesn’t really matter exactly how it happens. It’s just important to distinguish between coercion that happens because someone is breaking the rules and coercion that happens even when nobody is breaking any rules. It is the latter that forms a power dynamic between individuals or groups, and it is these power dynamics that hierarchies are made of.

I hope that clears things up.

It is tricky to do this in a way that allows for complex coordination at scale while avoiding the oppressive properties of systems which we would all recognize as undesirable. The concept that is required in order to properly navigate this is ‘coercive control’.

Hierarchy happens when some people are ‘above’ others, or, in other words, can make decisions for other people and enforce them without their consent. This is coercive control. This is the situation that we want to avoid.

At the same time, the collective does have to be able to enforce rules, so some degree of coercion must be allowed in order to avoid a sort of paradox-of-tolerance situation. To resolve this apparent contradiction, we introduce the notion of a ‘social contract’. To be a part of an anarchist organization would require that a person agree to a social contract. As long as the person upholds the social contract, they cannot otherwise be coerced, as that would be a violation of anarchist principles, and could result in oppressive behavior. (Note: For this to be self-consistent, coercion has to be outlawed as part of said social contract.) If a person breaks the social contract, then they are also no longer protected by it, and can be coerced by the group to leave or such.

The social contract bit is sort of an aside to the original question, but I think people get confused by what is and isn’t hierarchy because they understand the first part in some way, even if they don’t have the words for it, but then they don’t know how to solve the obvious problem of enforcing rules so that people’s freedoms can actually be protected in practice.

Centralization doesn’t necessarily imply hierarchy, as, given an undirected acyclic graph, you can pick any node to be the ‘root’ and end up with a valid ‘tree’ - the structure that most people would visualize when they hear the word ‘hierarchy’. Of course, we would prefer to not pick any node as the root, as the hierarchical structure implied by such a distinction shouldn’t be necessary for the collective to reap the benefits of such centralization. There is a whole discussion that could be had about how to actually implement centralization without falling into various traps, but that isn’t really what the question in the OP is about. I simply bring it up because some people confuse centralization for hierarchy, and end up shooting themselves in the foot for doing so.

A common thing that comes up a lot when I see people saying there is no way anarchism could work, is that it’s human nature to be selfish and to attempt to gain power over others etc. I think people are just as likely to be benevolent or at least neutral to each other when the conditions are right.

I think there are two kinds of people. One kind is selfish and attempts to gain power over others, even to their own detriment. The other kind is benevolent and caring and empathetic, and would not willingly exploit others. With this duality present, anarchy becomes the only thing that will reliably work in the long-haul.

When we allow some people to have coercive power over others (as is the case in hierarchies), the self-interested people gravitate toward those positions of power. Because they do not care about how their actions affect others, they tend to make decisions that are destructive to society in the pursuit of short-term personal gain. I would actually go so far as to claim that all of our societal ills fundamentally arise from the fact that pathologically self-interested individuals without any empathy are calling the shots - including the industrial practices that are leading to total environmental destruction.

Only in a society where this coercive control does not exist can we keep those destructive forces in check. When a self-interested person has coercive power over groups of people, they can retaliate against people or groups who try to call them out on their bad behavior. By pitting other groups against each other, they can maintain that power in an extremely large society even when their own group is ultimately a minority and most groups would agree that their actions deserve negative social consequences. As long as an individual can never wield the power of a group, community policing/moderation will always be possible, and these bad actors can be penalized or even removed as appropriate. We want to empower the people with empathy (who will generally work together for a common good, or at least against a common bad - at least, so long as they haven’t been tricked into fighting each other over petty nonsense instead), rather than the people without it (who won’t generally work together unless they can somehow strike up a mutually beneficial deal - opportunities are limited when they all ultimately covet each other’s power and wealth).

OP: The idea that not all people are fundamentally the same (“created equal”, if you will) or have positive value is very uncomfortable to the masses, and I think that this is the point where I diverge from the mainstream.