Hierarchy In Nature.

[Noleaders]

I think people that submit to employment do it for many reasons and not all of them are rational. Austrian School's flaw (I agree with its mechanics but not some of the long term conclusions drawn from them) is in assuming rationality when dealing with a frequently irrational people.

I guess but its more that whatever people do, even the really dumb things, the reason is one of self-interest. It doesn't rule out irrational behaviour, with totally rational behaviour it would be easier to have equilibrium in the market which is something the austrian say, quite accurately, will never exist. Subjective value implies some level of irrational consumer behaviour since its whatever seemed sensible to them at the time.
Also im not neccessarily against employment if its voluntary, i think there would be an increase in self-employment but it would be coercion to force it on everyone. Whats of primary importance to me is removing the barriers to creativity and entrepeneurship which means knocking down some state monopolies. If people want to be employed then thats fine.

Even under a free market system with many aggressive and rational players, it is possible for one group to use its advantages (like those who live in oil-rich countries, maybe?) to use them to gradually consolidate monopolistic authority in the marketplace, and exploit it, like Rockefeller and the trusts at the beginning of the last century.

Monopolies only exist where their is hardly any supply or demand or its helped by the state. The trusts were no exception. If there was no money monopoly, land monopoly, tarrif monopoly or patent monopoly, among various other things the state does, it would be very difficult for them to ever exist, or survive for long if they did. Remember a monopoly, well any large hierarchical firm really, has the same economic calculation problem as a state socialist system. (an anarcho-socialist system would possibly be different due to decentralisation but meh thats a different debate)
As for oil it will get more expensive so there will be a gap in the power market leading to greener energy sources emerging, ones that can be made anywhere.

In an anarchist world, it would be more difficult to get past public opinion on these issues without a government to ensure order, but those voluntary organizations you were talking about could still become corrupted and use its influence to convince people that high prices or lack of competition is preferable or unavoidable for various reasons. Money would still exist, and money is economic power. It can be used for all sorts of things in this regard.

Yes but that exists now and would be much more difficult to exist under anarchism so i guess thats just life not being perfect. Money is economic power, however you obtain and maintain money through providing people with stuff they want so im not so concerned about it. Besides it would be harder to build up massive business empires without the state.

The voluntary councils or firms you were talking about are a problem. They could become fossilized by tradition or disinterest, which might not be immediately recognized by even a vigilant public. There are lots of dangers here, and peace and prosperity make for an excellent public tranquilizer for the masses. War actually does the same thing, from the opposite direction.

Does this not exist with government? Besides the point of voluntary association is to make life naturally less rigidly structured for even the laziest people.

I'm seeing a faith in individuality that I find extremely admirable, even if it doesn't stand up to my personal research and experiences. If everyone were individualistic in the manner youre describing, then it would indeed be a better world. Maybe one day we'll get there, but it won't exactly be next week, and the unfortunate trend within the greater powers of society is towards polarizing debate and ignoring strong minority opinions. The majority of the viewing public seems to want their news to be simple and split along the "good vs evil" lines. God bless the internet...

I agree it wont be next week. Maybe i just know a very different type of people than you do but i know plenty of people who don't act like this, besides even in the everyday world there's never consensus on opinions. Whats really important is its possible to be an individualist now and hopefully it will become easier in the future, which is good dince the world thrives on individualism. Also you've got to think what factors affect how people think, mainly how they are taught to think here are some interesting articles on the subject.

http://www.americanexperiment.org/publi ... ersten.php

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... 002&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deschooling_Society

As for the relationship between hierarchy and efficiency, I insist on this because the promise of advancement (and inverse threat of getting fired) is currently the big motivating driver in employee effort for so many corporations, and a "team" atmosphere can be used for manipulation.

Hierarchies could still exist to some extent inside firms, it would nice if we could remove all of them but it would be difficult without coercion. However its simply not true that more hierarchy means more efficiency. Even some capitalist firms have gotten rid of showing their organisation as hierarchical and now use matrix structure which is very decentralised and doesnt show the firm as a whole just the individuals involved in each project, for the reason that promotion to a higher place in a hierarchy often fails as an incentive. Also the firms that survive, even under the current system, ARE the ones which are more decentralised. Also according to i think it was maslow's hierarchy (irony?) of needs having creative control of your work is above promotion and money, in fact its the highest of needs.
Also here are some more problems with the traditional firm and its agency incentives

http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/ ... apter6.pdf

Its 41 pages long and i apologise for that but it highlights many major flaws with the current system if you have the time or interest to read it.

I do think power should be decentralized and spread out as much as possible, but the trend towards this in the corporate world is a product mainly of more high-tech businesses with highly skilled workers that demand better treatment. What's unfortunate is that in a country of 300 million people, there is little reason to believe that the market will provide opportunities for so many people, skilled or not, without reverting back to a situation where there is far more supply of labor than demand, which can increase exploitation. Loose hierarchies and decentralization may work better, but opportunities to abuse employees will abound with so many of them desperate to work. Fair treatment of employees is wonderful (remember Henry Ford and the efficiency wage?) but lowering labor costs will always be attractive to businessmen. They want profits, and money is power. Today's hierarchies are geared towards finance for a reason.

Todays corporate system fails for many reasons. The market will mean growth which will mean more jobs will become available. With less unemployment employees will have more power in the employee-employer relationship since there will be less people to take their place. Also workers unions would probably have more power if they weren't organised the way the state wants them to be. Currently you have to go through lots of bureacracy and organise in a certain way instead of just unionising with your fellow employees. Finally competiton in the labour market would reduce exploitation. The fact is decentralisation, loose hierarchies and motivated workers is the efficient model even today. Yes there may be a class of capitalist bastards at the top but if they want to stay there long they will have to be less of a capitalist bastard, todays hierarchies = fail. Unless they're in bed with the state of course.....

That first part about "tell people not to do x..." is gold. Its rebelliousness, and I LOVE rebelliousness. Its what keeps the system evolving and in check. Just remember that people rebel against... authority. I think that, until humanity crosses an evolutionary boundary, people like to rail against the system, any system. If that system is anarchy, they will rebel against it with order. That may sound odd, but fascist movements in the past give a historical precedent.

Nah fascist movements, like many state-collectivist movements, arise in times of crisis which is one of the reasons why i think a successful society will hopefully lead to more individualism. Anarchism is built meant to be a spontaneous order, an order when if a person is resentful of something they switch associations. Rebelliousness (individualism?) in anarchism will exist but it will lead to different voluntary associations. Thats the whole point of anarchy really, a more fluid society.

There is a necessity for trust in society, and when we all become trustworthy, then the problems of power and rank and coercion and all that will be obsolete. This necessitates acceptance of individuality on a cultural level that spans generations and creates new ways for people to deal with conflicts of interest, but until the need for this becomes obvious to broader society, then we'll have to wait for it and encourage individuality and understanding within our current framework. I'm sure I'm forgetting something in this argument, but we'll see what comes of it.

There's a lot of truth in this. It why i say evolution over revolution. Fix some of the things that encourage uniformity now then start progressing to more and more voluntary association as opposed to coercive association. It doesnt require altruism or improving human nature, it requires accepting it and nurturing the good stuff as opposed to repressing the bad stuff.

The creative and individualistic elements of humanity continue to give me hope, too... I wish more people showed signs of genuine creativity. Again, God bless the internet.

Individualism makes the world go round. I get frustrated with people yet they're my biggest source of inspiration. It seems were not as different as i expected.
I guess the best someone can do for now is start with themself and the people around them.
I am confident in people's potential though if we started genuinly changing the way we live.
One bit as a time.

[Baconator]

Even under a free market system with many aggressive and rational players, it is possible for one group to use its advantages (like those who live in oil-rich countries, maybe?) to use them to gradually consolidate monopolistic authority in the marketplace, and exploit it, like Rockefeller and the trusts at the beginning of the last century.

This is why I advocate a pluralistic and heavily decentralized society. If in town A , there is a free market, and you don't like it, you have the option to go to town B which might be a syndicate or a commune.

Advocating a single method on how society should be run often reeks of authoritarianism.

[Noleaders]

It does, why im a panarchist although persoanlly i prefer markets.
I just argue points from the market perspective cos i understand it enough to argue well
Also you can build a commune in a free market whereas you cant build a free market (legitimately) within a commune so i think the meta context for anarchism should be free market

[Baconator]

It does, why im a panarchist although persoanlly i prefer markets.
I just argue points from the market perspective cos i understand it enough to argue well
Also you can build a commune in a free market whereas you cant build a free market (legitimately) within a commune so i think the meta context for anarchism should be free market

I think the sensible arguments in favor of a commune already imply a market within the commune. Most communist would admit that people ought to be free to trade goods but where they differ from market anarchists and even some mutualists is in value determination ( labor theory of value) and the question of capital ownership. Everything else, considered possessions, would function identical to what you and I might conceive as a free market.

[Noleaders]

Again, I hope one day we get to a point, as a society, where trust and respect render the need for 'grouping up' obsolete. Until then, a democratic government that changes with new administrations and generations is the best of a long list of crappy options. Bona fortuna!

Yeah its the best we've got for now

I think the sensible arguments in favor of a commune already imply a market within the commune. Most communist would admit that people ought to be free to trade goods but where they differ from market anarchists and even some mutualists is in value determination (labor theory of value) and the question of capital ownership. Everything else, considered possessions, would function identical to what you and I might conceive as a free market.

Isnt that collectivism? tbh all the anarcho strains confuse me now
I believe a market anarchy would look very, very different to what we have now. What we have now is crap but i doubt it would survive long without a state so anarcho-capitalism fails. Im not sure whether everything would be worker owned but the hierarchies we have now would also fail so it would look like a mix of a diminished capitalism, mutualism and collectivism.

[Caz]

I still have to say that the unfortunate tendencies of humanity, to acquire strength and order through centralization and authority, will keep true freedom a long way off for a long time. Many people are brought up in such a way that they are insecure and feel a need to prove themselves to something, forgoing individual identity for a sense of belonging to a group with greater power than they could have alone. Gangs, cliques, religious orders, governments, etcetera... This will continue to have appeal for a long time. Teams like this also breed a strain of loyalty that seems to push against reasoned questioning of the group, a tendency that exists to subserviate people and maintain the structure and cohesion of the group (although it is sometimes self-destructive). When leaders veer off into corruption or paranoia or whathaveyou, that's when truly BAD things happen.

As for the economics questions, a history of the Soviet Union is quite revealing, not to mention confusing and unsettling, if you want to know how leadership positions can be abused and principles can be twisted into providing justification for anything... It's really fascinating. Looking at Communism as a religion instead of a system of economics, of course, yields much more consistent understanding of why things happened how they did. Personally, I think that forms of communes or free markets could work with the right people in them. It always comes down to the human question: find the right leadership and management and even stodgy systems can adapt and function better. This is why history in general is a biography of "great men".

I do think a system based around thinking individuals is better than a collective, for a multitude of reasons, including both greater decision-making efficiency and more of an expectation, and NEED, for decent behavior man-to-man.

Great conversation on all of this so far!

[Noleaders]

I still have to say that the unfortunate tendencies of humanity, to acquire strength and order through centralization and authority, will keep true freedom a long way off for a long time. Many people are brought up in such a way that they are insecure and feel a need to prove themselves to something, forgoing individual identity for a sense of belonging to a group with greater power than they could have alone. Gangs, cliques, religious orders, governments, etcetera... This will continue to have appeal for a long time. Teams like this also breed a strain of loyalty that seems to push against reasoned questioning of the group, a tendency that exists to subserviate people and maintain the structure and cohesion of the group (although it is sometimes self-destructive). When leaders veer off into corruption or paranoia or whathaveyou, that's when truly BAD things happen.

Well one reason i advocate the market is it allows people to try and gain strength, economic strength, but it doing so provide everyone else with something. People are taught uniformity which i think is terrible, the appeal of a group does exist but there's no reason why it shouldnt be voluntary and not command subservience. Individualism and collectivism arent always polar opposites.

As for the economics questions, a history of the Soviet Union is quite revealing, not to mention confusing and unsettling, if you want to know how leadership positions can be abused and principles can be twisted into providing justification for anything... It's really fascinating. Looking at Communism as a religion instead of a system of economics, of course, yields much more consistent understanding of why things happened how they did. Personally, I think that forms of communes or free markets could work with the right people in them. It always comes down to the human question: find the right leadership and management and even stodgy systems can adapt and function better. This is why history in general is a biography of "great men".

Well a lot of the best leaders can have obedience voluntarily, its usually bad ones that need to back it up with force. These great men could still exist of course, probably playing a large role in running the various communes and firms and whatever else should arise. Whats even more desirable though is not restricting it to these great men alone.

I do think a system based around thinking individuals is better than a collective, for a multitude of reasons, including both greater decision-making efficiency and more of an expectation, and NEED, for decent behavior man-to-man.

Agreed

Great conversation on all of this so far!

also agreed

[Insecuritykiller]

Hierarchy isnt an issue. People will always be jealous of each other.

We have to accept that jealousy, it's a part of life. We always see something someone else has and we don't and want it. We can fix the situation so far, but life is hard about some things. We are after all, all humans. There's fucking millions of us all living the same life. We can't all have it all. We can even things up a bit thats for sure. Especially if we take each child and empower it to do the best it can at being happy.

What's an issue is ofcourse morality. I know morality doesn't really exist. But it's the name we have given to the game of caring for other people. Why not just call it morality? That way we can play the game as we speak. Talkings all apart of the game, you just gotta know it's a game. Still it is important to menction that it is a game. The truth being most important for alot of practical reasons.

There are two groups. One the status quo doesn't want to change things cause they work. And they even say that to be nice and kind. We have to live with pain. Even though they naturally avoid it themselves, yet they think it's ok to hurt other people. For good reasons. Not totaly unreasonable. Computers and cars are pretty cool, maybe cool enough for people to suffer who knows. And you know if we try for revolution it could end up making things worse for us. Humanity might hate itself too much, or be too proud or many other things. Life is total maddness if we run free we could end up hurting each other, or only see the horrible truth all the more clearer. Though i don't want to believe in that personally.

The second group ofcourse disagrees and tries to change things to make them better. So this is an issue of morality between these two groups of people. Nature never had anything to do with it. Unless you think our ugliness and undeveloped social skills are apart of nature in which brings up all sorts of interesting questions.

Nature can never give us enough love to make change. I don't want to believe that. But really even that has nothing to do with nature. Nature comes from the void, nature is nothingness.

We are like the sky, floating over the surface. Don't let that surface bother you. It created us, but just accept the good that comes from it and don't worry about the rest. Is instinct apart of that? Per, i doubt instinct exists.

What is instinct? Pre-written knowlege? Brain functions? I don't even care, i want to believe that i'm personally responsible for leading this body around. Highs and Come downs from drugs do exist, but i think the matter part of us only has a minor role, we don't need it to know that pleasure is good and pain is bad. If it's emotional states that control us, then you can still fight against it. Maybe we are like a plant in the ground, a sky plant.

[leadhead]

Either humans are part of nature, or we aren't.

If we are, then anything we do is therefore natural -- a natural process which is an expression of our DNA. In this sense, buildings, farms, dams etc can be seen as effects of a natural process that our species undergoes given the right conditions and amount of time. An analogy would be beaver dams. Their dams are natural. They occur in nature without any intervention. If humans are a part of nature then our whole civilization can be termed natural. So in a sense, hierarchy is natural to humans, but so is anti-authoritarianism.

if we are not part of nature, then it doesn't matter

Damn good post!

[Snowdrop]

This topic hasn't been active since may, but I want to disprove hierarchy so badly
The way I see it, hierarchy is NOT natural. I subscribe to the infinite multiverse theory. No matter how far you 'zoom out', there will be infinetly many new things to discover. Same applies for 'zooming in', things can be infinitely small. The electron, for example is made up of something, and that something is made up of something else. You can keep going ad infinitum, but you will never find the single thing making up everything.

Therefore there is no top-down or bottom-up structure of the multiverse. With this it is proven that the most natural state of the universe and all things in it is anarchy!

Second proof is thermodynamics. The theory of equillibrium states that eventually, all matter and energy in any universe will become equally distributed (ours included), and motion will become unnecessary and cease. The theory is false, and its falseness is the proof of anarchy. It is false, because, it makes an erroneous assumption: that all matter and energy follows gravitation and attraction perfectly and without hesitation. However, matter with 'free will' (life) and enough strength CAN either make mistakes and change its path, or willingly fight off the forces trying to lead it to equillibrium. This makes life's primary function and meaning in the universe to change motion in such a way so that equillibrium is never reached. Life does that by making decisions and moving.
Hierarchy, being a restriction to decision-making and movement is a roadblock to the fulfillment of life's purpose.
I'm not sure if there are organisms strong enough to do these things yet, but life has bundles of time to evolve. And the first step to such an evolution is anarchy (it's actually birth, but you know what I mean)

[Guest]

thermodynamics

i always lul when people bring up 'thermodynamics' or, lulzier yet, 'quantum physics' to prove/disprove shit that is utterly irrelevant to them.

matter with 'free will' (life)

moar lulz pl0x!