Hierarchy In Nature.

[Noleaders]

Theres hierarchies in nature because animals have a simpler existence than us. Not being speciesist here but were the most intelligent species so according to nature our societies should be based on reason rather than force.

Also different species have different natures right. so our species could be the one that wants freedom higher than anything else, or doesn't need a hierarchical structure or has no nature and can be whatever it wants to be.

Thats if nature is intending anything at all which in itself is questionable

[Variagil2]

As example, most of farm animals and domestic animals, use to couple with very high consanguinity relationships. When this happens in humans -it's given in many villages- the descendants present rounded-shaped features.

The first domesticated animal, the wolf to dog, adapted to feed on the rubbish of the community and instead of wolf, has lost all of his hygiene. And feeds anyway on excrements or putrefacts animals.

There are very intelligent animals like dolfins or whales or seals who have genealogic morfologies -as example the blue whale fin shape or dotted dolfins or by other means- that allow to recognize consanguinity and avoid mating between them.

But humans, instead of whales that have quite complex communication sings, have developed by Time the art -aprox. 40.000 years ago-, the language and even the written language.

Culture in zoologic terms is considered as the transmission of knowledge not only form parents to descendants but between individuals in the same community. It appears in the birds songs, that can be learned form parents, or other from the same or different species, and mostly in sea mammals and primates.

Each time a specie disappears for ever, I just die a little bit.

[Yarrow]

of course, knowing hierarchy was natural wouldn't make things any better. supposedly the network ants use is a social construct, as opposed to the hive-mind affair bees have. i think anarchy, pacifism etc is an expression of the changing mind of humynity.

[BlutAusBeherit]

Hierarchy on some level is unavoidable. Hierarchy doesn't have to be the foundation for human classification. It's how we operate within our lives that determines whether that hierarchy means anything. Obviously it doesn't have to play a role.

[Jawn Disease]

Cannibalism is natural, child-rape is natural, slavery is natural, our stateless ancestors undoubtedly did all of those things, that doesn't make them 'wrong' but it doesn't make us 'right' to do those things either

Who gives a fuck if hierarchy is natural

[Bodhisattva]

I just would like to add that heirarchy and morality do not have to be related. Should we wake up tomorrow as fully enlightened as Buddha is claimed to have been and decided to have a literal democracy, then by no means does the heirarchy that literal democracy requires (as little as there is) mean that children will be raped, slaves will be captured, and baby seals clubbed by Canadians.

Heirarchy and morality are two separate subjects. Our experience is that heirarchy supresses, but that is simply because humankind is profoundly flawed. We don't exist in the world the same way that other animals do because of a "crisis of sentience". We're add odds with ourselves, and without complete acceptance of our place in existence, we're apt to do some pretty shitty things. If we found the balance between the our place in the world and the part of our consciousness that asks, "What else is out there?", then I believe things would be right as rain.

[Crustanarchy]

I completely agree with above. Find yourself.

[Caz]

Humans are hierarchical. This isn't really arguable, either. The Great Apes lives in communities that display hierarchy, and so do almost every social animal that lives in "packs".
People display a constant need for leadership and guidance throughout their lives as well. Hierarchies that are healthy are not set in stone, but the ideal of a group that operates to accomplish something without any voice of authority, single entity monopolizing big-picture decision making, or compromises of individuality are rare, and do not operate efficiently. Capitalism, by the way, is inherently hierarchical, as is necessary for efficient use of work.
The last time a society tried to create a hierarchy-free, large-scale community was in the Soviet Union, which was led by the Communist Party out of "ideological necessity". The conflict during the 1920's that broke between the Trotskyists and the post-Lenin "professional revolutionaries" commanded by Stalin for the leadership of the Union should be evidence enough that it is impossible for those supporting less power for themselves or anyone else to achieve goals against those who have, and use, power. This is also why Democrats typically lose elections against power-capable and hierarchically dominant Republicans.
Basically, if you have a group of people with no firm leadership, then the most skilled player with the greatest appetite for authority has an advantage in obtaining it. If everyone were equal and peaceful, then someone with a hard-on for supremacy would look around one day, decide "I could RUN this show!", and take steps through force, propaganda, or other forms of manipulation to get his way. The surrounding society has to approve or acquiesce to the leadership, but that isn't usually a difficult thing to push into being.
Don't believe the hyper-idealistic hype about people not needing leadership or structure. They do. Not everyone, but plenty enough to make hierarchies in society unavoidable. Independent minds typically function better as leaders, but rarely get into those positions in a democratic society because a truly independent mind is frequently a loner and not a "socialite". Obama is by nature a loner, I can promise you, so feel lucky that he's in charge.

[Noleaders]

Fail.

Animals live like that because its essential to their survival, like primitive humans. As society is progressing were becoming more individualistic and independant while still maintaining our social nature to a certain degree.
Anarchists are well aware of the need for guidance and order but that can exist in voluntary association. As for capitalism, what we have now is bollocks but i do fully support free markets. I think this is an example of people being able to live more independantly. Also for the record big hierarchical firms actually loose efficiency as they get bigger and more hierarchical, the effectively operate internally like a planned economy. The reason they survive is they are supported by the state through corporate welfare, socialization of costs, protectionist policies, the welfare state and the current trade union system and just plain corruption since lots of politicians have business interests (oil companies in america for example).
Im not a communist, i dont see equality as neccessary and even if i did state socialism is still hierarchical. What i want is a society were every individual is sovereign of themself. The way people take control of an entire country is:
a) they just have to capture the central state
b) they appeal to collectivism
Since the anarchist society obviously has no state to control and people are more individualistic one person could well try take over everything but considering the extensiveness of todays society it would take ages and they would probably be killed in the process. Its not like anarchists are pacifists or dont have any system of defense.
As for hyper-idealism i actually view anarchy as the lesser of many evils. I think its hper idealism to surrender to a state and hope it will overcome its innate bureacratic inefficiencies and corruption. No one supports a society with no structure.
Finally stop worshipping obama. How can you claim he's a loner, do you know him? How does being a loner make you clever? Finally he isnt, believe it or not, the messiah. He's continued the war on terror (you cant win a war against a concept!), he's gone further than bush with state breaches of privacy and is wasting excessive amounts on a bailout plan which even if it works is completely undesirable and in the long term will prove to have not worked.


You didnt even assert ALL the cliche arguments against anarchy and its not as creative as some of the trolling ive seen.

[Caz]

Interesting view, although while you say people are becoming more independent, I would not.

I'm an economics major, so hear me out: If you subscribe to Austrian School economics (and in market mechanics I do) then you see everyone as an individual who make decisions based on rational, self-interested thinking. This would be fine, and a totally free market would function very well, if that were the case. But individuals in society more often than not submit to the interests of a business that they work for instead of becoming independent contractors to the business because it is more secure and easier to function that way. A steady paycheck is better to lots of people than constantly having to sweat over income by going it alone. This is typical: the business takes care of money management, risk, and structure, and employees abide by that structure and contribute work. It's a form of specialization, which is what increased efficiency is all about. Can you really imagine a world where everyone has the equivalent of a degree in finance just so they can handle taxes and make informed banking decisions for themselves? Or where everyone is armed and tasked with defending themselves instead of at least a partial reliance on law enforcement? It will never happen. People will submit to ordered hierarchy beforer they take on all those responsibilities.
Culturally, if you think people are becoming more independent, then I'd love to know why pop culture is such consistent trash. People are constantly being told what to like, and they run with it. In an "individualist" world, would anyone care about reality TV? Check out the Elliot Wave Theory to see just how consistently people move like a herd on command.

Not all of them, mind you. I'm an Iraq combat vet and I appreciate the concept of anarchy, but I'm not like most people. Most people are too weak and lazy to take responsibility for themselves in such a way as is demanded by anarchy. The military, by the way, is the best example of the necessity of hierarchy. No military unit can function without a solid chain of command.

And I don't worship Obama. I like his views more than Republican views because Republicans are some of the most hierarchically obsessed people in this country. They've been giving tons of advantages and breaks to corporate criminals and the investor class for decades and it's screwing the rest of us. They treat everyone who isn't a rich, white Christian like the untouchables of India: let them live, and exploit them with no regard for mutual respect. Obama is one of the few politicians who might be aware of how unequal this is. I get his viewpoint because I've read his story and I've had the same kind of periods of my life as him (like closing myself into an apartment and smoking cigarettes nonstop, trying to figure out just what the hell is wrong with everything). I get the mindset, and I think I understand his character. I might be wrong, but I'd trust him over someone who swims with sharks in the corporate world anyday. And I say what I say about loners because I am one, I know lots of them, and it isn't hard to see when someone has a problem conforming with social expectations just how most people view him or her.

I don't doubt that the readers of this site don't need hierarchy. Please understand that you're not normal. Other people are different. They need normalcy, and to have faith in something, both in this world and the next. So someone will always be in charge, and many of them will abuse the privilege.

[Guest]

Don't believe the hyper-idealistic hype about people not needing leadership or structure. They do. Not everyone, but plenty enough to make hierarchies in society unavoidable. Independent minds typically function better as leaders, but rarely get into those positions in a democratic society because a truly independent mind is frequently a loner and not a "socialite".

i like to think human society has the capacity to change for the better.

[Noleaders]

To clarify
I believe anarchy to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. I would oppose the state being torn down tomorrow for many of the reasons you gave.

I'm an economics major, so hear me out: If you subscribe to Austrian School economics (and in market mechanics I do) then you see everyone as an individual who make decisions based on rational, self-interested thinking. This would be fine, and a totally free market would function very well, if that were the case.

Its good to see we have some common ground, this will be a fun debate

But individuals in society more often than not submit to the interests of a business that they work for instead of becoming independent contractors to the business because it is more secure and easier to function that way.

Well thats one way of looking at it but its a little simplified, no offense. It is true that not everyone is an entrepeneur but i deny outright the idea we are not self-interested. I also deny that this is the only reason more people aren't in business for themselves. Its pretty much universally accepted that one of the main benefits of working for your self is being your own boss. I know a number of people who own their own small business and ive also studied business in school and got an A so im not just making this up.
If there was no protectionism, both internally and externally, in the market then it would be more competitive do you agree?
With more competition more would-be entrepeneurs would be free to enter the market that dont or cant today. There would also be a more competitive labour market so even people who didn't want to own their own business would still make self-interested choices based on what job they wanted to get. Do you believe people are that apathetic that they wouldn't bother looking for a good job?
Besides more people are involved with the market now anyway, think about stuff like ebay.

A steady paycheck is better to lots of people than constantly having to sweat over income by going it alone. This is typical: the business takes care of money management, risk, and structure, and employees abide by that structure and contribute work. It's a form of specialization, which is what increased efficiency is all about.

Im well aware that some people are better at entrepeneurship than others, i am a market anarchist. Some people would probably choose wage labour, however that doesnt mean that isnt a self-interested choice so im not sure what your point is, i dont seek to end all employment. However you are wrong that hierarchy equals efficiency. Economies of scale exist but they are limited and the further away a decision is made from where it affects the less likely it is to be an efficient one, overly authoritarian structures also stifle creative problem solving on the behalf of their employees which reduces the effect of their specialization and promotes mediocrity and apathy towards work. Even in the oligarchal markets of today the businesses that do best are the ones with looser hierarchies and decentralised decision making. They are also the ones where people most enjoy working.

Can you really imagine a world where everyone has the equivalent of a degree in finance just so they can handle taxes and make informed banking decisions for themselves? Or where everyone is armed and tasked with defending themselves instead of at least a partial reliance on law enforcement? It will never happen. People will submit to ordered hierarchy beforer they take on all those responsibilities.

No i cant. But that isnt what i support so why would i? I think after the reccession a serious rethink of banking will hopefully be done since it was such a key factor. You are absolutely right that not evryone can make great banking decisions so the answer is to make it harder for banks to give out loans to just anyone, so remove infinite access to the central bank and make them back their money up with a commodity. Then the bankers will have to make the informed decisions and the competition will stop those unqualified from being in charge of it.
Also people wouldn't have to defend themselves. Anarchy isn't opposed to their being order, it is opposed to it being done centrally though. Anarchist legal theory is free association with firms or community council's that will provide either protection, arbitration or a bit of both for those who want it and are willing to contribute to it in some way. As for it will never happen Ireland had polycentric law from 650-1650.
I dont believe we are naturally submissive, think about it if you tell someone they can do anything they want except for x then even if they dont do x they will without a doubt not want anything else than to do x. We are also quite a creative, competitive and inventive species, atleast many of us are anyway, since we wouldnt have been able to progress this far if we weren't. Creativity implies some level of individualism.
The fact that "human nature" would be an accurate description of any trait present in humans means it covers such a wide variety of behaviour that i dont think there is much of a conclusion to be drawn from human nature since it will always be blatantly obvious or a hasty generalisation. In my opinion this makes us by default individualistic since everyones nature is slightly different and entirely their own. The fact that there isnt any real meaning to life other than what we make of it means that everything we do is an act of creativity since were making up our own purpose as we go along. However this individualism isnt so much a trait we all share as much as the lack of traits we all share.

Culturally, if you think people are becoming more independent, then I'd love to know why pop culture is such consistent trash. People are constantly being told what to like, and they run with it. In an "individualist" world, would anyone care about reality TV? Check out the Elliot Wave Theory to see just how consistently people move like a herd on command.

Can a person survive living by themself? could we in primitive times? What about medieval times? Which time period would be best suited for an individualist? Which for a collectivist?
Independance doesnt mean we dont participate in group activities, it means we can participate voluntarily rather than out of neccesity. The point is it is now possible to be an individualist.
Would people watch crappy reality TV, yeah if they like it why not? Your also forgetting that many people like the feeling of being the only person whose into a certain band or from stating their dislike of certain trends. I mean how many people enjoy saying how shit big brother is? People who dont go along are often respected for it. Anarchism has a role for such natural leaders, they are the entrepeneurs who get support voluntarily rather than thorugh coercion. Its not like anarchists reject the fact some people are independant thinking while others just go without, however were against either having a legitimate claim to use coercion.
The important part is it is now possible to be an individualist, these people are the ones who are driving progress forwards, non violence is the best atmosphere for these individualists to express themselves in and finally its possible for free association to exist rather than devotion to the group/tribe being neccessary for survival.

Not all of them, mind you. I'm an Iraq combat vet and I appreciate the concept of anarchy, but I'm not like most people. Most people are too weak and lazy to take responsibility for themselves in such a way as is demanded by anarchy. The military, by the way, is the best example of the necessity of hierarchy. No military unit can function without a solid chain of command.

As already described above not everyone has to take a particularly active role in their own leadership. Oh and solid chain of command is good but hierarchies distort the chain of command. Loose hierarchies and decentralisation are the most efficient structure.

And I don't worship Obama. I like his views more than Republican views because Republicans are some of the most hierarchically obsessed people in this country. They've been giving tons of advantages and breaks to corporate criminals and the investor class for decades and it's screwing the rest of us. They treat everyone who isn't a rich, white Christian like the untouchables of India: let them live, and exploit them with no regard for mutual respect.

I agree.

Obama is one of the few politicians who might be aware of how unequal this is. I get his viewpoint because I've read his story and I've had the same kind of periods of my life as him (like closing myself into an apartment and smoking cigarettes nonstop, trying to figure out just what the hell is wrong with everything). I get the mindset, and I think I understand his character. I might be wrong, but I'd trust him over someone who swims with sharks in the corporate world anyday.

All politicians make promises they can't keep, im not saying he's a bad person (although the phone tapping is quite sinister) but maybe the state is an ineffective tool for change?

And I say what I say about loners because I am one, I know lots of them, and it isn't hard to see when someone has a problem conforming with social expectations just how most people view him or her.

Yet they still exist and you know lots of them. So not everyone automatically conforms. No one entirely fits social norms either.

I don't doubt that the readers of this site don't need hierarchy. Please understand that you're not normal. Other people are different. They need normalcy, and to have faith in something, both in this world and the next. So someone will always be in charge, and many of them will abuse the privilege.

you calling me a freak now
Normal is just a perception anyway, its subjective like everything else and can change. This is the sort of thing that was said about democracy but no one questions that now. People and society can change and adapt. Which is why i support evolution over revolution.

[Caz]

Oh yea, this should be interesting... although common ground doesn't seem to be the problem here. I'm going to skip around a bit in the hope that my overall viewpoint on humanity will become more clear...

(Well thats one way of looking at it but its a little simplified, no offense. It is true that not everyone is an entrepeneur but i deny outright the idea we are not self-interested. I also deny that this is the only reason more people aren't in business for themselves. Its pretty much universally accepted that one of the main benefits of working for your self is being your own boss. I know a number of people who own their own small business and ive also studied business in school and got an A so im not just making this up.
If there was no protectionism, both internally and externally, in the market then it would be more competitive do you agree?
With more competition more would-be entrepeneurs would be free to enter the market that dont or cant today. There would also be a more competitive labour market so even people who didn't want to own their own business would still make self-interested choices based on what job they wanted to get. Do you believe people are that apathetic that they wouldn't bother looking for a good job?
Besides more people are involved with the market now anyway, think about stuff like ebay.

Im well aware that some people are better at entrepeneurship than others, i am a market anarchist. Some people would probably choose wage labour, however that doesnt mean that isnt a self-interested choice so im not sure what your point is, i dont seek to end all employment.)

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. 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. 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.
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.

(The fact that "human nature" would be an accurate description of any trait present in humans means it covers such a wide variety of behaviour that i dont think there is much of a conclusion to be drawn from human nature since it will always be blatantly obvious or a hasty generalisation. In my opinion this makes us by default individualistic since everyones nature is slightly different and entirely their own. The fact that there isnt any real meaning to life other than what we make of it means that everything we do is an act of creativity since were making up our own purpose as we go along. However this individualism isnt so much a trait we all share as much as the lack of traits we all share.)

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...

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.
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.

(I dont believe we are naturally submissive, think about it if you tell someone they can do anything they want except for x then even if they dont do x they will without a doubt not want anything else than to do x. We are also quite a creative, competitive and inventive species, atleast many of us are anyway, since we wouldnt have been able to progress this far if we weren't. Creativity implies some level of individualism.)

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.

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.

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.

[Caz]

(All politicians make promises they can't keep, im not saying he's a bad person (although the phone tapping is quite sinister) but maybe the state is an ineffective tool for change?)

That's what I forgot. If anyone wants to argue that government is not inefficient, then you need mental help. Government doesn't have to be inefficient, but of course it is. As time goes on, all hierarchical organizations become fossilized and lose sight of efficiency as a goal. The companies that are efficient today will probably become inefficient in a generation or so. The structure of any business or cooperative or government needs to adapt, and therefore change, in order to maintain efficiency. The pattern that develops over time is one of new organizations being created, become strong, and then losing touch with the demands of its environment as it gets older and less flexible, eventually dying to make way for the new.

Basically, human organizations are alive. They live and die... The one's with a greater ability to adapt over time live the longest, but all of them are vulnerable to incompetence and obsolescence. They are also typically replaced by other organizations.

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!

[Baconator]

Hey,

I was just wondering your responses to the common question:
Isn't hierarchy natural? If so, then aren't we just fighting against nature?

All responses are good, but if I could get a detailed response to this it would be great.

If hierarchy were natural then there would be no dissent against hierarchy. We would all advocate some form of hierarchy. Can't fight nature.

I happen to think hierarchy is directly related to authority. What anarchists like me seek is to get rid of unjust authority. I believe you can have just authority but the state and capitalism definitely do not fit that description. Just authority would involve good parenting , coaches and baseball teams , architects being able to dictate structural engineering to builders, etc.

The key difference between a just and unjust authoritarian relationship is the issue of coercion. None of the aforementioned necessarily involve coercion as descriptive of the relationship. The opposite of coercion , of course , is voluntarism.