Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

6

ziq wrote

"The problem with anarchy is it doesn't give the state a monopoly on violence"

Boy are you confused.

0

Whatsthepoint wrote

Well if the government and police don't have the force monopoly... who does then?

I'm up for learning

7

ziq wrote (edited )

If you don't see how people can possibly live without a state's boot pressing into their skulls, then give up now. You'll never understand what it means to be free. Liberalism is in your best interests.

But in case someone else is reading who is actually open to the idea of living in actual community:

Anarchists handle disputes the same way people handled them for thousands of years before the notion of a police force was invented in the US (to catch escaped slaves).

That is to say - If someone does something fucked up, the community comes together and deals with it. We don't need a standing police force, we simply need the autonomy to manage our own communities. A group of townspeople are temporarily appointed to apprehend and try the person responsible. They then immediately disband so that they can't become corrupted by institutional power traps.

Without capitalism, there's no incentive to steal or do any of the other things people are pushed to do by our unjust system that gives the majority nothing and the minority everything. So it would be very rare that a member of a community would do something that would warrant their neighbors taking action against them.

0

Whatsthepoint wrote

OK, that makes sense, someone in your town, does something fucked up, the community come together, apprehend the individual, they get a trial, punished or rehabilitated (at a community run prison) then the temporary citizen police force, disbands.

But what happens if it's more than one person? What happens if it's a gang?

What happens if one day, everyone wakes up and there is a dead body, who deals with that, who investigates?

Then there is the issue of the army of Zoot. What happens when a quasi religion forms in the next town over, and they decide that by Devine right, the women in your town belong to them. They cannot be reasoned with... they attack your town in number, with training... it's 1am when they attack... by 1:30 half the town is taken over, and with communications disrupted, it's nearly impossible to mount a defense. And what defense would it realistically be?

If everything is equal everywhere...what is the motivation to risk your own life and fight, why not just run?

If you have a society that denies the specialisation of soldier or policeman, how can you be safe from insurgents and criminals?

It's not about the state having a jackboot. The state force monopoly is there to make people use dialogue.

How without state infrastructure are you going to maintain prisons, forensic scientists and labs, long winded investigations?

How do you protect yourself from an African warlord with a bunch of helicopter gunships, without an army?

How do you protect against piracy without a navy?

7

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm not writing you a whole book that addresses every theoretical scenario that could arise in an anarchist society, especially since I don't even believe in utopian revolution.

Look at the wiki's reading list if you want to develop a real understanding of what the world would look like without hierarchy. Hint: None of your scenarios would make any sense.

Millions of people are imprisoned, oppressed, enslaved, killed by capitalism and statism every year. Your idealized, safe capitalist world doesn't exist.

There is no anarchy I would be apart of that involved prisons. Always read the basics before demanding people spoonfeed their theory to you.

And like I said before, people who think a violent state is saving them from hordes of pirates and warlords that want to steal their wives - these aren't people that are compatible with anarchy. Just stay a liberal.

1

dele_ted wrote

especially since I don't even believe in utopian revolution

Can you elaborate? Why don't you? I personally wouldn't consider anarchism utopia to begin with, since utopia is defined as a society without any issues at all. Of course there would still be issues, and life would still be difficult, but the issues wouldn't be as vast as the ones the capitalist society presents.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Because the power disparity between us and our rulers is too big. And we're out of time. They've destroyed the environmemt so thourougly that the only way for things to change now is through collapse - which is about to hit us right smack in the face.

There are no anarchist militias preparing to face down the full might of the military industrial complex with rifles. There is no anarchist propaganda machine that can influence even 0.1% of the people conditioned by the ruling classes to submit to tyranny and mass destruction.

Revolution was only possible in a bygone age when the people had the same level of firepower as their captors. And the will to use it.

Everything will collapse in on itself because of the capitalists' greed. Then we'll have the opportunity for anarchy. But it won't be an utopia, it'll be a fucking brutal battle between anarchy and fascism with the odds strongly against us.

Anarchy is a state of mind. Utopias are for sheltered liberals with no idea what the world is. We'll always need to fight for anarchy.

-2

Whatsthepoint wrote

OK, let's keep it real then.

How does this anarchist non-state, with any permanent infrastructure deal with an international and deeply hostile foreign based movement like ISIS?

For them, it's not about taking your things, it's about throwing gay's off a roof, and executing anyone who doesn't follow their fascist belief system.

Their is nothing hypothetical there. How do you protect against something like that without full time staff, how do you organize such staff and provide oversight and transparency without the creation of an institution, and how do you manage several necessary institutions without some form of governance.

8

ziq wrote (edited )

You of course realize the people who defeated ISIL in Syria practice Democratic Confederalism; an offshoot of anarchism?

People win wars, not states.

It's actually pretty funny that you're using ISIL as your example. The US created ISIL. Our comrades defeated it.

https://www.ypgrojava.org/About-Us

-5

Whatsthepoint wrote

The US didn't create Isis. The anarchy and lawlessness in Iraq created Isis.

And while the Kurdish did much to fight Isis, are true socialists andbhave some off-the-wall hottest female soldiers that side of the idf... it was Russia and the brutality of Russian special forces that defeated Isis.

6

ziq wrote (edited )

ISIL is only defeated on the ground, by the communities it terrorizes. Foreign air strikes are useless against ideology.

The US didn't create Isis. The anarchy and lawlessness in Iraq created Isis.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

And who the fuck do you think created 'lawlessness' in Iraq by bombing it into rubble and stealing its oil?

Not going to engage you any more. Willful ignorance isn't a good look.

-6

Whatsthepoint wrote

Find out what happened to the spetznas in Chechnya, you will understand why the spetznas have a bee in their bonnet for jihadis.

Russia went in on the ground. They fought hard.

And please....do keep your guardian links, one of the worst propaganda papers there is.

As for your logic.... we don't need force monopoly ensuring the rule of law... your threats are hypothetical....Isis was created by lawlessness

6

chameleon wrote

And please....do keep your guardian links, one of the worst propaganda papers there is.

"Anything I disagree with is propaganda now" could you make your Trumpism any more obvious

1

Whatsthepoint wrote

I used to think it was a legitimate source, but read an in depth article long ago about something relating to international affairs that I had intimate knowledge of... it was amazing how they twisted the facts and the narrative into a pro-west point of view. Leaving out several key details and obvious things.

6

dele_ted wrote

Anarchists aren't incapable of defending themselves, and shaping an army when the situation calls for it. The army wouldn't be incompetent, or disorganized, as you seem to think. Leaders (strategics, organizers and so on - not leaders with authority) are welcome in anarchism, as long as the people approve of them and feel that the plans they present is valid.

Ziq's reply sums things up very well, we have the perfect example right now, on this very planet, although they might not last much longer against the huge capitalist armies that's constantly attacking them (Erdogan, primarily) because the fascists know that self-governance means trouble for their positions of power.

On top of all that, it's common knowledge by now that America funded Islamic State. Not because of shifting alliances, as your average mass media might explain, but because it gave them an excuse to invade, destroy and enslave a country that could potentially have been a threat in the near future, since they were giving up on trading oil in the american dollar, refusing the implementation of a central bank, refusing the construction of the pipeline through their country, among other things. While the state is thriving, ordinary citizens everywhere is suffering on their behalf. This is the reality of the monopoly on violence, that you so eagerly want to afford the state.

1

Whatsthepoint wrote

If an attack comes, it's too late to organise.

The Kurds had their army long before Isis turned up.

I am very aware of the situation in Syria, you left out the part how the Turkish secret service were the people leading the FSA

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

Whatsthepoint wrote

OK well first of all thank you for typing up so much about the Wahhabi islamofascist organisation that is Isis.

I will be amazed if anyone here can tell me something about Isis I don't already know.

But I fear the details of Isis, it's funding and support structure, ideological basis, logistics, n number, interactions with the global front for the jihad against the Jew's and crusaders (to give al Qaeda / as nusra it's proper name) and the haqqani network are going a little off topic.

On the topic at hand, you mention

The state force monopoly is there to make people use dialogue.”

this is not true. this monopoly is designed to keep us in line and prevent us from having a way to fight them off. the argument that this is to keep us peaceful and talking rather than barbaric and fighting is propaganda.

Thing is, in order to 'keep us in line and prevent us from having a way to fight them off' a force monopoly is not required. Only a force majore.

A force monopoly, does not even need to be held by the organization that has the greatest force.

Force monopoly means literally that. The state is the only one who can legally sanction the use of force.

If there is not a force monopoly, then it's OK for people, or organisations, to use force as they feel appropriate.

This could lead to some very dangerous situations, socially, practically and politically

1

[deleted] wrote

1

Whatsthepoint wrote

Actually, it is very clear that it is YOU who has a bigoted view of Muslims.

You seek to judge and understand another culture and judge it by your own cultural standards. I believe thats called cultural imperialism.

[ISIS] it's made up of delusional people, [...], who require a state force to tell them what to do

The same could be said about the waffen SS, are you going to tell me that they wern't facists too now?

This whole attempt to remove Islam from ISIS, to say that they are simple mercenaries is the height of ignorance. Yes, the fighters were paid (and recieved their cut of the 'spoils', including women as per the Haddith). But the going rate for a mercenary is $1-3000 per day. ISIS "mercenaries" earned less than that a month.

Yes I too have gay muslim friends (avid Quranists who reject the Haddith in it's entirety), but I also know people who grew up in places like Somalia (that country in Africa that has no government) and other Muslim countries. I know many Muslims, and many of them are my friends.

But for YOU to judge, that the version of Islam that fits in nicely with your western liberal values are the "right" Muslims who are correctly interperting the Quran (literal word of god) and the version of Islam that goes against your western values is the "wrong" kind of islam, followed only by the delusional, is as much ignorant as it is offensive.

I have read the quran (not the Haddith, can't be bothered, too many of em, and what I have read is really cunty), have you?

I have had long conversations, often at times getting metaphysical about Islam, with various Muslims of varying degrees of piety and who have a variety of different views with regards to society and Islam.

From gay quranists to Sharia will create a utopia reverts, and many in between.

The primary funding ISIS relied on was the sale of it's oil on the black market, often through Turkey. Yes of Course Saudi Arabia (home of Wahhabism) had a role to play, it is their belief structure ISIS was promoting, after all... "the only thing worse than a Jew is a shia, but not by much" (direct quote I've heard more than once, said with a smile as a 'joke', often with the other person finishing the sentence)

And I'm sure from your position of knowledge, you know all about the conflicts, history, theological differences and political animosity between the Sunni and Shia muslims right?

But no...Muslims are being 'oppressed' so they must be our allies, and there for their goals, values and ideals must align with ours right?

Islam, is a multi-faceted complex religion, it has it's dark parts and issues, and while there is a desire for reform (to a point) there is also a deep cultural resistance to 'religious innovation', that is unlikely to be overcome within Muslim countries anytime soon.

You can't and shouldn't judge someone based on their religion (Islam or otherwise), but to say that the fighters and leaders of ISIS, along with many of the people who are doing fucked up shit like stoning adulterers are not Muslim, or don't believe they are being 'good' Muslims. Is a bit like saying those abortion clinic or westboro protesters don't believe in Jesus, or aren't christian.

In truth you know very little about what you claim to be in a position to judge.

Feel free to prove me wrong, and answer this simple question (that anyone with a basic understanding of Islam can answer for you)

If it says it's ok to drink and gamble in the quran, and even instructs how much its ok to drink and gamble, why do Muslims consider it haram to drink and gamble?

2

[deleted] wrote

1

Whatsthepoint wrote

You're getting boring, especially as you keep misreading, or are unable to retain what I say when you post.

Firstly:

you quote on these types of forums using the pointy bracket ">"

2: I have not read the hadith, and did not say I read the hadith. I pretty much said the opposite.

  1. Quranists are a thing (they even have a website) and by the sounds of it you are. One.

Worth noting that according to all streams of Islam (except the questions) you are not a Muslim if you do not accept the hadith. If you are already a Muslim, and you reject the hadith, this is even classed by some as apostasy.

I was amazed, surprised and still do not fully understand why the big hate for Quranists, but loads get killed every year because of it, even in the west.

Keep that one to yourself unless amongst friends.

3: I didn't say I know the correct interpretation of the Quran. It is generally one of the central tenants of the Muslim faith that it is the literal word of god.

  1. You clearly have no idea what an islamofascist is. It means literally the opposite of what you think. It is the pushing, promoting, preaching, of the Islamic faith and Sharia law using fascist methodology. Think Hitler with a beard.

  2. There were many answers to my final question actually. Pity you didn't answer.

  3. I fucking dare you to tell a wahabbi he is not Muslim.

2

[deleted] wrote

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

lol, race card - pathetic

There was me thinking that people on this site would.

a. have a basic understanding of what fascism is

b. Be generally against fascism.

You clearly don't.

I would never dream of calling a zionist a jewish fascist, because zionists are not fascists. They are many many things, but they are not fascists.

You can go to Israel, you can say to whomever you like, that Zionism is the height of bullshit, even that the religion of Judaism is nonsense from a by gone age, and thats fine. Hell as I discovered when I went there, you will probably be suprised how many Israeli's actually agree with you #freepalestine

If you want to talk about christian-fascists, you have to go back to either the crusades, or the inquisition, or the day's of burning heretics. In those days if you went against the teachings of the church, you were punished. These days, even the most extreme, mouthbreathing westboro baptist fuckwits aren't fascists. They won't punish you for not being christian.

There are many places in the world where you cannot be critical in anyway of Islam, or of the interpretation of islam that exists locally. There are many in the middle east and more in the west who are concerned about islamofascism, who are muslims. If you genuinely believe that all doctrines are open to fascism but somehow Islam is special and isn't, then you clearly have your head in the sand.

Be really wonderful to hear your opinion about the people sitting in jail for sending a tweet that was deemed un-islamic in KSA.

Or what you would say to the shopkeeper who got stabbed to death, because his quran only interpretation of islam, went against the official hadith included doctrine

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

Anarchism isn't for the privileged. It's for the 'pirates' who are forced to take from you lot to survive. It's for the people.

The police exist to protect the rich from us. Your militaries exist to steal from us and enrich you and yours.

You're asking how anarchism is gonna benefit your privilege. It aint. It'll make you our equal.

0

Whatsthepoint wrote

What's with the "us and them" mentality.

There are many more things that motivate people than consumerist crap

4

Defasher wrote

What's with the "us and them" mentality

Says the person who wants us to believe we need states so 'African warlords' don't kill us.

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

Well the royal navy was formed (creating the UK's national debt) because Moroccan slavers and pirates kept raiding seaside towns and villages and taking the people to do with as they please...

Those who ignore history....

3

dele_ted wrote

Think about that example again. Slavers were raiding towns... Hmm...

Let me clear it up for you: slavers are the very same kind of people that run your state today. They'll do what it takes to get power, even if it means enslaving people who should be your equals, or, in the case of the modern western government, bomb civilians back to the stone age and legitimize a war on structures and civilians by calling them terrorists, and then refuse the few survivors refuge in your country, because "Our country is for our citizens". What I'm trying to say is, the slavers were competing capitalists, and your country naturally must tear competitors down in order to gain more power. Defending oneself from attackers isn't some heroic sign of justice. The western government is much worse than the slavers of the past when it comes to invading and destroying.

-1

Whatsthepoint wrote

What you are describing, are mercantile capitalists.

Slavers are slavers. There are more slaves in slavery today than all the slaves put together during the 'slave trade' of the plantation days.

I'm all on board with the system being broken, but this is not a reason to get rid of government or to remove the force monopoly from the body of governance (in what ever shape that governance takes)

2

dele_ted wrote (edited )

I'm all on board with the system being broken, but this is not a reason to get rid of government or to remove the force monopoly from the body of governance (in what ever shape that governance takes)

I think we're getting to the core of things now. Let's focus on this:

this is not a reason to get rid of government

As we can all agree, and it seems like you see this too, the government is the very source of all these issues. There would be no war even close to as large-scale as the ones we're seeing now, exploitation (in all its forms; including not just the exploitation of "the others", those on the other side of the planet, but also the exploitation that private property and currency brings along with it) would cease without hierarchy. Mass manipulation and the ignorance that it spawns would cease. Life in itself would change, and go from being dull, lifeless, and focused primarily on getting a respectable career and gathering a larger stack of money than your friends and neighbours, so that you can drive your fancy lamborghini to work every morning (although you'll still be dreaming of having a ferrari, just like your boss, because you've checked the price online and it's a lot pricier, which means you're empty and unfulfilled until you acquire it, or something even more badass, thanks to all your hard hours of work), to being focused on the individual in a community, an individual who develops himself naturally and, with time, independently, to become more than the fucking dogs we are now; to become a wolf, and do away with domestication.

or to remove the force monopoly from the body of governance

Well, the people, the individuals that make up the community, are obviously the governing entity. They will all share the responsibility of punishing those that deserve to be punished, however they may choose to do that. There can be no monopoly when there is no hierarchy.

For a moment, you need to change your view on this discussion. Stop replying because you want to win, and consider the other option for an hour or two. If you have a night to yourself and have time for a short documentary, watch Accidental Anarchist. I found it to be a good introduction to self-governance and a life without hierarchy.

2

Whatsthepoint wrote

Thank you for the link, I watched it and found it to be quite good.

Like, don't get me wrong, I understand the ideals, but would you not say that hierachy is the natural state of play when any complex task is to be undertaken by a large group of people.

Even in the Kurdish example given in the documentary, there was clearly a government pecking order. The regional council, able to overrule a local council, thus still open to the 'tyranny of the majority'.

For small comunities a flat model works just fine. I read a study long ago, that the maximum number of people that can effectively self-govern in a flat structure (usually existing in histpry as a tribe with a chief - who requires popularity and often does little more than to chair meetings) is 30. After that you require a 'council of elders' and that gets you up to about the 200-250 mark at a push (from memory).

Beyond the 250 person headcount, you need to have some 'structures' in place.

As any project gets bigger - in this case the project of governance - the task becomes more and more complex. As a system becomes more complex, it cannot be expected for all parts and parties of the system to be up to speed in what every other part is doing.

The advantage of having a complex system, is that you can have greater specialisation. This naturally leads to hierachies, but not neccessarily in pyramid form.

I have experience as a worker, team leader, manager and director. The hierachy is not about being able to lord over people, it's about the flow of information, it's about checks, balances and making sure everyone is happy.

It's also about responsibilty and ownership (of mistakes). Because it's all very well and good when things are going great, but as soon as things fuck up, people don't like to take the blame.

I think, in the west, the only people who are living "dull, lifeless," lives have only themselves to blame. Do something. Be something.

The danger of having the "community" decree all use of force, is that mob mentality and mob justice is rarely calm and considered. Either everyone is required to keep abreast of all things at all times, or you have to provide them with an information dump when a decision is required.

The natural hierachy prevents this. The ownership of decisions and responsibility for their outcomes, encourages choices to be considered before being made.

Thats not to say that the system as it stands now is anything but broken. But to gimp society and force it to be entirely flat is I feel, counter intuetive, inefficient, and perhaps even dangerous.

Mob decisions, also remove an ability to learn from mistakes. if 50 people all made a decision, and that turned out to be a bad decision, how do you go about determining why that decision was made, and how such mistakes can be prevented in the future? There is no clear audit trail of information.

Not to mention, that sometimes, the best decision, and the popular decision, will not always be one and the same.

We are about to enter an age disrupted by technology, jobs may soon become a thing of the past with the rise of the machine and robots. There is a better way forward, a more equal way forward. But I'm as yet convinced it is anarchism.

I think you can have a system with hierachy, that is still equal. That still treats each person equally and fairly.

2

dele_ted wrote

Beyond the 250 person headcount, you need to have some 'structures' in place.

We can have structures without hierarchy. Take a look at this chapter in the Wikipedia article on the CNT, a Spanish anarcho-syndicalist confederation of labor unions. Their decision-making process is relatively simple, required no hierarchy and worked very, very well. It had some downsides and flaws, as any decision-making system does, but it's far from the organized chaos of politics in a capitalist system, or the opression of a monarchy.

The advantage of having a complex system, is that you can have greater specialisation. This naturally leads to hierachies, but not neccessarily in pyramid form.

Specialisation does not lead to hierarchy, not sure how you concluded that. Again, read up on CNT, they're a great example of how very large anarchistic communities could potentially organize and make decisions.

The danger of having the "community" decree all use of force, is that mob mentality and mob justice is rarely calm and considered. Either everyone is required to keep abreast of all things at all times, or you have to provide them with an information dump when a decision is required.

It's not like the community would just yell some random punishment that they feel is fitted for an individual who, for some reason comitted i a crime (there's not much reason to commit crime in an anarchist society. Everyone get's what they need, there is no currency or anything like it. Stealing an old lady's purse wouldn't make any sense at all, since it won't contain any money, and you could just go to the local leather-worker and get yourself one like it). There would be guidelines for punishments, or some other system to keep punishments fair. It is of course in the best interest of the community to have a fair and justified crime and punishment system.

Not to mention, that sometimes, the best decision, and the popular decision, will not always be one and the same.

Through the decision-making processes of anarchism, those who cared and joined the discussion would discuss the matter until they landed on a decision that they felt was good. There's absolutely no reason to believe that the very few people in power right now are any better at making decisions on our behalf than we ourselves are.

I think you can have a system with hierachy, that is still equal. That still treats each person equally and fairly.

You cannot. Hierarchy means one gets to dominate another, even if the guy who was born into domination lower down in the hierarchy wants no part of your hierarchy. We can of course have leaders, strategics and so on that are specialised in certain fields of decision-making, and the people will trust that what they have to say is not to be taken lightly, but as soon as anyone gets to rule over another, freedom vanishes. Look at it this way: Everyone has a sphere of freedom. If one sphere grows, another shrinks. One cannot grow his sphere of freedom without taking away just as much from anothers sphere of freedom. If one person has a bigger sphere of freedom than another, freedom is abscent. Freedom can only be equal freedom (not to be confused with equality).

jobs may soon become a thing of the past with the rise of the machine and robots

You would have thought that the development of advanced machines up until now would mean we could work less, right? That's what they said in the 60's when we started really developing our machinery. Somehow, though, our work-hours have only gone up, and work has become something very different and more demanding than in the past. Our machines have the potential to create abundancy and make the world a better place, but they have instead only assisted the elite in conquering and enslaving. We must return to a simpler life, one without a shadowy deep state and men with more power than you could ever imagine, one where we are all equally free (or at least as equal as possible).

-4

Whatsthepoint wrote

Hierachy is not about domination. It really isn't.

I am aware that you and many others have experienced managers and directors for whom it really is exactly about that, but those ego driven lemons are not a true example of what it's about. Often abusing their power or having some kind of ego trip.

The truth is (and I say this from direct experience) when you are the manager, and even more so when you are the director. If you are doing your job right, your ego comes flat last. What you want, and what makes you happy, is less than secondary to what your staff want, and what keeps them happy.

When there is trust both ways, honesty and equality this is the best way. And I'm going to give you some examples. One real world, from my own experience. One hypothetical, to illustrate a point.

Real world:

In one of my first managerial roles, I was for all intents and purposes the head of department, with 8/9 permanent office staff. The work was fairly mundane and dull, and of the kind that generally speaking, there was a specific body of work that needed to be completed every month.

Part of my role was to dole out the work everyday. My role was also to monitor how much work people were actually doing, to occasionally double check the work, admin shit, and motivation.

I got to know everyone in my dept. their personality (helped by the nepotism of hiring friends or friends of friends where possible) and part of my job, was to understand their ebb and flow.

Sometimes, looking at the numbers, I would see that a person is working at a really low rate, this is generally a sign that something is up, something is getting them down. So I would talk to them, find out what was up and try and help if I could, or point them in a positive direction. Sometimes all required was a little chat, being silly in the metting room and letting them take it easy for the afternoon (which usually involved me taking up the slack, and doing some of their work)

I also got to know the general ebb and flow of the energy levels of the people in my dept. And would dole out the work using this information. 'so and so' is bouncing off the walls with energy today, he can have a bit more work, meanwhile 'xyz' who was going at it last week is starting to feel a bit burnt out, she can have less work to do.

And you could argue, that with a morning meeting, the dept. could come to all of these conclusions themselves. I would argue that it wouldn't go quite as smoothly, but will agree that such a case could easily be mooted and would contain some valid points.

However. There were times when people had things going on in thier life. Things they wouldn't be comfortable bringing up in a public meeting. They would let me know, and without giving reasons, I would shift 90% of thier work onto others. I would manage the situation. It's also worth noting that some personalities are more shy, these people in a free-for all situation would struggle. There are quite a few people who dont want the extra 'mental load' and just want to get on with the work.

The people knew and understood this, they knew and trusted that there were valid reasons behind my decisions and that I would always do my best to keep things equal in the end. They didn't have to worry about the big deadlines, or how happy the big moody clients were, or what the overall strategy for the department was. And believe me, they didn't care, coming to the consensus that the big stuff meetings could be better spent as Yoga and talking shit meetings. They wanted to come to work, do work, feel useful, and leave the office behind when they left for the pub at the end of the day.

My fate was not so easy. I couldn't just leave the office at the office. I had a whole bunch of crap I had to keep on my mind. In many ways it was a pyramid, with me on the pointy end because I was the one in charge, but that pyramid was pointing down. They came first, I came 2nd. That was the true hierachy, and me being in the position where I would tell people what to do, didn't change that.

hypothetical example:

I've talked about how hierachy of information, and thus leadership is useful in complex systems, but as an example, im going to create a fairly simple one.

99 plots of land, each farmer responsible for 3, 5 different crops all wanting differnt soil, 1 soil testing scientist.

We are going to focus on the soil scientist. He likes being in nature, pottering about in the soil, riding his bicycle, and running the tests in the lab. He can test 2 fields per day.

Perhaps at first, it's easy to say, the soil scientist needs no boss, he can just go where he pleases, as long as he works it's fine. But actually when you think about it, by giving the scientist this "freedom" to just pick his own work, you are actually giving him more work.

He now needs to be aware of the farmers schedules, which farmer is going to farm which land, what the seed levels are for each crop, their delivery time scales, etc etc.

This is giving him extra mental load. He now has to start each day staring at several spreadsheets, and making sure they are up to date, calling people on the phone, sending e-mails, chasing things up.

Add an administrator, who tells him "go test field x and y today", and all he has to worry about, is being the best soil scientist he can.

The administrator isn't above him, just because he is telling him what to do, he is helping the scientist do his job.

2

dele_ted wrote (edited )

It's great that you can handle being in a position of power, but you're one in a thousand. It's also worth considering that you might be in a position of power, but you're very, very far away from the top of the pyramid, where the bankers and deep state officials reside.

Hierarchy is not abusive or dominating in itself, but it leaves the possibility wide open, the only thing stopping abuse being ethics, which a lot of people have managed to completely subdue (bringing me to another issue: those without ethics are those that do best in a capitalist system, and are more likely to gain power - but that's off topic).

The only complete solution to this is to abandon hierarchy. Remember, not all people are as ethical as you are, and those in the top sure aren't (they wouldn't have gotten there if they were, since "winning" in a capitalist society means exploiting and cheating as much as possible). This is the reason why the system is broken: a handful of folks are in control of almost fucking everything on this earth, and will do whatever it takes to gain control of what's left. They are detached from society and manage to live without morals, and don't see the consequences of their actions as directly as you do.

edit: To clarify, the big issue here isn't the asshole managers or bosses. It's those at the top of the hierarchy. And as long as there is hierarchy, there will be some people at the top, and they will be detached and apathic, because that is what gets them there. In our situation, in our capitalist world, the difference between the top 0.1% and the bottom 99.9% is significant, which is the inevitable long-term results of hierarchy (and it's only getting worse: in 2017, the top 1% took 82% of all new wealth, while the bottom half got absolutely nothing. Source).

1

[deleted] wrote

1

Whatsthepoint wrote

Human slavery is something that existed for thousands of years, and still exists to this day. There are more slaves alive today than at any point in history (more than all the slaves during the plantation days put together).

It's very easy to blame the white european imperialists for the slave trade, to blame the white europeans for it's creation. The akward truth is, that the culture of slavery already existed in Africa when the Europeans showed up. The practice was actually fairly common in the region. If two tribes / villages went to war, it was common practice for the victor to take posession of the losers land, animals, property, and people (as slaves). There were not mobs of white europeans riding around africa, rounding up the locals. Every slave sold to the european imperialists was sold to them by an African. Many had already been slaves for some time in Aftrica, before they were sold and put on the boats.

What the europeans did do, was increase the value of slaves, which, once existing local 'stock' were sold off, did lead to an increase in inter tribal / village warfare as there was now more to be gained from defeating your enemy. The spoils that before would have been in the form of some extra laborours / concubines, could now be sold to the europeans and used to purchase weapons or other items.

The Europeans, Americans, as well as the African slavers of course profited from this.

The UK was the first country to get rid of slavery. Unfortunately, on a legal basis it was not as simple as just passing a law to make it illigal. Slaves, being classed at the time as property, gave their owners certain rights, and it would have set a dangerous president of 'property seizure' by the government that was deemed unexceptable.

The sollution found was to use 'eminent domain' rights already existing in law. But this limited the government to 'compulsary purchase orders'. Feeling that slavery was unchristian and having already decided that the chattling of slaves on ships went against the Magna Carta, the decision was made, and the government 'bought' every slave within the realms controlled by the UK.

It's worth noting, that this cost the government a lot of money. The amount of money spent on freeing the slaves came to just over 60% of the nations GDP. To this day it is still the largerst single ticket expense any goverment has made in the world ever, by orders of magnitude.

While this did not put a stop to the British impirialist actions, and they went on, via 'state sponsored' mercentile companies to exploit much of the world to great national profit at the expense of other. Slavery itself as a whole, ended up as a net loss to the British. (though of course certain individuals did do very well from the whole sordid affair)

It was an unregulated group of people that developed the slave trade. It was a regulated government that ended it.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

Whatsthepoint wrote

Statistics are publicly available.

The country that mainly benefited was America.

Overt slavery still happening on a large scale in the middle east. But we need oil, so who gives a fuck, besides if we make a noise about it, some oil shill will just call us islamophobic, so fuck it.