Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.