is non-hierarchy posible?

Economics Political Theory
21

under direct democracy, majority is boss, or what are people voting on? under what decisions is there a vote and for what is there self management?

how is the full product of ones labor determined? is there a chart or by democratic vote, in which majority vote is boss?

say there is a direct democratic vote on how a business will opperate, does someone on the losing side self manage and act a different way, leave the organization, follow the procedures establised by democratic vote, or another option?

cpr training being managed by a cpr specialist seems better then a democratic vote by 10 people that don’t know cpr outweighing the 1 person in the group that does know cpr.

22

There’s always a king,

under monarchy or dictator the king is the king, the king rules

under capitalism, everyone is the king of their own property, the individual rules

under the US constitutional republic everyone is king of some aspects of their property, and their elected representatives are the king of the rest, and are always vying to become the king of more of it at the owners expense. the politicians and their cronies rule

under direct democracy the majority is the king, if I want to go out to have a drink tonight I need the permission of the majority. It is the most suffocating heirarchy of all of them, a king or dictator cannot rule your every move, they or their agents, cannot be everywhere at once, but when the majority is always superior to every individual there’s always someone watching. The majority rules at the expense of every individual.

They are ALL heirarchical

23

I told you to stop with the idiotic posts.

I just said otherwise in the message you quoted. You can’t read either?

Being that I told you to stop will idiotic posts, and you didn’t, I will not be responding to your messages any more.

Under direcy democracy, you are your own boss. If you join any collective, you have an equal say as everyone in decisions that concern all of you.

By there not being anyone who didn’t labor and yer takes a part of it.

Follows the procedures established by democratic deliberation and vote or leaves the organization.

How is the cpr specialist suppose to assert himself as the trainer? Options are by force, by ownership of the cpr training facility, by decree of the owner of the cpr training facility (or his employee) or by democratic means. Someone being put in the manager position by any of those mechanisms doesn’t by itself prove that that someone is the right man for that position. Being put to be the cpr trainer by a capitalist or by a capitalist employee encharged with puting people in their positions doesn’t in no way guarantees that the right man (who is the best cpr specialist) will be put in the place of the trainer any more or less then the democratic means. The demoratic means are the legitimate option because there is no coersion and no hierarchy.

Direct democracy means everyone being in charge of things that concern them in the proportion that it concerns them, if something concerns only you, you are sole decider, if something concerns everyone, everyone should decide.

24

I told you to stop with the idiotic posts.

You don’t give orders here. So watch it.

25

I could put with your misunderstandings but now you are just being rude. It is one thing to come on to a forum with an opposing view of the majority of the people on it and argue your case, it is another to start insulting them.

Direct democracy is when the people that normally vote, vote on a specific policy or topic. In the uk we call this a referendum. You can get away with not voting like you can the general election but the results of the vote usually are still mandatory, even if you did not participate in the vote.

26

You just contradicted yourself. If I was my own boss, then everyone else wouldnt have “equal say” in decisions that affect me

When I leave I take my capital goods so everyone else doesnt try to alienate my labor.

27

I don’t know what hierarchy means. I don’t know what giving orders means. What you wear affects me because I have to look at it. These kind of statemenets insult the one who puts them forth, and if anyone’s insulting other people are those who write this kind of things, it insults the intelligence of anyone readin it.

A plebiscite is a mechanism that puts democracy into practice, but it doesn’t constitute it.

The would because it affects THEM, TOO. You being your own boss cannot legitmetaly infringe on other people’s right of the same.

You have been payed out for your capital good, they are the ownership of the coop.

28

I honestly don’t see how there is anything that different in this than running a business in a particularly eccentric way. Other than determining of course what “concerns” an individual. I mean who determines this? Obviously not the individual themselves, because then they could vote on anything and everything to control others.

Your assertion re democratic means being the “best” option because “no coercion or hierarchy” are involved are just that - assertions. Offer a rationale as to why.

I don’t know what hierarchy means. I don’t know what giving orders means. What you wear affects me because I have to look at it. These kind of statemenets insult the one who puts them forth, and if anyone’s insulting other people are those who write this kind of things, it insults the intelligence of anyone readin it.

Then define your terms. As for the comment re what you wear it is perfectly valid. I don’t feel my intelligence was insulted reading it. I think they’re perfectly valid points.

29

A hieracrchy is beneficial in a firm for the simple fact that some members have a superior knowledge about the firm when compared to others. It would not be in the best interest of the firm itself to let a member who has been on the job for 2 weeks have an equal say as someone who has labored there for 10 years. The new member can’t possibly understand the vast complexities of the firm, nor can they grasp the vision the firm has for the next 10 years. I’m sure we’ve all labored along side people who we wouldn’t want guiding our future.

30

Exactly why non-parties cannot dictate the terms of voluntary relations like employment. My employment relationship doesnt affect you so you have no standing to pass judgment on its legitimacy.

thats nonsense, youre trying to alienate my labor. The coop cant own anything because the coop cannot labor (labor is performed by workers, it cant be alienated so dont even try), therefore the coop cant mix labor with anything, and thus cannot have property. The capital belongs to the workers tha work it.

31

But the worker councils are made up of workers so they are the workers, dude! Don’t you get it?!?!?!

Worker councils are the pure Platonic essence of the workers that comprise(d) them, so they get to own things and when they take things from the workers, it’s really just the worker giving it to themselves!

32

Thats de facto alienation of labor, which is impossible, so it should be prohibited.

33

Stsoc: “You have been payed out for your capital good, they are the ownership of the coop.”

Loooool, so the co-op can do this but the employer cannot? LMAO. Man, you are one deluded dude.

34

Anarchism is not anti-hierarchical, it’s just another form of hierarchy. The ruling class is the majority. The ruled are the minority.

35

Yup, it’s basically the same hierarchical shit, except with less economic effiency. Hierarchy is never absent in the real world, except maybe if everyone goes to live in isolation from everyone else in the woods.

Funny how the logical conclusion of social anarchism is anti-social.

36

To be more precise, anarchism would allow only voluntary forms of hierarchy to arise in ad hoc fashion. There could be no compulsory hierarchy. Thus voluntarism is preseved.

The idea that “true” anarchism would eliminate all hierarchy assumes that people do not ever form hierarchies unless forced to do so. I think this is plainly untrue. Get any group together in ad hoc fashion and give them a goal and they will self-segregate into various leadership and follower roles quite naturally as in voluntary manner.

You mean this is the state in any non-anarch society. Yes.

It would also be true of any democracy. While the majority can vote to do things, the actual managing of those actions must fall to an oligarchy in practice, which becomes a forced hierarchy since these have the rule of law behind them.

37

By anarchism I mean left-anarchism, I don’t like using it to describe libertarian capitalism.

38

equal say in decisions that effect each person, so does that mean everyone has to vote each time subway wants to sell a sub? do people vote for a way of opperation and then follow it for some set period of time then vote again? if someone wants to not serve a sub that get’s ordered, is there a instantanius collective vote on what will be the consequence?

say 10 people take part in the labor, each a different percent, how do they figure out the percent? if two people work, one works 70% and the other 30%, are they paid 70% and 30% and how is it determined who did how much? do they have a supperviser recording data on how much each worker worked? does this person get paid or not get paid since he only recorded but did not labor on the actual product?

isint contributing capital, which took labor, contributing labor to a product? it took the resources bought with capital to create that product, and it took labor to get that capital, so is that not putting labor in to contribute to a product? how direct does labor need to be? does it not take labor to organize a company get products to create and sell? is the person that makes the sub the only one who labored for that sub, and not everyone who contributed to the process from contributing capital to structure to labor to get the ingrediants to make the sub.

why is it different to follow a vote from a organization or leave, and to follow the vote from a boss or leave?

owning the crp or by degree of the owner is voluntary and competition will create the success of those with the most competance and merit in decisions. what is the difference between decree of a owner vs decree of some collective? force is not a option in capitalism, nor this kind of democracy, but current types of democracy use all sorts of force that kill competition, while capitalism is all about freedom to compete.

in a business, every action effects the whole business, if the subway worker wants to in the middle of making a sub go to the bathroom and not wash his hands then touch food without wearing gloves, it will affect the business if someone gets sick from that decision and the business loses money and customers. how is it determined if something concerns only one person or many person? any business deal effects the whole company and community, how much does each person in the community get to be involved?

if there is a democratic vote on procedure, is each individual supposed to police himself on following that procedure without supervisers keeping track?

39

I agree. Autarchy is my preferred one-word descriptor for libertarian capitalism, as originally designated by Robert LeFevre.

40

The only thing I don’t like about it, Anenome, is that in English the chi in the word is pronounced the same way as a kappa would be, so autarchy becomes homophonous with autarky, a completely unrelated concept, perhaps with a contradictory association. Otherwise it’s perfect.