Political Theory

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Anenome — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 00:31:03 GMT

Aristippus:

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.

Yeah, but autarky as an economic policy concept, meaning economic isolationism, is largely dead in modern parlance. So I think the usage as a designator for an-cap is much better. Most people outside economics don't even know the historical usage of 'atarky' which dates back to the 70's.

Meanwhile, by using an-cap or straight 'anarchy' we literally confuse ourselves with leftist-bomb-throwing anarchs of the late 1800's and early 19th, we're immediately conflated with anarchy as a social system too, which is not what we mean to say at all.

Thirdly, you say 'autarchy' and people hear a word they've never heard before and thus don't come to it with preconceptions to first overcome, such as if you say 'anarchist' or 'an-cap' which still has anarch in there.

I think it's something that we could start using and embrace generally. Let them be anarchists. We'll be autarchists. Never the twain shall meet.

Beyond that, the word 'autarchy' literally means what we mean when we say an-cap. We don't mean literally no ruler, we mean each person ruling themself. This word undercuts the usual argument that anarchy would be, well, anarchy, meaning chaos. We believe it wouldn't be chaos, but a stable and peaceful society.

With a new word comes the chance to reform associations. I don't think 'anarchy' can ever be resuscitated in the public mind. But 'autarchy' is non-threatening, and may have that chance.

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Anenome — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 00:25:32 GMT

cab21:

equal say in decisions that effect each person, so does that mean everyone has to vote each time subway wants to sell a sub?

Yes, that's one logical consequence. If each person has 1/7 billionth ownership in everyone else, then all must be consulted before you can take any action, since it would affect the property rights of those other partial owners.

If you instead delegate representatives, you've now created hierarchy, and a de factor oligarchy, for control devolves to that oligarchy and not to the original electors.

Communism based on common ownership is impossible in principle and in fact. If held to perfectly, the human races perishes by inaction. If compromised to representatives, the principle is destroyed by investing all power in an oligarchy that quickly becomes the new ruling class.

cab21:

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

Clear it's not. Will he admit this? Clearly not :P

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Aristippus — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 00:13:13 GMT

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.

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Anenome — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 00:02:18 GMT

Buzz Killington:

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

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

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

cab21 — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:30:32 GMT

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?

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Buzz Killington — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:52:28 GMT

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

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Anenome — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:40:39 GMT

Buzz Killington:

Anarchism is not anti-hierarchical, it's just another form of hierarchy.

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.

Buzz Killington:

The ruling class is the majority. The ruled are the minority.

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.

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Buzz Killington — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:39:08 GMT

Loooool, so the co-op can do this but the employer cannot?

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.

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Buzz Killington — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:33:47 GMT

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

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Anenome — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:30:02 GMT

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.

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Malachi — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:48:41 GMT

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

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:42:07 GMT

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!

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Malachi — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:22:44 GMT

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

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.

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

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.

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Prime — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:03:13 GMT

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.

Re: is non-hierarchy posible?

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:12:31 GMT

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.