Anarchy

[Draco Dracul]

Anarchy literally means "without archons", which in ancient Greece were people who went about punishing people who didn't follow accepted custom. Police officers are the closest modern equivalent.

It doesn't mean that there are no rules; it doesn't mean that there is no structure to society.

Indeed and to maintain a hierarchy you need ridged enforcement of customs and norms. Hierarchy and structure aren't the same thing.

[Riedquat]

Anarchy literally means "without archons", which in ancient Greece were people who went about punishing people who didn't follow accepted custom. Police officers are the closest modern equivalent.

It doesn't mean that there are no rules; it doesn't mean that there is no structure to society.

The history and origin of a word does not mean that that is the "correct" use of the word nowadays.

[Riedquat]

Anarchy means a like of hierarchy. I would argue that hierarchy is by nature detrimental to democracy as it concentrates power I'm the hands of the few.

I'm assuming "like" is a typo for "lack."

And that simply doesn't work in anything other than a small group. For anything else things require organisation, especially if you don't want to live in the most basic lifestyle possible. Organisastion inevitably requires structure, which means hierachy, if for no other reason than the various jobs required end up becoming full time. Someone has to be doing the actual work, someone has to be doing the planning and organising. You have to have some form of law and enforcement unless you're prepared to let everyone fight over everything they want - which in any case will lead to the physically strong stealing everything and declaring themselves in charge anyway.

[Draco Dracul]

Anarchy means a like of hierarchy. I would argue that hierarchy is by nature detrimental to democracy as it concentrates power I'm the hands of the few.

I'm assuming "like" is a typo for "lack."

And that simply doesn't work in anything other than a small group. For anything else things require organisation, especially if you don't want to live in the most basic lifestyle possible. Organisastion inevitably requires structure, which means hierachy, if for no other reason than the various jobs required end up becoming full time. Someone has to be doing the actual work, someone has to be doing the planning and organising. You have to have some form of law and enforcement unless you're prepared to let everyone fight over everything they want - which in any case will lead to the physically strong stealing everything and declaring themselves in charge anyway.

Organizations do not require hierarchy. Planning and organizing can both be done collaboratively and while decoupled from explicit power. Again we're not talking a pure hypothetical here, this is how the Zapatistas in Mexico have operated for a quarter century and they're a group of over 100,000 people.

[McAvoy]

Can we have a seperate thread for anarchy? Doubt loan forgiveness will lead into that.

[Riedquat]

Anarchy means a like of hierarchy. I would argue that hierarchy is by nature detrimental to democracy as it concentrates power I'm the hands of the few.

I'm assuming "like" is a typo for "lack."

And that simply doesn't work in anything other than a small group. For anything else things require organisation, especially if you don't want to live in the most basic lifestyle possible. Organisastion inevitably requires structure, which means hierachy, if for no other reason than the various jobs required end up becoming full time. Someone has to be doing the actual work, someone has to be doing the planning and organising. You have to have some form of law and enforcement unless you're prepared to let everyone fight over everything they want - which in any case will lead to the physically strong stealing everything and declaring themselves in charge anyway.

Organizations do not require hierarchy. Planning and organizing can both be done collaboratively and while decoupled from explicit power. Again we're not talking a pure hypothetical here, this is how the Zapatistas in Mexico have operated for a quarter century and they're a group of over 100,000 people.

Planning and organising in a complex society is a full-time job. At the end of the day often someone has to make a decision, you need things in place for those when the decision doesn't go their way to have to accept the result for one thing. Your point about the Zapatistas doesn't count - I assume they are fully subject to the laws and organisastions of Mexico and not entirely independent, free to do whatever they want.

The idea anarchy can work is naive.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The crux of hierarchy has to do with bared responsibility. It's not an appeal to merit as much as contingency.

Coop organizations with a democratic board and governing structure can do well, and can pretty much stand out as the engineered human specimens did in the 90's. It's just a matter of how well you have directive principles and constitution that appeal to sustainable practices and goals. When you're specifically avoiding channeling the responsibility to one individual then you can actually focus on less one-dimensional aspects of growth in the form of profit margins... sorta.

That isn't the norm though. The more you consolidate responsibility to one individual, the easier it is to replace the observed cog in the system with a better proven one.

[Draco Dracul]

Anarchy means a like of hierarchy. I would argue that hierarchy is by nature detrimental to democracy as it concentrates power I'm the hands of the few.

I'm assuming "like" is a typo for "lack."

And that simply doesn't work in anything other than a small group. For anything else things require organisation, especially if you don't want to live in the most basic lifestyle possible. Organisastion inevitably requires structure, which means hierachy, if for no other reason than the various jobs required end up becoming full time. Someone has to be doing the actual work, someone has to be doing the planning and organising. You have to have some form of law and enforcement unless you're prepared to let everyone fight over everything they want - which in any case will lead to the physically strong stealing everything and declaring themselves in charge anyway.

Organizations do not require hierarchy. Planning and organizing can both be done collaboratively and while decoupled from explicit power. Again we're not talking a pure hypothetical here, this is how the Zapatistas in Mexico have operated for a quarter century and they're a group of over 100,000 people.

Planning and organising in a complex society is a full-time job. At the end of the day often someone has to make a decision, you need things in place for those when the decision doesn't go their way to have to accept the result for one thing.

Okay and what does giving the planners and organizers special status and privilege add to that? Most anarchist will agree to that, but why should planning an organizing not just be another job? Having organizers as the deciders rather than the ones executing decisions just means there is more room for oligarchy to form.

Your point about the Zapatistas doesn't count - I assume they are fully subject to the laws and organisastions of Mexico and not entirely independent, free to do whatever they want.

The idea anarchy can work is naive.

Do you mean de jure or defacto. By law they are still mexican citizens, but the mexican government and even just the state government in Chiapas has no actual power in Zapatista controlled territory.

[Riedquat]

Planning and organising in a complex society is a full-time job. At the end of the day often someone has to make a decision, you need things in place for those when the decision doesn't go their way to have to accept the result for one thing.

Okay and what does giving the planners and organizers special status and privilege add to that? Most anarchist will agree to that, but why should planning an organizing not just be another job? Having organizers as the deciders rather than the ones executing decisions just means there is more room for oligarchy to form.

I didn't say that planning and organising shouldn't just be another job, but it should be pretty obvious why it inevitably ends up the way it does, that's human nature for you (and it can be a very great burden of responsibility after all). But the point is that it still needs doing, which precludes anarchy.

Your point about the Zapatistas doesn't count - I assume they are fully subject to the laws and organisastions of Mexico and not entirely independent, free to do whatever they want.

The idea anarchy can work is naive.

Do you mean de jure or defacto. By law they are still mexican citizens, but the mexican government and even just the state government in Chiapas has no actual power in Zapatista controlled territory.

No actual power? They're not subject to any Mexican laws whatsoever, they can do whatever they feel like? And they don't receive anything from the rest of Mexico either, no access to infrastructure, information, health etc.? If they were invaded it would be "tough luck, you're on your own"?

[Draco Dracul]

Planning and organising in a complex society is a full-time job. At the end of the day often someone has to make a decision, you need things in place for those when the decision doesn't go their way to have to accept the result for one thing.

Okay and what does giving the planners and organizers special status and privilege add to that? Most anarchist will agree to that, but why should planning an organizing not just be another job? Having organizers as the deciders rather than the ones executing decisions just means there is more room for oligarchy to form.

I didn't say that planning and organising shouldn't just be another job, but it should be pretty obvious why it inevitably ends up the way it does, that's human nature for you (and it can be a very great burden of responsibility after all). But the point is that it still needs doing, which precludes anarchy.

If it's treated as just another job what makes it incompatible with anarchy? Because again anarchy is neither a lack of order nor a lack of organization, but an absence of hierarchy.

Your point about the Zapatistas doesn't count - I assume they are fully subject to the laws and organisastions of Mexico and not entirely independent, free to do whatever they want.

The idea anarchy can work is naive.

Do you mean de jure or defacto. By law they are still mexican citizens, but the mexican government and even just the state government in Chiapas has no actual power in Zapatista controlled territory.

No actual power? They're not subject to any Mexican laws whatsoever, they can do whatever they feel like? And they don't receive anything from the rest of Mexico either, no access to infrastructure, information, health etc.? If they were invaded it would be "tough luck, you're on your own"?

Pretty much. They are in fact officially at war with Mexico, though the conflict hasn't been active in some time.