One problem with anarchism and the small-scale localised voluntarism associated with it, might be that the formation of social hierarchies could be a biological rather than an economical factor. What I of course is referring to is not a class system but social relations between individuals.

Even in a baseball or soccer team organised entirely for socialisation, an indirect hierarchy has been established between alpha males and alpha females and the followers. The abolishment of capitalism (or the entire price system) or the state won't directly affect human behavior in that aspect, but rather encourage such formations - which indeed could be healthy.

The problem is of course that not all human beings are eager to learn or to adapt to the community, and that we have a considerable minority of people with very low popularity and talent, who are restricted in their opportunities to do harm against a social group in the current society by the officialised and inofficial hierarchies pertaining social relationships today, but in a society with equal opportunities, these individuals could very well play to limit other persons abilities to conduct successful projects.

Beware that this criticism is not put out to destroy anarchism, but to rather open up a discussion about it.

Given that the holonic model of organisation have some similarities with syndicalist federalism, I think it is highly relevant to modern technocracy as well.

First of all exactly what do you mean by the word hierarchy? If you mean a body of persons in authority, my understanding of anarchism that all authority is not necessarily discouraged only irrational authority is not allowed. If a person or group of people desires to coerce another or many other people to do something that they feel is in the best interests of the community, the burden of proof is on them to justify this. If it exists for no demonstratable reason it is not justified automatically because this person is some sort of recognized authority in the community.

If you mean the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social or professional standing, I don't know that all anarchists would be totally opposed to this, as long as we are not talking about economically derived hierarchies. If a person is highly skilled at something their opinion about this issue is certainly to be valued more than a person with no knowledge about the issue. I don't know if you would consider that to be hierarchical or not, rational authority is not a problem especially if you are insinuating a person or group is having a demonstratably negative effect upon the community.

I don't know for certain that hierarchy is innate if that is what you are implying, though I understand you said might and this is of course a possibility. Biology is however the least developed of all sciences due to its inherent complexity, how can it be demonstrated empirically that hierarchy is indeed a biological factor as you maintain?

However, in human groups hierarchies tend to form for non-rational reasons; because some is bigger and stronger or better looking etc. These types of hierarchies, if I understand anarchism correctly, go counter to anarchism.


.ui

Yes certainly they are counter to anarchism if they exist for no reason. I don't think such relations are valuable to the community or species. Why must such hierarchies be respected? There is good reason to prevent such relations from occuring. If one persons will is held to be less important than the will of another, for irrational hierarchical reasons, that is a master slave relation and must be abolished. Such relations cause conflict that could lead to physical violence.

Now, that’s a rational out look. However, most people don’t act rational which is why such hierarchies do form. The question then is, how do you prevent such hierarchies forming in an anarchy?

.ui

It is far easier to ask questions than it is to provide answers, but that is certainly a very important question that must be addressed by the anarchists. I am sure there are many different points of view but in my opinion a thorough education in the history of modern rationalism and empiricism would be helpful, especially the work of Kant. Perhaps education alone would not be enough though I think it would be significant.

I don't know for sure that most people act irrationally, but this is very possible. At the very least some people do and whatever system exists to control such people must be as unauthoritarian as possible and avoid excessive bureaucracy. The removal of the state and capitalism would not do away with ethics for the anarchists desire their disappearance for ethical reasons, specifically concerns about the accumulation of wealth and power. If someone is having a demonstratably negative effect on others there must be some sort of organized group of people that could be contacted that would deal with such complaints and it is up to the people doing the coercing to justify their actions.

Any ethical standards that people are to be held to must not contain logical fallacies or be founded upon pure a priori notions. It would be important for any such system of ethics or rationalist philosophy to be easily derived from sensations, for through what other faculty than sensations could such harmful behavior be detected? It would not be that different from an authoritative parent explaining to a child why certain harmful actions are not allowed in a clear and rational way, though perhaps this is a weak analogy. Maybe other people have more well developed notions about this than I do. It is definately very important to think about and I am glad you brought it up but I don't think that this constitues a weak point in anarchist philosophy.

If some group of people was trying to form a hierarchy and this was was obviously apparent, such as something reminicent of a fascist regime attempting to gain power over the society things would become far more complex. Certainly an anarchist society would need to be able to defend itself from such people if they became militant, though I'm not sure if this what you are implying. If significant conflicts arose between people who were highly hierarchical and others with anarchistic tendencies most likely the result would be physical violence or in other words the destruction of one of these groups through some sort of warfare. I think the prevention of highly authoritarian or hierarchical coups through physical violence, if it was truly justified which in most cases it would not be, would be desirable.

Will Daniels wrote:


Yeap, I think education does play a critical role, and yes, I think that will not suffice either. I think we also have to look at environmental design.

Will Daniels wrote:


The battle between those who believed people were rational and those who believed people were irrational was fought and won during the 20th century. Those who believed people were irrational won. Our current society exploits irrationality. Personally, I don’t see that as a problem, if this is who people are then that is how people are and we have to work with that. I don’t see that as preventing the formation of a rational society as people, even if they are predominately rational, can act rationally when needed.

Will Daniels wrote:


yes, agreed.

Will Daniels wrote:


Nope, I think that’s a good analogy. I think that is what we aim for with technocracy; an authoritative not authoritarian system. Expert rule so things are as they are because they are demonstratablely the best way to do things. But then, does this not go contrary to anarchism?

.ui

Dr. Wallace wrote:



I am not suggesting that irrationality does not play a significant role in most peoples lives. It seems to me that people use a combination of both maybe due to separation of function in the left and right hemispheres of the neocortex, I don't think it's as simple as win or lose. It could also be that the left hemisphere is more encouraged and so more well developed than the right making the irrational aspect of peoples personalities easier to manipulate. The right hemisphere is also very powerful and it is not absolute left hemisphere dominance or perfect rationalism that I desire. A balance between the two is probably best.

Perhaps they do lean towards being more irrational than rational but I don't think the majority are totally unreasonable, though I do think most support a flawed rationalism. Maybe they behave this way because irrationality is encouraged by people who wish to exploit this tendency in humans. If it was not reinforced so much it might be easier for them to think logically about things and see through intellectual traps laid by people designed to manipulate them. It also could be due to problems inherent in their education systems and so could be merely a local phenomenon that is existing only at this time in history before human cultures became well developed.

Dr. Wallace wrote:



The question amounts to an either or fallacy, it is more complicated than yes or no. However if I had to choose one then no I don't think this is contrary to the anarchism I support though perhaps some would disagree. It depends upon what you mean by rule and how these experts are selected. I think most anarchists support a highly organized society and would want the people making important decisions that affect many peoples lives to be well qualified to make good choices for the community. To quote Bakunin, "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker."