they’re referring to anarchist federalism, which scales in principle from neighbourhoods and work groups up to nations.
And if decisions are at rhe lowest possible levels then it seems like thats a hierarchy, which is more horizontal rather than not being a hierarchy.’
And i dont know what you meam by “the position” or “temporal” or “at the start” and that it “changes everything”.
horizontalism does not create a hierarchy, because a hierarchy (from Greek, for ‘rule of priests’) is a structure which creates superiors and subordinates.
say there’s a community — a geographical neighbourhood, a nongeographical group with shared interests, a workgroup… — that holds meetings on their own self-management and needs. when their needs concern more than themselves, then they delegate someone to communicate their concern to a larger (‘higher’) group — a city, a region, an industry — on a mandate: that they are temporary (till the concern is resolved, till the end of a project, or for an arbitrary time decided by the group); that they represent the group consensus; and that they can be recalled for any reason, more specifically in the event that they aren’t fulfilling their obligations to the group they represent.
proposals go up a chain, and revisions/changes are sent back down the chain. this cycle continues until the smallest (‘lowest’) groups are in agreement, with that agreement communicated by the delegates up to the largest relevant group. with a population like the US, these rounds of consensing can be done in the span of a month: https://participatoryeconomy.org/project/computer-simulations-of-participatory-planning/.
this structure can take infinite forms, but those structures remain fundamentally similar and therefore compatible.
when the GP says ‘this changes everything’, they mean that the temporary and recallable nature of holding a special role in society flips the current paradigm: where politicians can promise whatever they want and then fail to deliver, because other (economically-)viable candidates are few and they already have their position. there’s nothing in the current system that gives constituents the ability to immediately remove a representative who isn’t representing the people who elected them, or who uses their position to further personal agenda.
a system where the people directly involved in their work and their lives are also participants in their own work and their own life creates people who are invested in the world around them.
As far as I can tell, the anarchic perspective defines hierarchies as inherently compulsive. The claim is that organization that otherwise resembles a “hierarchy” is fine so long as it’s voluntary. You can still have people who are good at coordination in “charge” of coordinating things, with the caveat that that “authority” can be rejected at any time.
Titles for employees, and formal positions are natural because people tend to specialize but i can agree it would be maybe nicer to have more diverse job responsibilities.
But like if a company knows it has to hire 50 IT workers to meet a deadline it wouldnt hire them and hope they decide to fulfill the requirements of the job. They would lock them into a specialty so they can deploy them strategically. I just dont see it as evil or wrong to have hierarchy but i can appreciate progressive workplace environments if they work
Oh personally I think that kind of strict anti-hierarchical position is too idealistic. I don’t think the people who propose that kind of extreme decentralization have ever tried to organize a functional endeavor composed of more than a dozen people. I’d like to believe a totally voluntary, spontaneously organized society could work, but I’ve coordinated too many projects to really believe it.
Idk how that applies to every organization. It sounds pretty specific.
Because were talking about getting rid of all hierarchies right?
And if decisions are at rhe lowest possible levels then it seems like thats a hierarchy, which is more horizontal rather than not being a hierarchy.
Also i dont understand what “everything being voluntary” means and if that applies to all organizations or just government or what.
And i dont know what you meam by “the position” or “temporal” or “at the start” and that it “changes everything”.
they’re referring to anarchist federalism, which scales in principle from neighbourhoods and work groups up to nations.
horizontalism does not create a hierarchy, because a hierarchy (from Greek, for ‘rule of priests’) is a structure which creates superiors and subordinates.
say there’s a community — a geographical neighbourhood, a nongeographical group with shared interests, a workgroup… — that holds meetings on their own self-management and needs. when their needs concern more than themselves, then they delegate someone to communicate their concern to a larger (‘higher’) group — a city, a region, an industry — on a mandate: that they are temporary (till the concern is resolved, till the end of a project, or for an arbitrary time decided by the group); that they represent the group consensus; and that they can be recalled for any reason, more specifically in the event that they aren’t fulfilling their obligations to the group they represent.
proposals go up a chain, and revisions/changes are sent back down the chain. this cycle continues until the smallest (‘lowest’) groups are in agreement, with that agreement communicated by the delegates up to the largest relevant group. with a population like the US, these rounds of consensing can be done in the span of a month: https://participatoryeconomy.org/project/computer-simulations-of-participatory-planning/.
this structure can take infinite forms, but those structures remain fundamentally similar and therefore compatible.
there are examples like anarchist Spain, the Zapatistas, and — aspirationally — Rojava, mostly in in the Rojavan restorative justice system. to be fair to Rojava: they have been under siege for a decade.
for some thought experiments: Can This Book Save Us From Dystopia? (43m), The Future of Socialism (15m).
when the GP says ‘this changes everything’, they mean that the temporary and recallable nature of holding a special role in society flips the current paradigm: where politicians can promise whatever they want and then fail to deliver, because other (economically-)viable candidates are few and they already have their position. there’s nothing in the current system that gives constituents the ability to immediately remove a representative who isn’t representing the people who elected them, or who uses their position to further personal agenda.
a system where the people directly involved in their work and their lives are also participants in their own work and their own life creates people who are invested in the world around them.
As far as I can tell, the anarchic perspective defines hierarchies as inherently compulsive. The claim is that organization that otherwise resembles a “hierarchy” is fine so long as it’s voluntary. You can still have people who are good at coordination in “charge” of coordinating things, with the caveat that that “authority” can be rejected at any time.
Titles for employees, and formal positions are natural because people tend to specialize but i can agree it would be maybe nicer to have more diverse job responsibilities.
But like if a company knows it has to hire 50 IT workers to meet a deadline it wouldnt hire them and hope they decide to fulfill the requirements of the job. They would lock them into a specialty so they can deploy them strategically. I just dont see it as evil or wrong to have hierarchy but i can appreciate progressive workplace environments if they work
Oh personally I think that kind of strict anti-hierarchical position is too idealistic. I don’t think the people who propose that kind of extreme decentralization have ever tried to organize a functional endeavor composed of more than a dozen people. I’d like to believe a totally voluntary, spontaneously organized society could work, but I’ve coordinated too many projects to really believe it.