Just to clear up some misconceptions, Protovack is quite a bit more than passingly familiar with anarchism. He knows his shit, but concludes differently from "us". And, also, "the" FAQ is just as scholarly as anything I've written. It's really top-notch.
My apologies if the below is redundant with others' thoughts...
>>
The idea that there was "no coercion" in paleolithic society is laughable. There is always coercion, even if it is the weather determining where you go to find food or water. Thus the hierarchy was that nature was above man. I would bet that in these paleolithic tribes, there was a man who was in command of where they went, and what they did when trouble erupted. This is natural human behavior. Please stop bringing up the pre-modern man as this wonderful "evidence" that we can live without any sort of hierarchy.>>
Some paleolithic groups were characterized by rigid hierarchies of the sort you describe. Some were not, led only by temporary experts (I'm drawing primarily off the anthropological work of David Graeber). I don't think you can paint paleolithic life with such a broad brush.
The crucial question, then, is whether coercive hierarchy is necessary for mastery of natural forces. You seem to assume that it is...our main point of discussion is whether it is.
>>
How is it an externalized body? We both know someone from our high school class that became a cop. My cousin's boyfriend is a cop. A police department forms itself to protect those who play by the rules from those who don't. Any anarchist society would form a similar body.>>
A police department is external in the sense that the rules it employs are created apart from the public at large, even though the majority of us would likely agree with MOST of these rules. It is also separate in the sense that the mechanics of the application of those rules occurs apart from the populace at large. The community holds no direct power over judging the efficacy or fairness of the police.
I think things would operate a bit differently if there was a self-defense cooperative involving wider strata in the community.
>>I think our hierarchical society serves society as a whole. If my house catches on fire, people come to put the fire out. If someone steals my shit, I get it back. How is that not serving constituents. If the police were actually in the business of stealing my shit, then I'd have to agree with you. But they aren't.>>
My statement was a bit strong. Often times, hierarchical institutions work for us. Many other times they don't. I think though, looking at contemporary society, the main site of hierarchical rule is within the world-capitalist economy, in particular centers of capitalist production in the global South.
>>
A factory occupation is a futile attempt to control something that cannot be controlled: the flow of capital. The only factories that get "occupied" are old out-of-date facilities that need to be scrapped anyway.>>
Er...why would factory occupations disproportionately target dilapidated factories? Why should we assume that factories usually close because they are in want of better productive technologies? Firms very often close because there is cheaper labor to be found elsewhere, which is a mark of increasing exploitation.
Finally, why would the flow of capital be a "natural force"?
>>most normal people would also agree that to achieve a stable society, you have to follow a certain minimum set of rules that are adhered to by everyone.>>
Anarchists, too, would agree. They just think that these social norms should be agreed upon by the community at large, not imposed from above.
>>Or they'd kill each other (which does happen even today between primitive tribes, or just look at any premodern tribal system - it is war all the time). >>
You are on...patently erroneous empirical ground.
1. Some paleolithic tribes appear to have been prone to war, some not. You just can't generalize in this way.
2. The death-toll of modern warfare, even military conflicts that don't involve explicit declaration of war, is utterly unprecedented.
>>All these things get built by regular people playing by the rules, not by disparate small groups of anarchists opposed to any sort of "hierarchy.">>
So you've restated that modern society has been and is hierarchical. Great. You have not shown
1. why in need have been so or
2. why it should continue to be hierarchical.
>>What anarchists seem to not realize is that in the real world, like in business and research, most everything is done in a team (not a hierarchical command line). Business has already figured out that strict hierarchies are NOT efficient. What works is to group people together into teams and then let them solve problems with their innate creativity.>>
Right. So if non-hierarchical teams are driving innovation, why should profits be distributed hierarchically?
>> And further, they don't see that it's because of the security guard that those people can continue to work away on that cure for cancer or that new green building.>>
This is an empirical question. We just wish to see if society can be drawn on more equitable terms, by active participants creating it. Given the success of non-hierarchical forms, perhaps this security guard is an unnecessary vestige. Or perhaps the duties of the security guard should be distributed amongst everybody, in order to counter the corruption that being a security guard breeds.
>>I also think the anarchist builds up a perfectionistic view of man. They have an ideal of man that says we are altruistic, non-violent, and non-competetive. >>
Not the case. We do, however, believe that individuals will be overall "reasonable", that is not making horrid long-term decisions on a regular basis nor acting sociopathically, screwing over her neighbor to her own peril. We also believe "human nature" to be quite malleable by society.
>>Some people are great at coming up with ideas about how to make things. But sometimes these same people suck at gathering together all the right people to make it into reality. >>
So why not let this be selected for by ability, rather than one's beginning resources? Most people enjoy doing things at which they excel.
>>This necessitates hierarchy because not everybody can do everything. Big, complex jobs require an interplay of people and a degree of organization. Often this role is assumed by the "organizers" and I'm glad we have them (I'm not one of them, that's for sure).>>
In a context characterized by democratic management, it could be that one person ends up proposing most of the organizational ideas and that people usually go along with them. Most anarchists would not find this problematic.
>>I don't mind being told what to do by someone if they share the same goal as I do. >>
If people share goals, then hierarchical enforcement is unnecessary.
(sorry for typos...i just got a lot lazier.
)
ebola
np: architect (haha)
