Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

So in summary, what defines an unjust hierarchy is a difference in power, is that right?

[Reelya]

Yeah, as I added in an edit, in a corporation run along "anarchist" lines (although they often call it something else), workers hire and fire managers, which is the opposite of "regular" businesses. And top-down hierarchies usually have a separate "enforcer-arm" because that's the only way a higher-up boss can really enforce his will on the hierarchy of people below him/her, because coercive authority requires a means of coercion, and if your only power-base is the hierarchy itself, then you can't coerce them.

e.g. sacking your vice president, you call for "security" to escort Mr so-and-so out of the building. Whereas a VP in a democratic workplace can only be sacked if the people who work for him decide to replace him. And even then, he can often still work there, but people just stop listening to what he tells them to do and pick someone else to listen to. So in other words, bottom-up authority might actually be more natural, because there's no need for a separate enforcer team outside the hierarchy itself.

[Pwnzerfaust]

That sounds like a recipe for chaos and inefficiency.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

That sounds like a recipe for chaos and inefficiency.

You mean anarchy!

Anyway, authoritarians make the trains run on time. Does that justify authoritarianism?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Yeah, as I added in an edit, in a corporation run along "anarchist" lines (although they often call it something else), workers hire and fire managers, which is the opposite of "regular" businesses. And top-down hierarchies usually have a separate "enforcer-arm" because that's the only way a higher-up boss can really enforce his will on the hierarchy of people below him/her, because coercive authority requires a means of coercion, and if your only power-base is the hierarchy itself, then you can't coerce them.

e.g. sacking your vice president, you call for "security" to escort Mr so-and-so out of the building. Whereas a VP in a democratic workplace can only be sacked if the people who work for him decide to replace him. And even then, he can often still work there, but people just stop listening to what he tells them to do and pick someone else to listen to. So in other words, bottom-up authority might actually be more natural, because there's no need for a separate enforcer team outside the hierarchy itself.

While this is accurate, I do have one tiny nitpick - corporations don't always need their own enforcer-arms. They are often the only feasible and legitimate source of income, and people need income to survive. As long as they have a monopoly on survival, they will be able to coerce.

As for how they prevent the poor from raiding their resources? The government, of course, and the police and military. They prevent uprisings and theft - they protect the corporations.

[Pwnzerfaust]

That sounds like a recipe for chaos and inefficiency.

You mean anarchy!

Anyway, authoritarians make the trains run on time. Does that justify authoritarianism?

I don't think either extreme is good.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Authoritarian structures aren't more efficient than egalitarian ones, that's just stereotypes and forty years of pulp Nazis taking over the world.

[Reelya]

That sounds like a recipe for chaos and inefficiency.

Look at the main example in the real world - Semco. Under that system they went from $4 million revenue to $200 million revenue. It's a myth that workers making decisions about their own livilihoods must destroy themselves.

Basically this is the big myth - capitalist "rational self interest" of owners and customers is basically like a religious belief - you can't question that it's the most efficient system possible. But if the workers were able to make decision that they feel are in their own interests - well they're just mindless children who need Papa Capitalist to tell them what to do or they'll fuck themselves over.

Basically, it's not hard to see how the double-standard of self-determination that is applied to owners vs workers has  been shaped by owners.

[Reelya]

Yeah, as I added in an edit, in a corporation run along "anarchist" lines (although they often call it something else), workers hire and fire managers, which is the opposite of "regular" businesses. And top-down hierarchies usually have a separate "enforcer-arm" because that's the only way a higher-up boss can really enforce his will on the hierarchy of people below him/her, because coercive authority requires a means of coercion, and if your only power-base is the hierarchy itself, then you can't coerce them.

e.g. sacking your vice president, you call for "security" to escort Mr so-and-so out of the building. Whereas a VP in a democratic workplace can only be sacked if the people who work for him decide to replace him. And even then, he can often still work there, but people just stop listening to what he tells them to do and pick someone else to listen to. So in other words, bottom-up authority might actually be more natural, because there's no need for a separate enforcer team outside the hierarchy itself.

While this is accurate, I do have one tiny nitpick - corporations don't always need their own enforcer-arms. They are often the only feasible and legitimate source of income, and people need income to survive. As long as they have a monopoly on survival, they will be able to coerce.

As for how they prevent the poor from raiding their resources? The government, of course, and the police and military. They prevent uprisings and theft - they protect the corporations.

I don't agree with the nitpick. Because it's the enforcement that allows the boss to fire you. e.g. the CEO can say to a VP "you're fired" but if his entire authority comes from the VP's they can just say "no I'm not", and the CEO cannot enforce that command. After all, he's not the guy who writes the paychecks or locks the front door. What about the VP in charge of the accounts department, with only a direct chain of command, he can't order that guy to stop paying people unless he agrees. No, they really do need some arm called "security" who are outside the chain of command and nominally work directly for the owner-class, so that they can in practice kick anyone out, including the CEO.

We've just been indoctrinated that authority is just automatic. i.e. an authority figure says something and it gets done just because he said so. But reality doesn't actually work like that. A leader needs the consent of his lieutenants to carry out his instructions (just as they need the consent of theirs), even in a dictatorship.

"Hitler power" didn't flow downwards just because he's Hitler. Hitler's power flowed upwards into him because he had subordinates willing to carry out his commands. It's his followers that gave him power, and the Gestapo allowed him to keep pressure on that hierarchy. Dictatorships are keen on secret police not because they have any great need for information gathering, but because having an enforcer arm outside the normal chain of command allows you to control your chain of command (who are the source of your power) through fear. Note how in Russia they killed KGB chief Beria after Stalin died because the nation's leaders were scared of his uncontrollable power.

[Neonivek]

I'd think Corporations (People entities) could exist in an anarchist society... or at least happily.

Because it's the enforcement that allows the boss to fire you.

Well... there is one little issue with that... and that is "Ohh you're not fired? Well I am not paying you"

"Ohh yes you are"

"I own the money"

"But... I want the money"

"We might collectively own the means of production, but I am the source of your income"

"But you are just the head, all of the VPs have to agree"

"I control most of the assets of the company. While I cannot legally fire you, I can freeze and relocate my personal assets"

"Then I'll get another VP to pay me!"

[Reelya]

But the CEO doesn't write the paychecks. He's just another employee. He has to order someone to stop paying you, and if his VP in charge of accounts doesn't agree with that then the CEO cannot enforce it.

I disagree on the "I own the money" part for a start. No, the people who do actions related to the money control the money (accounts department), authority needs to be established over them, so the CEO only does that by giving orders to intermediate people in the chain of command.

"I control most of the assets of the company". No, the CEO doesn't "control" any of the assets unless he's a shareholder. He gives orders to his VPs as to the assets of the company, which are controlled by their subordinates.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You realize that the chief executives of a company are not the personal owners of that company's assets, right? That ownership goes to the company as an entity itself, as established by its corporate charter. Payment is a matter of internal policy.

If the top executives are elected by the mid executives or the entire employee body, then the top executives cannot withhold salaries without being recalled.

[Neonivek]

But the CEO doesn't write the paychecks. He's just another employee. He has to order someone to stop paying you, and if his VP in charge of accounts doesn't agree with that then the CEO cannot enforce it.

It is a corporation. The VPs are limited by doctrine and by the investors.

If the CEO is the controlling half of the company, there is nothing the VPs can do even in an anarchist society. (Though it is uncommon for a CEO to also own a controlling interest in the company)

Which is why I question how corps can exist in such a society (they barely function in ours)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure you're really groking the concept of a democratized workplace.

[Neonivek]

I'm not sure you're really groking the concept of a democratized workplace.

I understand. I am just saying I think Corporation is MOSTLY antithetical to democratized workplaces. That the work arounds meet complications.

Well sort of... There is another organization where workers MUST buy into the company to work there. Thus everyone in the company owns a share. They tend to be paid according to how the business does on the market.

It would also not meet the same issues.

But that is corporation... Workplaces do not have to incorporate.