Print

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

[Reelya]

Well no, my point was about where authority really comes from. The CEO actually "rules" only because of people willing to carry out his orders. If people say "no" he's powerless. They do in fact need external enforcers to allow top-down control to even exist.

In a democratic society, those enforcers are either security department, or external ones like the police/courts. If no such external enforcers exist you often find leaders (dictators, mafia bosses etc) who have created a loyal "gestapo" type wing under their direct command who enforce authority over the main productive hierarchy. But the enforcer wing themselves often get out of control: they become kingmakers.

In a democratized company such as Semco, a big point was that they got rid of many security checks and stopped treating workers like the enemy. By involving workers in the big decisions, profit sharing and creating electable delegates to a company forum, they created a system where the interests of workers and management were actually in line, so no "enforcement" of management decisions was needed, because if a manager made decisions that were out of line with what the majority of workers in his unit wanted, he'd be demoted back to worker.

[Neonivek]

Well no, my point was about where authority really comes from

There are multiple places and yes enforcement is certainly one of them.

Though there is also competency, coercion, resources, social pressure, friendlyness... Though I guess they can all be "enforcement" (Listen to me or else I'll stop helping)

I think it is more that enforcers are important because there will always be at least one person who will not follow along and can basically hold things up for everyone.

You might get 100 people to build a apartment, agree to it, have a formen, a boss, and have him in charge because everyone agrees they are the best... But if one person decides "No!" they will end up holding things up soo much that every worker will pick up a stone and toss it at his head killing him.

Enforcement is the final say so to speak.

Though remember even enforcement works like that. There is such a thing as "Military rebellions" and "Military Coups"

Though that is a more ideal situation. Another reason for enforcers is to do things very few people would agree with. As with your Mafia example (Sort of... Mafia is complicated given some of them arise due to disenfranchisement and racism in a society creating a need for protection... and slowly move away from that original point)

---

Actually I might just not be in the right page. Right now I am trying to think through the controls of command.

Why would someone listen to someone? Why would they be enticed/obligated/forced to listen to someone? Is enforcement the only way?

But then, maybe enforcement is just a catchall for everything that COULD do that. What better enforcement is there then for the reward to rely on the conclusion?

[TheBiggerFish]

...What?

[feelotraveller]

It would be remiss of me given the discussion of anarchism/syndicalism and the possibilities for war not to recommend the Culture series of sci-fi novels by Iain M. Banks.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks#Science_fiction  Fun reading.   

[Cthulhu]

All authority is coercive.  America was designed as rule by the consent of the governed but it still has coercive authority.  You can have a hierarchy where the lower ranks elect higher ranks and so on like was mentioned but if the people at higher ranks don't have coercive authority over the lower ranks then they dont' actually have any power.

[TheBiggerFish]

Um...Isn't that exactly the point of this that they don't have power, just centralization?  And/or wider but less detailed view of the issues or some such?

[Cthulhu]

Centralization of what, though? 

[TheBiggerFish]

Of plan-making/strategy?

[Phmcw]

You can take free software as an example : there are companies and structures, but as the means of productions are not privately owned in a meaningful way no one can stop you from forking a project or make a living as a consultant for an existing one. If you're "excluded" from a project you can either fork it or still contribute patches.

The problem arise when there are contentions for resources : you cannot clone an Iron deposit, and half the workers in a factory cannot clone it and keep working.

[Neonivek]

Um...Isn't that exactly the point of this that they don't have power, just centralization?  And/or wider but less detailed view of the issues or some such?

I can't picture it being functional unless they have some power.

Albeit power that is bestowed onto them.

I mean you saw the example of the CEO trying to fire someone and them going "No" forcing the entire board of middle managers to have to get involved with what should be routine... A single bad worker gridlocked the system.

[Cthulhu]

Of plan-making/strategy?

With no actual authority what's keeping everyone doing this strategy?  You're really just an advisor at that point.

You can take free software as an example : there are companies and structures, but as the means of productions are not privately owned in a meaningful way no one can stop you from forking a project or make a living as a consultant for an existing one. If you're "excluded" from a project you can either fork it or still contribute patches.

The problem arise when there are contentions for resources : you cannot clone an Iron deposit, and half the workers in a factory cannot clone it and keep working.

Yes, that's the obvious problem and it's why software analogies don't work in the real world.  In real life if people disagree on the use of that deposit, they're going to take it, not clone it.  Now we're getting into the same complaints I have about the ancaps.  Rules and rights only exist in the space created by coercive force.  I feel like we're trying to tiptoe around the issue of creating the authority needed to do that without actually calling it authority or giving it the monopoly on legitimate violence.

Now if you're arguing for an alternative state, as syndicalism seems to be doing, that's different.  You just need to acknowledge that if you're not giving your authority the power to enforce its directives it doesn't do anything, and if you do you just created a state and you're not exactly anarchist.

[TheBiggerFish]

Yes.  Exactly.  You, as management, are an advisor.  The relationship is one of trust, not power.  That is the point.