Anarchism vs. Libertarianism: Hierarchies

[Mike Christ]

It seems the rabbit hole goes deeper; although these two aim for similar goals, that is, for the removal of the state, they're yet different; anarchists, as I have learned, seek for the removal of all hierarchies, whereas Libertarians stop at there being no (or a tiny) state, implying business would still have leaders; it would seem, then, anarchists take the idea one step further, where businesses do not necessarily have bosses, or bosses of bosses, but people as complete equals; some even claim there cannot be money, which I find difficult to wrap my mind around, for money does not necessarily equate capitalism.

Is Libertarianism only a stepping stone to anarchy, or are they two completely different ideologies with only a similar goal?  Does leadership imply hierarchy?  Are hierarchies implicitly involuntary?  Can business thrive without hierarchy?  And what would be the common reaction, having a world of pure anarchy, to people who believe hierarchies are preferable to complete equality?

[Wilikon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

I guess you already know about this, but this conversation about a centralized power, or not, and how much power it should have is a continuing one really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxtbSt0HCNA

edit: "At the time of publication the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret..."

[herzmeister]

A true "anarchy" would probably look differently than anarcho-capitalists imagine, but it wouldn't be entirely "social" without hierarchies either. The truth would be somewhere inbetween I imagine, resembling syndicalism. There'd be free entrepreneurs (for the individualists) and independent worker co-ops.

Big "capitalist" "exploitative" factories would be impossible. Historically, workers went on strike, mutiny, and would take over the means of production. But it was always the legislation and police provided by the state that protected bosses in those scenarios. Economically speaking, this protection service has always been very cheap in a capitalist-corporatist system.

And if the "police" was private, well the "police" consists of "workers" too.

So if many places are organized more co-operatively, bosses would have a hard time to find cheap workforce.

Again, Mondragón is a good example of how things would look like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

There are technical hierarchies of course, and although they're largely organized co-operatively, there'd also be competition. All co-ops would have to keep up with the state of technology.

I've also long thought about the nature of "money" and I believe the misunderstanding and obsession about money comes from the monopoly of money that today is provided through the central banks. In a free world, there'd be probably a rich eco-system of different value systems (PMs, local currencies, crypto-currencies, reputation systems, "promises" and tokens issued by producers of goods and services, etc). And this will stop people from counting everything in USDs or the like in their minds, and they will realize that "value" can also be very personal things that you can't count. 

[ronimacarroni]

the only way to get rid of "hierarchies" is to force people to not form "hierarchies"
which is just another form of socialism.
libertarians on the other hand say do whatever you want as long as you dont mess with peoples property.
which is bought with their hard earned money.

[hawkeye]

There's nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.  I am a contractor and have often voluntarily signed contracts which put me in a hierarchy.  I never had a problem with that.  It's having one forced upon me that I have a problem with.

[ronimacarroni]

There's nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchies.  I am a contractor and have often voluntarily signed contracts which put me in a hierarchy.  I never had a problem with that.  It's having one forced upon me that I have a problem with.

so that would make you an anarcho capitalist.
in which case i recommend that you g2somalia.

[dank]

Anarchy is freedom.  Anarchy is nature.  Nature as we know is a perfect balance of everything.

[ronimacarroni]

Anarchy is freedom.  Anarchy is nature.  Nature as we know is a perfect balance of everything.

wow okay.
hierarchies are part of nature but im not going to argue with someone who cant be bothered to make a coherent argument.

[dank]

A truly free society would consist of no hierarchy and as the OP said, no money.  Just equality and freedom and peace.

How can a hierarchy convince others to believe in their hierarchy without controlling those around them?

A hierarchy can exist if you believe in it, but universally, we are all equal.

[MAbtc]

It seems the rabbit hole goes deeper; although these two aim for similar goals, that is, for the removal of the state, they're yet different; anarchists, as I have learned, seek for the removal of all hierarchies, whereas Libertarians stop at there being no (or a tiny) state, implying business would still have leaders; it would seem, then, anarchists take the idea one step further, where businesses do not necessarily have bosses, or bosses of bosses, but people as complete equals; some even claim there cannot be money, which I find difficult to wrap my mind around, for money does not necessarily equate capitalism.

Is Libertarianism only a stepping stone to anarchy, or are they two completely different ideologies with only a similar goal?  Does leadership imply hierarchy?  Are hierarchies implicitly involuntary?  Can business thrive without hierarchy?  And what would be the common reaction, having a world of pure anarchy, to people who believe hierarchies are preferable to complete equality?

There is some confusion here. Are you saying that Social Libertarianism is separate from Libertarian socialism? The latter is non-hierarchical, as is anarchism. My understanding has always been that it loosely encompasses most/all forms of anarchism.

[ronimacarroni]

A truly free society would consist of no hierarchy and as the OP said, no money.  Just equality and freedom and peace.

How can a hierarchy convince others to believe in their hierarchy without controlling those around them?

A hierarchy can exist if you believe in it, but universally, we are all equal.

Because people rather put someone in charge who knows wtf he's doing, rather than your stinking lazy hippy ass.

[Mike Christ]

There is some confusion here. Are you saying that Social Libertarianism is separate from Libertarian socialism? The latter is non-hierarchical, as is anarchism. My understanding has always been that it loosely encompasses most/all forms of anarchism.

Sorry for the confusion; I got my terms mixed up, I edited the thread title to reflect this.

the only way to get rid of "hierarchies" is to force people to not form "hierarchies"

Incorrect; there are always at least two ways to solve a social problem.  The first is through force, as you mention.  The second is to naturally remove the incentive to partake in the problem, which is what you'll have to get used to if it's a voluntaryist society you seek.  This is true for all social problems; we can force people to not have abortions, or we can construct a society in which you'd actually have the time, money and energy to raise a child; though abortions would never truly go away, it might then be crazy to think of denying a person to live in such a world, as opposed to the right now, where most people who abort have none of the requirements I mentioned above.

In the case of hierarchies, the alternative would be for there to be no reason for people to want to form hierarchies; although it is in my belief that simple hierarchies can be good, massive hierarchies where just a few people employ several thousand other people and rake in massive amounts of profits, is not necessarily a good thing, as this leads to a concentration of power.  What state socialists often forget is that, though they want to spread the wealth around, they like to do this with the bigger concentration of power, which leads to the wealth getting sucked into the black hole of government and their efforts are all for nothing.

If hierarchies are beneficial to society, we must look at government and ask ourselves if this is true.  But again, as hawkeye stated, hierarchies can also be voluntary; because I've never lived in a voluntary society, I cannot make a real verdict as to whether hierarchies are ultimately good or bad.  As herzmaster pointed out, the point is that massive hierarchies cease to be possible, meaning capitalism as we know it today (corporatism/cronyism) would no longer be possible.

Because people rather put someone in charge who knows wtf he's doing, rather than your stinking lazy hippy ass.

And in the scenario where everyone knows what they're doing?

[hawkeye]

In the case of hierarchies, the alternative would be for there to be no reason for people to want to form hierarchies; although it is in my belief that simple hierarchies can be good, massive hierarchies where just a few people employ several thousand other people and rake in massive amounts of profits, is not necessarily a good thing, as this leads to a concentration of power.  What state socialists often forget is that, though they want to spread the wealth around, they like to do this with the bigger concentration of power, which leads to the wealth getting sucked into the black hole of government and their efforts are all for nothing.
 

It's no coincidence that so many big businesses need government assistance and ultimately need to be bailed out.   I think in a voluntaryist society you would probably not see such levels of centralisation because they tend towards big inefficient bureaucracies.  And the free market tends to punish inefficiency. 

[Mike Christ]

It's no coincidence that so many big businesses need government assistance and ultimately need to be bailed out.   I think in a voluntaryist society you would probably not see such levels of centralisation because they tend towards big inefficient bureaucracies.  And the free market tends to punish inefficiency. 

Yes; everything government does to subsidize big business would no longer be possible, making it more efficient for local business to flourish, than for one huge business to have a store in every city, some on every other street (like McDonalds.)  In this way, the hierarchies go away on their own; since local business does not need to pay the overhead of corporations, they keep more of their profits, and thus are able to pay their own employees better wages.

Not to mention, with low-level work being replaced steadily by machines, it seems we're on our way, as a species, to every job being highly skilled work that only humans are capable of.  It seems more important than ever, then, for any economy to thrive, that people not be trained to be mindless workers, but just the opposite, thinking and participating.  The hierarchy seems to push this idea, where you have the few who think and the many who work; perhaps this is the natural push for people to take more control of their work, which would make those hierarchies smaller, since the low-level work only becomes more and more scarce.

[Schleicher]

And in the scenario where everyone knows what they're doing?

That's not possible.
There's specialization everywhere. No one can know everything.
And if you don't know everything you have to rely on others sometimes.
Then you get hierarchies.

[Mike Christ]

And in the scenario where everyone knows what they're doing?

That's not possible.
There's specialization everywhere. No one can know everything.
And if you don't know everything you have to rely on others sometimes.
Then you get hierarchies.

It is possible:

Again, Mondragón is a good example of how things would look like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

What you're insinuating is that the bosses of any given business have knowledge of their position that no other man could ever have (except for other to-be bosses); that's what is meant when you say it's "not possible".  Now, nobody knows how to do everything, but that doesn't imply that people are incapable of learning the very specifics of what is required to perform the higher-end jobs; there is no physical limit between what a worker can do and what a manager can do, or what a corporate officer can do.  You don't need to know everything to run a business, unless we're implying the head of any given business has no idea what his workers are doing, or even if they're doing it right; obviously, he does know everything, or he would be an ineffective manager.

If someone works at the same business for 40 years, and he's still at the bottom ring, with no knowledge of management, does this not imply that he is not being taught management, rather than his being able to be a manager?  After all, if we're assuming people can't know everything, then he must be in that position because he is incapable of knowing how to manage.  If I know anything about human beings, it's that something as terribly simple as management (it's certainly not rocket science) is easy enough to learn.  The question, then, is whether the hierarchy is voluntary or involuntary; but it's certainly not a product of a worker being too stupid to lead.

[kokjo]

One could also find alot similarity between communism and anarchism. The working class kicking out the upper classes, and taking control of the industry themselves. and then live peace fully, with everyone being equals. One exception is that communists believe that it necessary to go trough a transition period with a strong state, educating people, and slowly but firmly removing the upper class.

[ronimacarroni]

If I know anything about human beings, it's that something as terribly simple as management (it's certainly not rocket science) is easy enough to learn

God this stuff is cringe worthy.

[Mike Christ]

If I know anything about human beings, it's that something as terribly simple as management (it's certainly not rocket science) is easy enough to learn

God this stuff is cringe worthy.

Good; now explain why.

[ronimacarroni]

If I know anything about human beings, it's that something as terribly simple as management (it's certainly not rocket science) is easy enough to learn

God this stuff is cringe worthy.

Good; now explain why.

Because you have no idea the kind of shit CEO's have to deal with.
They work 24/7 and almost have no life.
Why do you think CEO's are so hard to find.