Re: Decentralization & Hierarchy

1/23/2001, Mofwoofoo <Bagelhole1@aol.com> wrote:
    > With all due respect, this question isn't worthy of
    debate, in my opinion. In a decentralized, democratic,
    mutually cooperative, global society, non-sovereign except
    for the sovereignty of the individual, there would be no
    hierarchies in general and especially in any overarching
    ways, but where it makes sense to have hierarchies, in
    particular situations, hierarchies would exist, if the
    people involved so choosed.

Dear Mofwootoo,

Do we know for sure that a global society could function
effectively without over-arching hierarchies?  You seem
convinced, but for me the question is still an open one.

In fairness, we need to investigate the functions that are
served in our societies by hierarchies (building power
grids, providing for defense), and determine if effective
decentralized alternatives are feasible.  In making that
determination, we cannot depend on theoretical
considerations alone, but must seek out examples of
decentralized social systems which have in practice
effectively served 'comparable' functions.

One thing I believe most of us have agreed with is that
hierarchies can be self-promoting and tyrannical.  We only
want to have them if they really are necessary to achieve
acceptable 'efficiency', and if we have ways to keep them
from getting out of control.

I am therefore uncomfortable when you say "hierarchies would
exist, if the people involved so choose".  The problem here
is that a hierarchy is always a very tempting way to solve
an immediate crisis.  Assign a general, let him 'win the war
by whatever means', and then pray he disbands the troops
when the war's over... that kind of thing.   In the same way
we might prescribe for our new society that it would not be
based on capitalism, or that nuclear weapons would be
outlawed, so I think we may need to take a position on
hierarchy - as a fundamental principle of a livable society.

The potential danger brought by hierarchies is abundantly
clear.  I think we need to either outlaw them - in this
future world we're considering - or we need to clearly
understand which uses are appropriate, which aren't - and how
their aggrandizing tendencies can be reliably contained. 
Otherwise tyranny will surely rise again, out of competition 
among hierarchies.
    
    > It is good to keep in mind, that in our vision of a future
    global society, that it would be "organic", without dogma,
    hopefully, and individuals and communities would develope to
    the fullest our natural abilities to deal with issues as
    they come (this is to be "zen"). This is what it is to be
    alive, intuitive, and when intelligence comes in, in a big
    way, human.

Yes, this is the positive part of the vision. 
Unfortunately, in these kinds of matters, 90% of the work
goes into considering what might go wrong.

---

1/24/2001, Jacques Eglise wrote:
    > Whether or not natural hierarchies or ecological privilege
    translate into social hierarchies is a matter of human
    ingenuity in organizing cultural/social systems. I thought
    the point of the discussion was to maximise this ingenuity
    to minimize as much as possible natural givens if they're
    disadvantageous and to maximize such givens if they're
    advantageous. Of course the question of what's advantageous
    is a matter of moral/political choice. Did we agree or not
    that equality and non-domination are 'advantageous'?

I, for one, agree with you.  To the extent societal
structures are 'on topic' at all, we might do better to
explore some ideas, and see how they might work out in
practice, rather than always debating what is and isn't
worth pursuing.  And I agree that one good social
'performance metric' would be the degree to which
egalitarianism exceeds domination in the political 
and economic structures.

---

1/23/2001, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:
    > Once again, your biological analogy is just bad poetry.
      > Non-human ecosystems are not non-hierarchical. Wolves eat
    moose -- do moose also eat wolves?

There was a day when biologists interpreted nature
hierarchically ('King of the Beasts', etc.).  But that's
history.  Ecosystems are kept in balance by the
self-interested collaboration of all elements.  Predators,
for example, limit their own numers, so that their prey
populations won't be depleted.  You might say that the prey
population dominates the relationship, and the predator
population tags along only under stict limitations.

The food chain, to which you allude, is a cycle, not a
pyramid.  Moose don't eat wolves directly, but mosquitoes
and bears do, and the cycle gets eventually around to moose
again. 'Life eats life' is central to the process, but there
is no 'top' where some species escapes the cycle.

    
    > But in decisionmaking, as opposed to economic
    exploitation, it seems that our finite
    information-processing capacity may impose limits on
    egalitarianism.  This is the best explanation for the fact
    that specialization/differentiation rises in tandem with
    hierarchy and stratification -- everyone can't know
    everything, and some end up in more favorable network
    locations.

I'm not sure if I go along with your logic there, pardner. 
Let's review.

When agriculture and herding came in, social units grew
larger, and surpluses sometimes accumulated and could be
stored.  The economy had become much more complex than
simply gathering all day.

One consequence was that specialization, differentiation,
and technology rapidly developed - in response to the need
to efficiently deal with the varigated tasks of the more
complex economies.

Another consequence was that social systems were severely
strained.  What worked for 200 hunter-gatherers no longer
worked for 3000 villagers.  Social cohesion began to fail,
causing an inevitable crisis stage in every society that
adopted agriculture or herding.  Universally, it seems, the
solution to this problem was the emergence of powerful
chiefs - bringing stability out of the crisis.  From there,
the evolution to kings, emperors, etc. seems clearly
unavoidable, regardless of societal complexity.

But can we take 'universality' to be proof of 'necessity'? 
Consider: up until that time, presumably, societies 'ran the
way they ran'.  That is to say, no one had a 'theory' of
their society.  The society, and its culture, just 'was'.
 What were they to do then, when their social systems broke
down?  They had no sociologists to turn to, or political
scientists.  The simplest thing was for someone, with his
clan as supporters, to seize power.

It was the _social crisis, I submit, that brought about
hierarchy, rather than the economic complexities of farming.
 And once established, hierarchy only tended to reinforce
itself.

I don't think we can decide - based on the fact that
hierarchy emerged along with complexity - whether or not
hierarchy was required by that complexity.  Hiearachy would
have emerged in either case.

---

At 10:06 PM +0000 1/23/2001, Bill Ellis wrote:
        rkm>> My intuition and experience leads me to suspect that
        decentralization is actually more efficient, besides
        providing political advantages.
    BE> I think your intuition was matched by Smith on whose
    book "The Wealth of Nations" the market system was founded. 
    He believed that many small producers competing with one
    another would lead to the pest products and the lowest
    price.  Unfortunatley only part of his book become the back
    bone of the current economic system, and the current
    society.  That is the one part of it "competion."  Now
    accepted as greed.

Right. My working hypothesis is that Smith's markets make a good
deal of sense, within a comprehensive social-planning
context - and provided the conditions he prescribed obtain. 

---

best regards to all,
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org