Re: Decentralization & Hierarchy

In a message dated 1/24/01 12:23:22 PM, richard@cyberjournal.org writes:

<< 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.
 >>

First, I have to admit to you and everyone that there is nothing I know for 
sure, even this, I'm not sure of. But at the Rainbow Gatherings, started 
around 1972, maybe 20,000 people or so will gather deep in nature, every 
July, and live happily without a hierarchy, there are volunteer committees 
who take on certain responsibilities. Decisions are made by consensus in a 
circle. Same with the Nevada Peace Test demonstrations, where sometimes a few 
thousand people would camp across the street from the nuclear testing site 
for about a week. They are run the same way. Christiana, in Copenhagen has 
existed, I believe for about 25 or more years, a community of 5000, living in 
a non-hierarchical, anarchistic manner quite successfully. And there are many 
more examples throughout history and presently.

<<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.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.>>

First of all, in our future society, there will be little reason to compete, 
since we would be trading "owning" for access. Tyranny would assert itself, 
in a world of competition, not one of cooperation. Hierarchies is not the 
main reason for competition. Competition is an underlying paradigm within 
capitalism. Sovereign bodies such as nations simply carry the paradigm from 
the individual (micro) to the national (macro). It is sovereign entities, 
from individuals to vast nations that compete in a world based on capitalism. 
In a world where there is not complete community support, tyranny could 
arise. The opposite of today, is a cooperative, caring society, where every 
individual is truly supported as in a non-dysfunctional family. Just as at a 
Rainbow Gathering or in the city of Youf, Senegal, a city of 40,000 where 
police are not necessary.

In order to "contain aggrandizing tendencies", start with yourself (no, just 
kidding). We don't wish to live in a society that needs to "contain" anyone. 
Better to remove the perverse conditions which creates the false need to 
self-aggrandize.

<<Unfortunately, in these kinds of matters, 90% of the work
goes into considering what might go wrong.>>

I feel obligated to speak out when I hear something that I think is untrue. I 
consider myself a problem solver, as this is what human life is largely 
about. Each day we solve problems, problems on all levels. This is what 
humans are really good at (when they are functionally properly) When one 
cannot solve or resolve problems, one often becomes physically ill. In my 
mind, to spend 90% of the work considering what might go wrong, is not an 
effective way to approach problem solving. It can be taken to an extreme, 
where it is a neurosis (not life affirming). I have alot of experience in 
this and so do some of my friends. You could spend many lifetimes thinking 
about all the things that might go wrong. Its endless. Its quicker to think 
of what's going to work the best, with whatever is available. Intuitively, 
often, one can feel when something may or may not work, and sometimes you 
just have to try.

My Thoughts,
Mofwoofoo Woofuaza