Re: Decentralization & Hierarchy

That was interesting but I'm worried about the following:

Hierarchies is not the
>main reason for competition. Competition is an underlying paradigm within
>capitalism.

I have no reasonable argument against the 1st sentence per se and so I'm 
ready to accept this is the case unless/until it may prove to be wrong.
But the next seems to imply that competition is a social pathology 
introduced by capitalism. That's flying against facts. Granted capitalism 
makes competition its underlying principle but that does not mean that 
without capitalism there is no competition: any anthropologist or historian 
could reel out masses of evidence to the contrary about most societies. 
Whether or not they're technologically simple or socially complex does not 
seem to make a difference as to the existence of competition -just on the 
forms it takes. This means that most societies that have ever existed have 
both hierarchies and competition. And from my readings it seems that 
so-called 'egalitarian -often less developed- societies' have still 
nonetheless age and gender status differences (ie hierarchies).

So, unless your argument is about 1) one particular form of competition 
specific only to capitalist societies (economic competition is not), and 2) 
also implies that hierarchies are not about domination, I don't see how you 
can get rid of the problem of domination, and especially not the kind that 
result from the joining of hierarchies and competition

Jacques
>From: Bagelhole1@aol.com
>To: richard@cyberjournal.org, wsn@csf.colorado.edu
>Subject: Re: Decentralization & Hierarchy
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:15:21 EST
>
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.