A Society Without Hierarchy?

[hopelesscynic]

Can a society, or even a microcosm of society such as the workplace, function without hierarchy? Is it human nature to be superior/inferior to others, to create specific roles for specific people? Why, even in schools, do people assume power, or others become automatically submissive? Why is there hierarchy even in the animal kingdom? Is hierarchy a social construct or simply in our nature? Could we possibly live in total anarchy?

[CD]

To  Latch,

Because most explanations for human behavior

1. Involve correlation (not causation)
2. Even when the methods are strong, and even involve a causative link that is not due to chance, the statistical weight is typically less than 50% in terms of explanatory power, meaning that more than 50% can be put to variables not tested by the experiment itself. 
3. The strongest experiments involving human behavior show environmental causes.  For example, the Behaviorist concepts, whilst not being enough to explain all the facets of human psychology, is probably the best empirically demonstrated explanations of how humans learn to behave, and involves entirely environmental causes.

Genes, do, however, have stronger links with non behaviour variables that interact with environment. I remember reading once that the explanatory power of genes on height is 70%, and environment is about 30%.  The meaning appears to be that with non behavioral, biological variables, our genes set the parameters and the environment creates the circumstances that determine where within those parameters the person's physiology actually winds up.  So let's say I have a gene that tells me I can, at most, be 2 metres tall, but at least be over 1.5 metres tall at maturity.  My diet, hormones, exposure to other chemicals, viruses, ect, all decide that I'm going to be 1.7 metres tall. It doesn't, however, strictly speaking, decide that I'm going to be an atheist, or that I like chocolate.

[Latch33570]

Yes but that doesn't mean that genes do not have an influence after all we are men and modify our responses all the time. We get angry but don't hit the old fart that annoys you. I think the genes influence how angry you get at the old coot. If other animqals are influenced by genes then how can we not be?

[CD]

I did say the association was weak.  I didn't say it was non-existent :)

Ok, with the modifying our responses.  This can be explained by behaviorist concepts as well, even without considering genes.  If you grew up in a situation where you were taught to not hit people who annoy you, and subsequently lived in situations where not hitting annoying people were effective at achieving whatever end was required, then later in life, when the old fart annoys you, chances are you're not going to hit them. 

Behavorism more or less works with ideas about associating a stimulus with a response, and then the response as a cause with an effect, in terms of how contigent those are (close together) and whether or not this cause is rewarded by the effect, or punished by the effect, or whether a reward is removed, or a punishment is removed.  Social learning is very similar except we witness this process in other people.

So if a kid, for arguments sake, is annoyed by their sibling (happens all the time) when they are very small and haven't learned these things yet, they might just react.  And they hit the sibling.  Then if, very quickly, someone pulls them aside and scolds them (punishment) or removes one of their toys (removal of reward), or says "Well done, you got the little buggar" (reward),  or does nothing (removal of the punishment that is being annoyed),  and repeats this pattern for long enough, it will create a learned behaviour that varies according to what happened.

Punishment - suppresses the behavior  "They told me off and I don't like that so I won't do it"

Reward -  increases the behavior "They gave me a compliment and I felt good, so I'll do it again"

Remove punishment - increases the behavior "They stopped annoying me when I hit them so I'll do it again"

Remove reward - suppresses the behavior "I don't like not having my toys so I won't do it again"

This is the very basics of learning in pretty much all species with a brain, right up until we're dead.  Later in life, we might be able to meta-learn, in the sense that we reflect on what we learn and this thinking changes behaviour too.  But we have to base it on something. And if the entire life experience says "hitting = good"  the old fart is going to get hit.

[Michael Lee]

yes, whether the results will be desirable is another discussion.

With people who are educated enough and willing to go though with it, it would work. But that would mean picking and choosing. Which is against anarchy itself. 

[Hutch Hogan]

How is picking and choosing against anarchy itself?  Maybe I'm just not understanding what is being picked and chosen. 

[Hutch Hogan]

A non-hierarchical workplace could exist. But it would have to be small I think.  If people want to make money, they show up and get contracts or make stuff or whatever.  If they don't want to make money or work, they'd stay home, no qualms. 

 Would it work? Probably.  Would it last long? Not likely, it'd be an unstable model and it'd probably get pushed out of business by companies with hierarchies.  Would it have existed? Yes. 

[CD]

Non -ierarchical workplaces do exist.  Sort of.  They're worker owned and run companies.  I think some places in Spain sorted that one out.  Basically the previous owners went bankrupt and the factory was just sitting there, gathering dust.   So the worker's formed a union and simply took over.   Apparently everyone gets paid on time now (including the landlord) and they're turning a tidy profit.   Although this was documented before 2008.....who knows now.  But it was pretty much a true communist business -  no state ownership, worker owned, worker run, and for the benefit of the local community.  I know hey, who would have thunk it, communism sometimes works!

[Hutch Hogan]

I'm not sure if it's actual communism.  But I know there's a similarly run company in the States (likely the silicon valley but it's been too long for me to even remember what they build).  But the employees also own the business, etc.  But with one person owning the land (as I assume is true in both cases), does owning the lease on the land create a silent hierarchy?  Just food for thought. 

[CD]

If you're going all traditional Marxist economics, no,  because the Labor Theory of Value dictates that the Labor has now been forshizzled out so the cost of land is probably not that big a deal. 

"Having acquired the means and mode of production, the workers are operating within a communal utopia"

On the other hand, means versus mode. 

So a heterodox might point out that Land Theory of Value is compatible - you own the land, you own the power to own the means. 

"Having realised that the workers own the means and the mode for the structures on the land, the landlord decided that communal utopia was just annoying and they might try to buy the land of him one day, so he wrangled with local council to have them kicked off for some arbitrary zoning infringement"

Which one are you buying? 

[Hutch Hogan]

Sorry for not responding sooner, I definitely wasn't awake enough to really give your post the thought that it deserves (basically I had to read it too many times and was too tired to think). 

If you're going all traditional Marxist economics, no,  because the Labor Theory of Value dictates that the Labor has now been forshizzled out so the cost of land is probably not that big a deal. 

Well I was thinking of a silent hierarchy as in, one individual having the lease, having the power to shoo the company to another location.  The solution would obviously be for all of the members of the company to sign the lease, or for none of them to sign the lease. 

But yeah I'm much more for supply and demand as opposed to labour theory (since supply includes labour as a factor, but not the sole factor). 

I haven't really studied communism enough to have much say in an internal debate of communism.  

The way that I was thinking about it was that each worker has ownership in the company.  However, they are responsible for their own profits (the profits are not put forward into a communal some and then spread evenly).  There could be a rate charged for use so as to avoid the tragedy of the commons, but like I said, I'm not well versed enough in communism to really speak on the matter. 

[CD]

Sorry for not responding sooner, I definitely wasn't awake enough

I've been asleep too.

one individual having the lease

Oh, right.  This hadn't occurred to me.  You make an interesting point.

I'm much more for supply and demand as opposed to labour theory (since supply includes labour as a factor, but not the sole factor).

I think it's all of the above - labor, land, supply and demand.  But also a few other things. I don't know if it already has a name but I call it the administrative theory of value.  The cost of things vary according to how much red tape it's tangled in.

The way that I was thinking about it was that each worker has ownership in the company.  However, they are responsible for their own profits (the profits are not put forward into a communal some and then spread evenly).  There could be a rate charged for use so as to avoid the tragedy of the commons, but like I said, I'm not well versed enough in communism to really speak on the matter.

I anticipate that it depends on if the broader society is also communist. Given the companies in Silicon Valley and Spain we're talking about exist in capitalist societies, things are a little different, and odds are the company doesn't own the land it operates on, so they'd have to form some kind of organisational structure where the entity that represents the group has the lease . 

That organisational structure is a bit of a sticking point.  The 'collective' method involves no real paperwork - and comes into loggerheads with capitalism which likes to have who owns want.   The cooperative method seems to work within capitalism.  It's basically a system where a single membership fee is paid, which is equivalent to a share. However, the share pays no dividends, it's just used as capital in the cooperative, and the member might get benefits just like being a member of a club they own.  Non members can still buy things from that store, as an example, but they don't get a say on how the cooperative is run, at meetings and stuff.  And it's usually not for profit, and leads to some committee structures that might mean centralised voices running the show in practice, but the door is always open in that system for any member to have a say.  Sort of "Capitalism and Communism lite" ,  and the coop pays rent to a landlord, or owns the property if it gets enough money and/or the members decide they'd like this to happen.

I would assume that there would be no lease in the communist system because if it would really be communist, the property would be communal, effectively meaning that no one owns it.  How to get around statist type interference is a complex matter that I don't think has yet been fully resolved,  although I'm leaning towards a radius system of local management/control, as opposed to ownership.  Still no lease but the locals are 'the boss'.

The tragedy of the commons is more about that control, because the mistake is made that people own land.  People live on land,  it is commons.  So one of the biggest errors of statist systems, that lead to huge amounts of drama, was that the state sort of acted in trust of the people, representing the common property managers.  Gave them way too much control and reeked havoc.  Communism IMHO oesn't work when it's centralised, and it only "needs" to be centralised, when the issue involves land ownership.

[Hutch Hogan]

I think it's all of the above - labor, land, supply and demand.  But also a few other things. I don't know if it already has a name but I call it the administrative theory of value.  The cost of things vary according to how much red tape it's tangled in.

Depends on how the red tape is applied.  If it applies to production, then it will limit the amount of supply that is legally produced, decreasing overall supply. 

If the red tape is applied to consumption, supply will still be limited as companies would limit themselves from producing more than can be sold. 

I anticipate that it depends on if the broader society is also communist. Given the companies in Silicon Valley and Spain we're talking about exist in capitalist societies, things are a little different, and odds are the company doesn't own the land it operates on, so they'd have to form some kind of organisational structure where the entity that represents the group has the lease . 

I would believe that a company is more likely to own its land in a capitalist society.  

The tragedy of the commons is more about that control, because the mistake is made that people own land.  People live on land,  it is commons.  So one of the biggest errors of statist systems, that lead to huge amounts of drama, was that the state sort of acted in trust of the people, representing the common property managers.  Gave them way too much control and reeked havoc.  Communism IMHO oesn't work when it's centralised, and it only "needs" to be centralised, when the issue involves land ownership.

I think I didn't make my shift clear when I changes to the tragedy of the commons.  I was saying that if there is no cost to the operation of the company to those who buy into it, then the resources become common and people will be benefit from the use of the resource, and only not benefit if they are not the one using the resource (since there'd be no cost on its use).  So if there's a C&C machine, a worker can benefit from its use so long as he uses it, but since its free for him to operate it, the only time he's being penalized about its use is when he's not using it, so the blade on the C&C machine would be depleted as the use of the machine becomes more aggressive because the machine is common. 

However, if the machine is owned by the machinists, or there is a fee for operating it, the problem is avoided as the machine ceases to be commons.