[Palmyrene]

Anyone who has a "clan" mentality is not a socialist.

Colonial empires operate on clan mentality.

[Unthinking Majority]

How is anarchism going to be able to greatly reduce or even eliminate hierarchy?

[Palmyrene]

How is anarchism going to be able to greatly reduce or even eliminate hierarchy?

Through non-hierarchial organization.

[Unthinking Majority]

Through non-hierarchial organization.

Well the same problem that communism/socialism faces would apply. Why would successful business people or professionals (doctors, engineers etc) who make good money want to live in such a society when they could move to a country/society that is capitalist and they could make much better money?

Communists have dealt with this problem by using tyrannical government to restrict freedom of movement and preventing such people from leaving their country.

So maybe you could build a society that's much less hierarchical, but you'd probably have a ton of brain drain and people taking their money and leaving, and left with a society of and for the average while many of the brightest minds flee elsewhere.

[Palmyrene]

Well the same problem that communism/socialism faces would apply. Why would successful business people or professionals (doctors, engineers etc) who make good money want to live in such a society when they could move to a country/society that is capitalist and they could make much better money?

Communists have dealt with this problem by using tyrannical government to restrict freedom of movement and preventing such people from leaving their country.

So maybe you could build a society that's much less hierarchical, but you'd probably have a ton of brain drain and people taking their money and leaving, and left with a society of and for the average while many of the brightest minds flee elsewhere.

I feel that this is a very disconnected question.

1. Why do you assume that professionals such as doctors or engineers won't be properly rewarded in an anarchist society? On the contrary they'd be given the full value of their labor.

2. Communist governments are hierarchial and thus irrelevant to the question (which is how would anarchism reduce hierarchy).

3. Again please explain how a non-hierarchial society would lead to massive brain drain? In fact, most brain drain occurs from countries that are very hierarchial. If you remove hierarchy altogether you'd get brain drain from capitalist countries not the other way around.

As Paul Mason put it:

Suppose [cities] did these things:

• Brand itself as a city of commons and collaborative production

• End privatisation

• Massively reduce the cost of basic services like housing, transport, education, and health so that being in the precariat became more survivable

• Build an agent-based, complex model of the economy, with real inputs, so that participatory democracy could model complex decisions

• Prefer and promote collaborative organisations over both the centralised state and the market solutions

• Institute a citizens basic income, conditional on some participation on non-profit activities

• Decree that the networked data of the population as it uses public services is non-ownable.

Would capitalism collapse?

No. The desperate, frantic “survival capitalists” would go away—the rip-off consultancies; the low-wage businesses; the rent-extractors.

But you would attract the most innovative capitalists on earth, and you would make the city vastly more livable for the million-plus people who call it home.

[Unthinking Majority]

3. Again please explain how a non-hierarchial society would lead to massive brain drain? In fact, most brain drain occurs from countries that are very hierarchial. If you remove hierarchy altogether you'd get brain drain from capitalist countries not the other way around.

Lots of people may want to move to a less hierarchial society, but those would mostly be have-nots or the average working people. But why would smart people with a great idea for a product or service want to move to a country or stay in a country where they'd make less money they'd otherwise make in a typical capitalist society?

3. Again please explain how a non-hierarchial society would lead to massive brain drain? In fact, most brain drain occurs from countries that are very hierarchial.

No. The brain drain occurs because that smart/talented person usually wants to make more money and live better. People who are able to be high on the wealth hierarchy obviously want that wealth hierarchy because it benefits them.

Brain drain in poor countries occurs because the smart and talented want to move to richer capitalist societies so they can make more money.

When brain drain occurs from a smart person moving from one wealthy to another wealthy country, it's often because they are able to make less money in the home country so they move to the other country to make more. It's the same when you raise taxes too high on the wealthy, they begin to leave that country as do businesses. It's the same within countries: If you live in Iowa and can make a lot more money in New York you're likely to move to New York.

[Palmyrene]

Lots of people may want to move to a less hierarchial society, but those would mostly be have-nots or the average working people.

What do you think brain drain is? You think brain drain consists primarily of the working class?

But why would smart people with a great idea for a product or service want to move to a country or stay in a country where they'd make less money they'd otherwise make in a typical capitalist society?

1. Why do you assume they won't be properly rewarded for their labor?

2. In an anarchist society they'd get far more immediate "funding" and labor pool to work with. It'd be easier to experiment and innovate in an anarchist society than a capitalist one.

No. The brain drain occurs because that smart/talented person usually wants to make more money and live better. People who are able to be high on the wealth hierarchy obviously want that wealth hierarchy because it benefits them.

That doesn't contradict what I said. Countries that are more hierarchial have more brain drain because the hierarchy gets in the way of innovation and people's pursuit of happiness.

In an anarchist society, since there is no hierarchy, people will get rewarded for the full value of their skills and labor so, in a layman's terms, "more money than capitalist societies". And they'll have other boons too. For example, if they're interested in research in whatever field they're in, all that equipment would be readily available for use.

[Hong Wu]

I've observed that the success or failure of a civilization in the long term has a lot of correlation with what the state of their religion is.

[Palmyrene]

I've observed that the success or failure of a civilization in the long term has a lot of correlation with what the state of their religion is.

Guess the West's pretty fucked up then.

[Unthinking Majority]

1. Why do you assume they won't be properly rewarded for their labor?

If "there's no hierarchy", including economic hierarchy, a smart person with a great business idea isn't going to be able to make as much money compared to in a hierarchical capitalist society.

2. In an anarchist society they'd get far more immediate "funding" and labor pool to work with. It'd be easier to experiment and innovate in an anarchist society than a capitalist one.

Where does the funding come from with no capital markets?

Countries that are more hierarchial have more brain drain because the hierarchy gets in the way of innovation and people's pursuit of happiness.

The USA doesn't get a lot of brain drain and it's arguably the most hierarchical wealthy western country.

[Palmyrene]

If "there's no hierarchy", including economic hierarchy, a smart person with a great business idea isn't going to be able to make as much money compared to in a hierarchical capitalist society.

I don't think you know what hierarchy is.

Hierarchy primarily refers to relationships of command and subordination. It's origins seem to be in descriptions of the mechanics of divine command in the world: ranks of angels, ranks of religious officials, etc., with all ultimately subordinated to a god. We also use the term to describe systemic advantages and privileges granted to individuals on the basis of particular social or economic roles.

Mere individual differences (in capacity, experience, performance, influence,etc.) are not enough to establish hierarchy. Hierarchies involve roles and persist, often whether or not the individual is actually capable of fulfilling the role. (Bad managers still command exceptional employees. Weak or inept rulers may be deposed, losing the role, but it is still always the ruler who rules. Etc.)

Where does the funding come from with no capital markets?

I use "funding" in quotations because, while an anarchist society will have something similar in it's effects, it operates completely differently.

In an anarchist society, projects gain traction based on how many people want or are willing to give resources or put in effort to complete them. If your idea is attractive and you have a good plan, people will associate with you and work to execute said idea.

The USA doesn't get a lot of brain drain and it's arguably the most hierarchical wealthy western country.

Not really. Compared to Syria where most of the property is held in the hands of Assad's clan, I think even the US is an upgrade.

[Unthinking Majority]

I don't think you know what hierarchy is.

Hierarchy primarily refers to relationships of command and subordination. It's origins seem to be in descriptions of the mechanics of divine command in the world: ranks of angels, ranks of religious officials, etc., with all ultimately subordinated to a god. We also use the term to describe systemic advantages and privileges granted to individuals on the basis of particular social or economic roles.

Mere individual differences (in capacity, experience, performance, influence,etc.) are not enough to establish hierarchy. Hierarchies involve roles and persist, often whether or not the individual is actually capable of fulfilling the role. (Bad managers still command exceptional employees. Weak or inept rulers may be deposed, losing the role, but it is still always the ruler who rules. Etc.)

I guess that's a specific form of hierarchy. Involuntary authority or something like that. That totally changes the argument then. Hierarchy based on the rich being more powerful than the poor is a different form I guess.

I agree with anarchists in that ideally i'd rather not be involuntarily subject to authority like government. I'm ok with having a "boss" or "supervisor" at work because that's a voluntary relationship, if I don't want to sign that contract and work at that workplace I don't have to.

[Palmyrene]

I guess that's a specific form of hierarchy. Involuntary authority or something like that. That totally changes the argument then. Hierarchy based on the rich being more powerful than the poor is a different form I guess.

It's quite frankly the same. The rich have power over the poor and can exert their will upon them. This is why you see the rich lobbying for policies that throw the poor under the bus because they have the power to.

I agree with anarchists in that ideally i'd rather not be involuntarily subject to authority like government. I'm ok with having a "boss" or "supervisor" at work because that's a voluntary relationship, if I don't want to sign that contract and work at that workplace I don't have to.

Why would you want a boss or manager? Do you need someone to tell you what to do?

[Unthinking Majority]

It's quite frankly the same. The rich have power over the poor and can exert their will upon them. This is why you see the rich lobbying for policies that throw the poor under the bus because they have the power to.

Will there be rich and poor in an anarchist society? If not, you'll have brain drain, because those who have the capability to be rich will not want to be less than that.

Why would you want a boss or manager? Do you need someone to tell you what to do?

I've worked on projects with democratic decision-making. It's slow and inefficient. I'm sure there's a place for it, but there's also a place for positions of authority in the workplace. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a boss. If one doesn't like a boss, open a workplace with a different non-hierarchy structure.

[Palmyrene]

Will there be rich and poor in an anarchist society? If not, you'll have brain drain, because those who have the capability to be rich will not want to be less than that.

There will be people with more money than others yes but it wouldn't quite matter. Everyone's basic needs (food, water, shelter, clothing, etc.) will be met. Going beyond that is up to you.

I've worked on projects with democratic decision-making. It's slow and inefficient. I'm sure there's a place for it, but there's also a place for positions of authority in the workplace. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a boss. If one doesn't like a boss, open a workplace with a different non-hierarchy structure.

Who said there would be democracy in an anarchist society? There would be no such thing. Personally I'd like to go to as little councils and meetings as possible

People will join together to work on projects they'll be interested in and thus, everyone will be on the same page. If there are any major disagreements that can't be solved through discussion, then the group will split while still sharing resources and information between the two.

Authority is self-cannibalizing. It doesn't lead to a more efficient system, it leads to one based on corruption and privilege. Power corrupts regardless of who it is.

[Unthinking Majority]

Who said there would be democracy in an anarchist society? There would be no such thing. Personally I'd like to go to as little councils and meetings as possible

People will join together to work on projects they'll be interested in and thus, everyone will be on the same page. If there are any major disagreements that can't be solved through discussion, then the group will split while still sharing resources and information between the two.

How will important decisions be made? In a project, how is it decided who else to bring on board to help out? If a person isn't pulling their weight or doing unethical things, who decides to give them to boot?

How are things like crime dealt with? What is the deterrent for crime? Is there punishment, and who decides it? If there's no authority, and no democracy, how else are important decisions like these made?

Authority is self-cannibalizing. It doesn't lead to a more efficient system, it leads to one based on corruption and privilege. Power corrupts regardless of who it is.

Well I would disagree on it being less efficient (sometimes), but i do agree with it creating corruption and also exploitation etc.

[Palmyrene]

How will important decisions be made? In a project, how is it decided who else to bring on board to help out?

Anyone whose interested will help out and if someone who is working on the project thinks they can convince someone to join, they will.

If a person isn't pulling their weight or doing unethical things, who decides to give them to boot?

The people who are a part of the project will stop associating with him.

How are things like crime dealt with? What is the deterrent for crime? Is there punishment, and who decides it? If there's no authority, and no democracy, how else are important decisions like these made?

Well crime only exists in the eyes of the state and law. There wouldn't be something called "crime" just problems and conflicts. Since people cannot rely on law or the state to solve their problems or back them up, the problems will be done collectively and solved through informal rules.

Well I would disagree on it being less efficient (sometimes), but i do agree with it creating corruption and also exploitation etc.

In a hierarchy people are inherently in constant passive aggressive conflict because hierarchy legitimatize coercion as a source of power and influence.

[Unthinking Majority]

-Anyone whose interested will help out and if someone who is working on the project thinks they can convince someone to join, they will.

What happens when there are disagreements on an important decision, or deciding who should be able to join vs not? You still haven't explained this. Disagreements have traditionally meant that they are solved by either a) an authority deciding, or b) a collective decision being made, based on some kind of system ie: democratic vote.

-The people who are a part of the project will stop associating with him.

And what if the people stop associating with him/her but he's still accessing project files and screwing them up, or stealing them, or sabotaging them? Who decides to give them the boot or restrict access? Decisions like this need to be made.

Your haphazard free-assocation workplace utopia isn't going to work unless you explain how decisions are determined.

[Palmyrene]

What happens when there are disagreements on an important decision, or deciding who should be able to join vs not? You still haven't explained this. Disagreements have traditionally meant that they are solved by either a) an authority deciding, or b) a collective decision being made, based on some kind of system ie: democratic vote.

Depends on how important that decision is and how urgent it is.

If it's important but it's not something time sensitive we can discuss it to our hearts content till we reach an understanding or agreement.

If it's important and time sensitive then it comes down to a collective, participatory vote where the vote is binding on those who participated.

And what if the people stop associating with him/her but he's still accessing project files and screwing them up, or stealing them, or sabotaging them? Who decides to give them the boot or restrict access? Decisions like this need to be made.

Well if they stopped associating with them they wouldn't have access to the project.

And if we're talking about them stealing files or sabatoge I'm not sure how an authority would deal with that any better.

This kind of stuff happens today anyways. We already have insider trading and people stealing company secrets. And we live in a hierarchial society.

Your haphazard free-assocation workplace utopia isn't going to work unless you explain how decisions are determined.

Decisions are determined by individuals.

If a group of individuals find that their ideas and interests coincide they'll come together.

In a hierarchy this would be factionalism and cause severe amounts of conflict due to the coercive nature of hierarchies.

In an anarchy the groups would simply split and share resources and info between each other.

It's as simple as that.

[anasawad]

Back to the crime question.
What if someone raped or murdered?
What if there was a serial killer?

Who would investigate the crime to find out who committed it? And how will he\she be caught?

And to that matter, these sciences like Forensic science need to be taught. How will they be taught? if there is no central authority, there won't be any universities, and thus no one would learn these skills.

On the long term, how will scientific progress be maintain if there isn't a central authority directing funding and effort for it?

How will the infrastructure be built and maintained without a central authority to direct and organize efforts towards it?