I think the main rebuttal to that argument is what stops that from happening in a hierarchy? If anything having one makes that more likely, since someone in charge can have a bad idea and no one below them has any real power to stop it. Thereās a reason āincompetent boss/managerā is such a common trope. Having a horizontal structure where consensus is prioritized actually helps prevent those sorts of issues, since people who are the most knowledgeable and involved in the process are the ones making those decisions. Itās why group brainstorming sessions are so common, bouncing ideas off of other people involved in a project is extremely useful to help filter or improve bad ideas and build on good ones. Horizontal groups are sort of the natural state that you fall into when collaborating with people when there isnāt an existing rigidly enforced hierarchy between the members.
Idk that kind of sounds like getting rid of circles from society to stop people from driving their cars.
Its a matter of āhow much time can each employee spend on one task/projectā
Crowdsourcing decision-making can be a good way to make decisions. But complex, time-sensitive, specialized problems need to be handled with many hours of expertise in many different fields like data analytics (essentially predicting the future). Maybe the more specialization thats required, the less laymen input is effective in contributing. People spend their lives interpreting data, and can make fast data-driven decisions that produce the results. From theres it all Game Theory between organizations and its not that crazy that they refuse to concede the competitive edge and let someone else dominate the market. It seems like it would be hard to enforce not making certain decisions data driven.
Getting input from employees that are understanding of the subtleties is probably appreciated but even experts can be unfamiliar with the cadence of the project schedule which is why Change Control is a thing to ensure changes are not delaying or raising costs, or work the changes in with minimal distruption.
If ābossesā arent doing their job then they wont be able to explain to their bosses whats going on for them to make decisions effectively. People at the top dont like incompetency even if they themselves are. Yes bad decisions can come from the top and power corrupts.
I think its clear our government has failed us on many levels but i think banning the abstract structure āhierarchyā is some weak meme shit.
I mean in that sort of case then the group would defer to the person more knowledgeable in that specialty, same as what happens when after brainstorming people split into small groups or volunteer for individual responsibilities. Crowdsourced decision making is meant to be for the bigger aspects, stuff like what the end goal of a project should be. Smaller, extremely specialized aspects should get handled by those best equipped for it, thatās not a hierarchy. Listening to an expert is just respecting someoneās knowledge, and as long as they donāt have actual authority over you, then thereās much less risk of corruption taking place. Thereās a quote from I think Proudhon Bakunin that I canāt remember off the top of my head, Iāll come back and edit this when I find it. But effectively, it boils down to the difference between authority as in power over people, and authority as in knowledge.
And people who help organize and manage jobs also donāt necessarily need to be part of a hierarchy either. If the group agrees that someone is extremely effective at helping resolve conflicts or suggesting the best path to take and that sort of role is desirable for the project then thatās what they should do. The difference is that they arenāt in a position of power over anyone. They donāt have the unilateral ability to fire someone (nor does any individual), or take away their income/ability to live. And since they donāt have that power, they arenāt in a hierarchical position over anyone. If they start trying to force their way without taking feedback then the group will stop listening to them and appoint someone else if they still feel that itād be useful. Without a position of authority over people no hierarchy exists in the definition used in anarchist theory.
Edit: Thanks @[email protected]! Knew I read it somewhere on here recently.
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
But yeah, respecting peoples expertise in topics, splitting up work, or appointing people to give managerial suggestions arenāt hierarchical. A lack of hierarchy is not a lack of structure, itās just a lack of power and violence being used to oppress or control people. Efficient structures like these tend to naturally fall out of self-organization once the monopolies on violence used to prop up hierarchies are removed.
good post. since iām here, i want to expand on a few things:
But effectively, it boils down to the difference between authority as in power over people, and authority as in knowledge.
i recommend using expertise to refer to authority as in knowledgeāāālike you did later in your comment, as Andrewism doesāāāto avoid confusion.
They donāt have the unilateral ability to fire someone (nor does any individual)
no criticism, just expanding:
i think itās important that someone who is given by a role or responsibility should have a mandate: the role should be specific, and it should be temporary (for an arbitrary amount of time, or till the end of a project) or recallable by a vote.
Graeber notes in something iāll link below: āIf something has to be done, then itās okay to say all right, for the next three hours sheās in charge. Thereās nothing wrong with that if everybody agrees to it. Or you improvise.ā
Crowdsourced decision making is meant to be for the bigger aspects, stuff like what the end goal of a project should be. Smaller, extremely specialized aspects should get handled by those best equipped for it, thatās not a hierarchy.
in Kurdistan, this is the difference between technical decisions and the political (āmoralā) decisions[1]. itās the difference between āwhen should we have our next meeting?ā and āshould we be nonviolent?ā.
technical decisions are low-impact; operational or logistical.
political decisions are high-impact, with broad social implications.
the political decisions are consensus decisions, of at least 1/3 of the group. these are vetoƤble by anyone affected who wasnāt present for the vote.
the technical decisions are 2/3 or 3/4 majority votes, of the minimum affected people.
tho, as Graeber notes:
And then of course, obviously the question is who gets to decide whatās a moral question and whatās the technical one? So somebody might say, āWell, the question of [when to meet] bears on disabled people, and thatās a moral question.ā So that becomes a little bit of a political football. Thereās always things to debate and points of tension.
I think the main rebuttal to that argument is what stops that from happening in a hierarchy? If anything having one makes that more likely, since someone in charge can have a bad idea and no one below them has any real power to stop it. Thereās a reason āincompetent boss/managerā is such a common trope. Having a horizontal structure where consensus is prioritized actually helps prevent those sorts of issues, since people who are the most knowledgeable and involved in the process are the ones making those decisions. Itās why group brainstorming sessions are so common, bouncing ideas off of other people involved in a project is extremely useful to help filter or improve bad ideas and build on good ones. Horizontal groups are sort of the natural state that you fall into when collaborating with people when there isnāt an existing rigidly enforced hierarchy between the members.
Idk that kind of sounds like getting rid of circles from society to stop people from driving their cars.
Its a matter of āhow much time can each employee spend on one task/projectā
Crowdsourcing decision-making can be a good way to make decisions. But complex, time-sensitive, specialized problems need to be handled with many hours of expertise in many different fields like data analytics (essentially predicting the future). Maybe the more specialization thats required, the less laymen input is effective in contributing. People spend their lives interpreting data, and can make fast data-driven decisions that produce the results. From theres it all Game Theory between organizations and its not that crazy that they refuse to concede the competitive edge and let someone else dominate the market. It seems like it would be hard to enforce not making certain decisions data driven.
Getting input from employees that are understanding of the subtleties is probably appreciated but even experts can be unfamiliar with the cadence of the project schedule which is why Change Control is a thing to ensure changes are not delaying or raising costs, or work the changes in with minimal distruption.
If ābossesā arent doing their job then they wont be able to explain to their bosses whats going on for them to make decisions effectively. People at the top dont like incompetency even if they themselves are. Yes bad decisions can come from the top and power corrupts.
I think its clear our government has failed us on many levels but i think banning the abstract structure āhierarchyā is some weak meme shit.
I mean in that sort of case then the group would defer to the person more knowledgeable in that specialty, same as what happens when after brainstorming people split into small groups or volunteer for individual responsibilities. Crowdsourced decision making is meant to be for the bigger aspects, stuff like what the end goal of a project should be. Smaller, extremely specialized aspects should get handled by those best equipped for it, thatās not a hierarchy. Listening to an expert is just respecting someoneās knowledge, and as long as they donāt have actual authority over you, then thereās much less risk of corruption taking place. Thereās a quote from I think
ProudhonBakunin that I canāt remember off the top of my head, Iāll come back and edit this when I find it. But effectively, it boils down to the difference between authority as in power over people, and authority as in knowledge.And people who help organize and manage jobs also donāt necessarily need to be part of a hierarchy either. If the group agrees that someone is extremely effective at helping resolve conflicts or suggesting the best path to take and that sort of role is desirable for the project then thatās what they should do. The difference is that they arenāt in a position of power over anyone. They donāt have the unilateral ability to fire someone (nor does any individual), or take away their income/ability to live. And since they donāt have that power, they arenāt in a hierarchical position over anyone. If they start trying to force their way without taking feedback then the group will stop listening to them and appoint someone else if they still feel that itād be useful. Without a position of authority over people no hierarchy exists in the definition used in anarchist theory.
Edit: Thanks @[email protected]! Knew I read it somewhere on here recently.
ā Mikhail Bakunin, God and the state, Chapter 2
But yeah, respecting peoples expertise in topics, splitting up work, or appointing people to give managerial suggestions arenāt hierarchical. A lack of hierarchy is not a lack of structure, itās just a lack of power and violence being used to oppress or control people. Efficient structures like these tend to naturally fall out of self-organization once the monopolies on violence used to prop up hierarchies are removed.
good post. since iām here, i want to expand on a few things:
i recommend using expertise to refer to authority as in knowledgeāāālike you did later in your comment, as Andrewism doesāāāto avoid confusion.
no criticism, just expanding:
i think itās important that someone who is given by a role or responsibility should have a mandate: the role should be specific, and it should be temporary (for an arbitrary amount of time, or till the end of a project) or recallable by a vote.
Graeber notes in something iāll link below: āIf something has to be done, then itās okay to say all right, for the next three hours sheās in charge. Thereās nothing wrong with that if everybody agrees to it. Or you improvise.ā
in Kurdistan, this is the difference between technical decisions and the political (āmoralā) decisions[1]. itās the difference between āwhen should we have our next meeting?ā and āshould we be nonviolent?ā.
the political decisions are consensus decisions, of at least 1/3 of the group. these are vetoƤble by anyone affected who wasnāt present for the vote.
the technical decisions are 2/3 or 3/4 majority votes, of the minimum affected people.
tho, as Graeber notes:
only partially related, but this discusssion reminded me of an essay on the myth that
management == efficiency: David Harvey, anarchism, and tightly-coupled systems