Hacker News Reader

Comment by marricks | Hacker News Reader

I mean, flipping that on its head where does the "dark side of humanity" end up? Looking at all the police brutality, the Epstein's, the Koch brothers, the crappy politicians... I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society.

In a society without hierarchies, an anarchist society, you still have groups and communication and working together, you just don't have people above you telling you something is OK or how it should be.

Absolutely no form of government or system (anarchist 1000% included) will solve the problem of people being selfish or bad, all that anarchists contend (that I have seen) is that when there isn't those built hierarchies bad/selfish people don't amass power so everyone else can actually handle them on equal terms.

And considering how Epstein was able to morph the whole political landscape to defend himself for over a decade, uh, any alternative can seem pretty reasonable.

View on HN

I don't think it's realistic to believe that hierarchies wouldn't emerge one way or another. The hierarchy can arise in the form of a mafia, or in a more regulated way.

Examples of anti-hierarchical societies do exist (Catalonia, Paris Commune, etc).

The problem isn't so much that hierarchies just arise naturally, the problem is more that these societies aren't very long lived because they're pretty useless at defending themselves with violence.

It's not totally uncommon to find an anti-hierarchical company. It is almost impossible to find an effective anti-hierarchical military.

As far as I'm aware, both of those had hierarchical leadership structures. The Paris Commune was run democratically through universal suffrage, and the CNT-FAI had its own leadership structures. Now, these societies sought to minimize hierarchy, sure, but I think it's important to recognize that an entirely non-hierarchical society is essentially impossible.

They were without coercive hierarchy. There's a fundamental difference between having a "boss" and electing your "boss".

This was a fantastic essay by a first-wave feminist about the "tyrrany of structurelessness". The idea is basically that if you abolish formal hierarchies, hieararhcies will be established but they'll be informal ones, outside any system of checks and balances. It was dealing with a smaller scale that an entire political system, but it stuck with me and I think it's relevant here: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

This same tyranny exists with money. The beauty of financial transactions as work and recognition is that there's never any ambiguity as far as your work being valued. In academia you have, on the other hand, things such as nebulous awards and recognition of placement on a publication. These things have real implications for career placement. That can be an analogous sort of tyranny, I think.

I very much doubt anyone will see this comment, but I can’t help scratching the itch - I am wrong on the internet! - of course this is second wave feminism...

Well, if you have an area of high inequality suppressed by an outside force I'm sure some "bad" groups could form because they want to challenge those outside forces.

If you have an example of a mafia formed in a stable area without inequality or hierarchies I'd be pretty interested. People in general like the path of least resistance and only turn "violent" when they feel they have to.

However, if your view is most people are just bad and will do bad things on their own then sure, perhaps you want hierarchies in place but I have no clue why someone would think the bad/selfish people wouldn't just rise to the top and just become worse.

"A stable area without inequalities" is a fantasy, there never was such a place. People is different, have different bodies, different minds, I never knew about any "stable area without inequalities".

I believe that most people are good, but there are also some people who are evil/psychopaths, and I don't see why they wouldn't organize a tyrannical hierarchy, they could use violence and other means to rise, I see it as a risk.

> In a society without hierarchies, an anarchist society, you still have groups and > communication and working together, you just don't have people above you telling you > something is OK or how it should be.

Yes, and when it's bad guys, we call those groups "cartels" and "gangs".

When it's the good guys, we call those "governments". You necessarily need governments (and thus law enforcement and a military of some type) to fend off the bad guys and to maintain order (crime, settle disputes, etc).

As part of all that, be it the good guys or the bad guys, you need a solid leadership structure, or you end up with warring factions causing chaos or accomplishing nothing at all. Who is attracted to leadership positions? "Crappy politicians" and "the Koch brothers".

Anarchism, as described just doesn't work. Even in small anarchistic collectives of a dozen or so people, they inevitably start developing rules and leadership and governance structures.

Rather that abolishing the police and throwing away established systems, I would much rather strive toward iterative reforms of injustices.

> I mean the crap really seems to float to the top of society.

This is a somewhat bizzare argument IMO.

Even if you assume that sociopaths are over represented higher in the hierarchy, base rates force you to acknowledge that most sociopaths are at the bottom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com