This author seems to be confused about what hierarchies are. Hierarchies have nothing to do with division of labor or expertise–you can easily have/recognize both of those things in a horizontal power structure. A hierarchy is about who can coerce whom.
In the factory example the article gives, the presence of a central organizer/administrator/delegator does not necessarily mean the factory operates hierarchically. To determine if it does, you’d need to ask, “does the organizational structure allow the administrator to have their decisions enforced via actual or threatened violence against people who dissent?” In our capitalist reality, this would be things like firing the dissenter (depriving them of basic survival resources) or calling the cops. In authoritarian “communist” regimes, this might be forced labor or re-education camps.
You can organize at scale, abstract out certain parts of the organization, etc. without this coercive element. Humans are cooperative creatures; we want to build things together, and we are fully capable of respecting each other while we do so. Why limit the bounds of our liberation by assuming we need this systemic violence to do what we already want to do?
It is you who is in fact confused about what hierarchies are because they have absolutely nothing to do with coercion, and have everything to do with division of labour and abstraction. You seem to have a personal definition of what a hierarchy is. Hierarchies do not require any violence whatsoever, and it’s a concept that applies to large range of domains outside politics such as writing computer programs. Next, you’ll be telling me that class hierarchies require threat of violence.
here is a detailed explanation for you https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/what-challenges-do-hierarchies-address
This author seems to be confused about what hierarchies are. Hierarchies have nothing to do with division of labor or expertise–you can easily have/recognize both of those things in a horizontal power structure. A hierarchy is about who can coerce whom.
In the factory example the article gives, the presence of a central organizer/administrator/delegator does not necessarily mean the factory operates hierarchically. To determine if it does, you’d need to ask, “does the organizational structure allow the administrator to have their decisions enforced via actual or threatened violence against people who dissent?” In our capitalist reality, this would be things like firing the dissenter (depriving them of basic survival resources) or calling the cops. In authoritarian “communist” regimes, this might be forced labor or re-education camps.
You can organize at scale, abstract out certain parts of the organization, etc. without this coercive element. Humans are cooperative creatures; we want to build things together, and we are fully capable of respecting each other while we do so. Why limit the bounds of our liberation by assuming we need this systemic violence to do what we already want to do?
It is you who is in fact confused about what hierarchies are because they have absolutely nothing to do with coercion, and have everything to do with division of labour and abstraction. You seem to have a personal definition of what a hierarchy is. Hierarchies do not require any violence whatsoever, and it’s a concept that applies to large range of domains outside politics such as writing computer programs. Next, you’ll be telling me that class hierarchies require threat of violence.
I’m confused by your last sentence. Can you say more?