A (ahem) "anarcho-capitalist" forum I was arguing on came up with this argument, concerning the social anarchist opposition to hierarchy, and the criticism of capitalism as hierarchical.
The only way to get around hierarchy is if everybody agrees. (i.e., coercing someone that disagrees into going along with an idea is a hierarchy of its own) If that were the case, there would be no need for any political philosophy, be it ancap, ansoc, conservatism, etc. Political philosophy is the topic of "who gets what" when there's DISAGREEMENT over who gets what.It's not that humans aren't "built" to agree. It's the fact that the entire field of political philosophy is the topic of what do, given a disagreement. If your theory assumes the possibility of (eventual) complete agreement, it's not a political philosophy at all!
However you answer the more fundamental question of "what should people do when they disagree about how some scarce, apppropriable resource should be used?" you are going to create a hierarchy. If the more needing person should get the resource, that's a hiearchy. If the resource is used however the majority decides, that's a hiearchy.
What do people think about this argument. I tried the following reply, but i;d be grateful for help or feedback on how good the argument is, cos i hate to lose to smug free market types:
In reply to the comment on hierarchy in the "true anarchists read this first bit".There is a difference between hierarchy and just not getting the decision you want.
Hierarchy is a systematic, organised division of people in a ranked way, so that they are divided into superiors and subordinates. These are INSTITUTIONAL ROLES, where it is the job of some to give orders, and of others to take them (whilst perhaps giving them to others further down the chain).
There is a hierarchy between bosses and workers, because bosses give the orders, and workers take them. Its just the same as the state, there is a hierarchy between the state and its subjects, because the government makes the laws, and the subjects obey them. If you want to stay within the area of the workplace, you have to take orders from above. If you want to stay within the area of the state, you have to do the same.
Now, compare this to a democratic workplace assembly. Sure, sometimes a minority get outvoted on an issue, and have to decide between quiting, striking or going along with the majority. Other times it will be a different minority. But they all have an equal say. There is no institutional division between order givers and takers, managers and executants etc.
Now, you are right in one sense of the word to say that there is always hierarchy, in that there is always some people who don't get there way, and may have to do something they don't like, or else face some sanction, even if just non-cooperation (which can be just as coercive in its effects).
But when classical anarchists talk about hierarchy, they atlk about an institutional structure.
Now, it doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between hierarchical and horizontal social structures.
HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE:
Organised in a pyramid. It is the institutional role and exclusive right of those at the top to give orders to those lower downBoss
|
V
Upper Management
|
V
Lower management
|
V
Manual Workers(The | and V is supposed to look like an arrow)
Those further down the chain take orders from those higher up, and have no institutional influence on the decisions of those further up.
Now compare this to a workplace ran by a democratic assembly of all who work there (lets no get into side issues of feasibility or efficiency right now). Everyone has a say, everyone has a vote, no one has any more power, and there is no systematic division into those whose job it is to command and those whose job it is to obey.
Now, can you not admit, at the very least, that there is a real difference in organisational structure between the management of a capitalist firm, and the self-managed firm I have described? If so, then we don't need to quibble over words. Social Anarchists call structures like the capitalist management structure described "hierarchy" and call the self-managed structure "non-hierarchical".
(P S Sorry if I went on a bit. I'm trying hard to get an idea across)
Can comment on articles and discussions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkOj282VD-Q