Non-hierarchal social structures project

national | miscellaneous | news report

Thursday May 30, 2002 04:23

by Stevphen - Desiderata

patrioticdissent at hotmail dot com

There is a new project concerning non-hierarchal social structures, their forms and how they have existed, and how they can be applied in social and political activism in the creation of dual power structures and in the creation of a society free from hierarchal power relations. This discussion and the ideas generates through it will serve as the basis for an on-line resource and printed work on these types of social relations.

Oftentimes we as anarchists, libertarian socialists, anti-authoritarians, and political dissidents who advocate the reorganizing of society into forms free from hierarchy and oppression, find ourselves confronted in conversation with the following: “Yes, I understand your objections to the way the world is now – but I don’t understand what you want to replace it with. There has never been a society free of hierarchy and oppression, and thanks to human nature there can never or will be one.”
Such objections are not entirely baseless. All too often we either focus entirely upon a critique of existing authoritarian institutions without proposing alternatives. Likewise, when it comes to proposing alternatives, many refuse to go into any degree of detail on the ground that we cannot predict what form such institutions might most effectively take. Although the reasoning for these patterns of thought may hold a degree of validity, they are gravely flawed in terms of actuating social change: to try to convince people of the defects of the current social structure while providing little or nothing in describing the non-hierarchal forms we advocate is a sure plan for failing to convince or alienating the very people that we want to reach out to.
The course of human history is strewn with examples of stateless societies and social groupings that have existed without hierarchal forms of control or the division of people into masters and servants. Although there are numerous reasons why adopting and importing these forms and structures exactly as they are is a mistake, there are clearly lessons to be learned and knowledge to be gained by examining how non-hierarchal social structures have existed, and how they can used as models and catalysts within our struggles. The point is not to idealize such examples, but to acknowledge that they provide important insights into how non-hierarchal structures work, thus vastly increasing our sense of human possibilities.
Therefore, we are calling for a thorough and continued discussion of non-hierarchal social structures as they have existed and functioned. How can these forms and organizational principles be applied to the world as it exists now? How must these particular forms be changed and adapted to exist within the world as it is now? How can non-hierarchal social forms interact with a society that continues to provide rewards and benefits in an exploitative manner? How can these forms exist in way that does not serve to indirectly serve to legitimize and reinforce the very system that they are designed to act outside of and as an alternative to?
It is our hope that that by engaging in such a dialogue will spur interest among how non-hierarchal social forms have existed and how they can be applied today. The outcomes of these discussions, forums, and interactions wil coalesce into a guidebook or text that can be used as a reference on the subject, which is currently lacking within the existing realms of both mainstream academic as well as anarchist writings. Also, it is our hope that such discussions will lead to the formation of a loose network for activists to cooperate on the creation and formation of non-hierarchal social structures in our daily lives.

save preference

Comments (6 of 6)

The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle.

by Mark - Socialist Party

Thu May 30, 2002 11:11

Social experiment? Sounds very Utopian socialist to me. Like Saint-Simon and Fourier. These things are flawed because they take the what is desired and try to apply it to the world we live in. The object is to take the world we live in and move it towards what is desired. This can only be achieved through class struggle.
BTW: Andrew I have not conveniently forgotten about our little debate, I am just giving the material the attention it deserves. (Just in case you were wondering).

Not me

by Andrew

Thu May 30, 2002 11:22

Hi Mark,

in case its unclear the mail you are replying to was not posted by me (I always use my name or the name of the organisation I'm posting for).

I presume the discussion you refer to is the Russian revolution one? Is there is already a lot of discussion on this between some Irish anarchists and a member of Socialist Alternative at the link below you might find useful

petticoats of dogma

by vert-et-noir

Thu May 30, 2002 11:32

The original posting seems a little vague and aspirational, the hazy outline of a percieved potential. It's the response which is truly telling: great leaders have been telling us "The Answer" for 200 years and more, why the hell do some people have to keep looking for another way to do things.

It's probably a very good thing there weren't too many "Socialists" about when Marx, Engels et al were forming their ideas. Anyone ever notice how all these dogmas were groundbreaking(revolutionary ;-) in their day?

FAO: Vert et Noir

Thu May 30, 2002 15:24

If you payed any attention to what I wrote you would see that all I said was that theory should be the result of struggle and everyday practice, not something that sounds like a good idea but has no basis in reality. Just because this was the methodology of Marx and Engels doesn't mean that it is not a good one. The idea that a new methodology is needed for the sake of one is ludicrous. If its not broke don't try and fix it eh? But listen theres a huge difference between a dogmatic theory and a methodology and its a failure to grasp this which leads to a lot of hostility towards Socialist organisations.

Cult like behaviour

Thu May 30, 2002 16:54

Interestingly enough a psychology study that looks at the CWI as a cult (written by an ex member) has this to say about the deification of the dead implicit above.
"5. Leader figures, alive or dead, are deified. In the first place, this adulation tends to center on Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, or other significant historical figures. It also increasingly transfers to existing leaders, who represent themselves as defending the historical continuity of the "great" ideas of Marxist leaders. In effect, the new leaders are depicted, in their unbending devotion to the founders? ideals, as the reincarnation of Marx, Trotsky, or whomever. There is a tendency to settle arguments by referring constantly to the sayings of the wise leaders (past or present), rather than by developing an independent analysis. Even banal observations are usually buttressed by the use of supporting quotations from sanctified sources."
Full paper is at the link at the bottom, I bring this up to illustrate how odd the idea that the ideas of 'Marx and Engels' are not in need of repair looks from the outside of Marxism-Leninism.

a point

by silo

Thu May 30, 2002 18:34

The first reply said:

"The object is to take the world we live in and move it towards what is desired. This can only be achieved through class struggle."

It does not mention in any way what it is that is "desired".

Anarchists (mostly) desire a non-hierarchical society. Discussion of possibly modalities and versions of non-hierarchical control is a concrete step towards realising this goal.

Even by the socialist argument this is a relevant endeavour. By the anarchist argument it is an essential process.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Non-hierarchal social structures project

Comments (6 of 6)