Today I’m going to the office where I used to work, in a manner of speaking, to hand in my company laptop as large as a pontoon boat and a mouse still encased in impenetrable plastic.
"if there were 50,000 people on the planet we’d all be singing John Lennon and playing naked twister; larger population tend to hierarchize, divide, specialize and foment more intense status and resource competitions"
I completely disagree with this contention Caleb, as I expect you knew I would. It's true that large-scale societies require a great deal more *organization* - but organization is not necessarily hierarchical. Co-operative societies can operate without hierarchies, or with light hierarchies that are more guidelines than actual rules (pirate republics), or with turn-taking hierarchies in which I'm CEO today and toilet cleaner the next day.
It's just completely false that conflict requires the imposition of authority to sort things out. But just in case it does - how about police officer or private security guy for your next career move?
Thing is, Murph, I'm not trying to be dogmatic about this: I'm open to being wrong, and I know I need to do more reading in the history of the various strands of anarchism. Nonetheless, I think my main hang up is the suspicion that the more people you add, both in general and to specific populations, the greater the potential for stratification, specialization, power struggles, intrigues, shadiness, etc. Maybe there are some large scale orgs that can functionally effectively with different, flatter hierarchies, but I wonder if they struggle with other more organic kinds of conflict not as amenable to structural enforcement; by this I mean things like natural differences in charm, sexual attractiveness, athleticism, and so on. Also, I hope it's clear that my critical suspicions aren't intended as defenses of hierarchies as they exist in the present, I don't mean to go as far as arguing that current inequalities and structures are legitimate, because I don't believe they are
Of course I never believed for one moment that you carry water for the current clownshow of hierarchy with a bloated narcissist at the very top and CEOs literally rewarded for more life-destroying outcomes in terms of poor health, ecological rape, and the merchandizing of war.
But believing in any kind of hierarchical order necessarily implies an imbalance between the rulers and the ruled, and if not the current system based on fake meritocracy measured in cash and social media clout, then what? Monarchy? Aristocracy? Plato’s dumb Republic?
I suggest that there are horizontally arranged societies that work pretty well, but they historically have always been under extreme pressure from outside. Look into the pirate republic of The Bahamas (1708 onwards), or the anarchist collective of Nestor Mahkno in Ukraine (1920ish). Or most successfully the anarcho-syndicalist ‘republic’ of Catalonia in the 1930s before the Spanish Civil War destroyed it.
On a more modest scale there are highly successful co-operatives such as Mondragón in Spain whose policies I don’t completely agree with but nevertheless are a model for a collaborative and non-hierarchical (and highly productive) enterprise.
It’s interesting that the categories of imbalance that you suggest - sexual attractiveness, popular charisma, athleticism - are pretty much the staples of the American High School movie. Seems it’s pretty brutal in those places. But what about income and wealth differentials? Don’t they actually provide the most significant differences in status today?
[QUICK EDIT WITH SOME REFERENCES
Colin Woodard, The Republic of Pirates
Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists The Heroic Years 1868-1936
Alexandre Skirda, Nestor Makhno Anarchy's Cossack, The Struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukraine
-- Happy to send you those if you can't find or afford them].
And you know what? charisma, athleticism etc etc are absolutely socially constructed values from a very specific cultural-historical location. Neither universal nor inevitable nor even interesting to most of human history and society. The very perception of difference, first, and then the assignment of social value to certain differences - that something modernity and capitalism teaches.
Though to be sure modern capitalist society is hardly the first to establish hierarchical status based on the assignment of culturally created difference.
The question at its root is Caleb's originally expressed doubt - is it possible to have any kind of functioning society at scales larger than a village or small clan in which there aren't hierarchies, whether viewed through social or purely monetary or military points of view?
Very much appreciate the recommended reading. I've been meaning to read Bookchin, he's high on the list and I should probably move him to the top. As to Caroline's point, I can readily grant that there's a degree of social construction in how certain qualities are perceived and then rewarded or organized in structures. Nevertheless it's hard not to think that some of those qualities are more likely to create imbalances with cascading effects unless everyone involved is especially vigilant, especially as you scale up. It might be a quibble, but there is a distinction between difference and perception of difference, and, pardon the clumsy phrasing, some differences are made not solely through perception, but through their actual difference
I was in fact going to make that very point. For example athleticism is a real physical attribute. If somebody can run 100m faster than me or lift heavier weights, that's not culturally defined, it's an actual thing. Having said that, it's of limited value except in very rare cases, physical combat and so on.
Having said all that... can't you get some sleep now Caleb? Mid-morning my time, gotta be the wee hours your time. Get some shut-eye, mate, if you can.
Enjoyed this a lot. Your job reminded me of a role I turned down because of too many red flags during the interview, essentially I was to be the 'IT guy', except the IT was outsourced. I asked them, 'what do you expect me to do all day if it's outsourced?' They said they didn't know, so the first half of this piece is how I imagined that would have went. I assume that role was some company 'signalling' about how they were 'improving IT' or whatever.
The second half re: psychology (I'm not clued up on psychology but I do know what it's like to work in a big company) reminds me of a behavioural psychologist I used to know who charges high fees to companies to basically make the drones work harder (I'm not calling them drones, more the company's perspective) as it's ultimately about KPIs. Anyway, she rattles on like what she's doing genuinely helps 'people' when in reality she's basically a kind of corporate high priestess, who, like you said, only exists to make them adapt to these systems at the company's behest. Fair enough 'it's a job', but she's internalised this 'empowerment' to such a level I'll be surprised if this false narrative she's perpetuating doesn't harm her mentally in the long run.
I've been in rooms with this 'alien speak' and they still do it even when you've known them for years, perhaps it's a cope or an abstraction, I'm sure many are good people.
Glad you liked the piece. Your anecdote sounds all too common, really. I had no experience with the office life until this last job, but many people have told me of similar experiences, not knowing what they’re supposed to be doing, vague titles and objectives, time wasting, etc. I truly don’t understand how there’s money for so much of this, but then I don’t really get how most businesses stay in business
"these men are well-adjusted to their absurd conventions, "
Yes they are. I suppose maybe I am,too. But not enough to ignore the absurdity.
Another alienation l'm currently dealing with is trying to join the club of the spreadsheeters. They are a suspicious bunch and not particularly welcoming.
I don't fault a man for trying to make a living, even by the spreadsheet. We all have to find some way. But I couldn't do it. The lack of welcome is increasingly customary, I believe. It's a default coldness, a spreading indifference or failure of relation
Hmm, I could see myself getting up to homesteading. But truthfully, I'm also somewhat reconciled to living as an urban marginal of sorts, working as much as necessary and spending the rest of my time reading and writing and fucking off however I please
"if there were 50,000 people on the planet we’d all be singing John Lennon and playing naked twister; larger population tend to hierarchize, divide, specialize and foment more intense status and resource competitions"
I completely disagree with this contention Caleb, as I expect you knew I would. It's true that large-scale societies require a great deal more *organization* - but organization is not necessarily hierarchical. Co-operative societies can operate without hierarchies, or with light hierarchies that are more guidelines than actual rules (pirate republics), or with turn-taking hierarchies in which I'm CEO today and toilet cleaner the next day.
It's just completely false that conflict requires the imposition of authority to sort things out. But just in case it does - how about police officer or private security guy for your next career move?
Thing is, Murph, I'm not trying to be dogmatic about this: I'm open to being wrong, and I know I need to do more reading in the history of the various strands of anarchism. Nonetheless, I think my main hang up is the suspicion that the more people you add, both in general and to specific populations, the greater the potential for stratification, specialization, power struggles, intrigues, shadiness, etc. Maybe there are some large scale orgs that can functionally effectively with different, flatter hierarchies, but I wonder if they struggle with other more organic kinds of conflict not as amenable to structural enforcement; by this I mean things like natural differences in charm, sexual attractiveness, athleticism, and so on. Also, I hope it's clear that my critical suspicions aren't intended as defenses of hierarchies as they exist in the present, I don't mean to go as far as arguing that current inequalities and structures are legitimate, because I don't believe they are
Of course I never believed for one moment that you carry water for the current clownshow of hierarchy with a bloated narcissist at the very top and CEOs literally rewarded for more life-destroying outcomes in terms of poor health, ecological rape, and the merchandizing of war.
But believing in any kind of hierarchical order necessarily implies an imbalance between the rulers and the ruled, and if not the current system based on fake meritocracy measured in cash and social media clout, then what? Monarchy? Aristocracy? Plato’s dumb Republic?
I suggest that there are horizontally arranged societies that work pretty well, but they historically have always been under extreme pressure from outside. Look into the pirate republic of The Bahamas (1708 onwards), or the anarchist collective of Nestor Mahkno in Ukraine (1920ish). Or most successfully the anarcho-syndicalist ‘republic’ of Catalonia in the 1930s before the Spanish Civil War destroyed it.
On a more modest scale there are highly successful co-operatives such as Mondragón in Spain whose policies I don’t completely agree with but nevertheless are a model for a collaborative and non-hierarchical (and highly productive) enterprise.
It’s interesting that the categories of imbalance that you suggest - sexual attractiveness, popular charisma, athleticism - are pretty much the staples of the American High School movie. Seems it’s pretty brutal in those places. But what about income and wealth differentials? Don’t they actually provide the most significant differences in status today?
[QUICK EDIT WITH SOME REFERENCES
Colin Woodard, The Republic of Pirates
Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists The Heroic Years 1868-1936
Alexandre Skirda, Nestor Makhno Anarchy's Cossack, The Struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukraine
-- Happy to send you those if you can't find or afford them].
And you know what? charisma, athleticism etc etc are absolutely socially constructed values from a very specific cultural-historical location. Neither universal nor inevitable nor even interesting to most of human history and society. The very perception of difference, first, and then the assignment of social value to certain differences - that something modernity and capitalism teaches.
Though to be sure modern capitalist society is hardly the first to establish hierarchical status based on the assignment of culturally created difference.
The question at its root is Caleb's originally expressed doubt - is it possible to have any kind of functioning society at scales larger than a village or small clan in which there aren't hierarchies, whether viewed through social or purely monetary or military points of view?
Very much appreciate the recommended reading. I've been meaning to read Bookchin, he's high on the list and I should probably move him to the top. As to Caroline's point, I can readily grant that there's a degree of social construction in how certain qualities are perceived and then rewarded or organized in structures. Nevertheless it's hard not to think that some of those qualities are more likely to create imbalances with cascading effects unless everyone involved is especially vigilant, especially as you scale up. It might be a quibble, but there is a distinction between difference and perception of difference, and, pardon the clumsy phrasing, some differences are made not solely through perception, but through their actual difference
Anthropologists have just one trick - but it's a good one. Comparison and the "making strange" of what feels/seems inevitable - see if this inspires any sparks - https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/social-analysis/66/3/sa660301.xml
I was in fact going to make that very point. For example athleticism is a real physical attribute. If somebody can run 100m faster than me or lift heavier weights, that's not culturally defined, it's an actual thing. Having said that, it's of limited value except in very rare cases, physical combat and so on.
Having said all that... can't you get some sleep now Caleb? Mid-morning my time, gotta be the wee hours your time. Get some shut-eye, mate, if you can.
Some forms of clan organisation. And the examples you gave. We could brainstorm more.
Enjoyed this a lot. Your job reminded me of a role I turned down because of too many red flags during the interview, essentially I was to be the 'IT guy', except the IT was outsourced. I asked them, 'what do you expect me to do all day if it's outsourced?' They said they didn't know, so the first half of this piece is how I imagined that would have went. I assume that role was some company 'signalling' about how they were 'improving IT' or whatever.
The second half re: psychology (I'm not clued up on psychology but I do know what it's like to work in a big company) reminds me of a behavioural psychologist I used to know who charges high fees to companies to basically make the drones work harder (I'm not calling them drones, more the company's perspective) as it's ultimately about KPIs. Anyway, she rattles on like what she's doing genuinely helps 'people' when in reality she's basically a kind of corporate high priestess, who, like you said, only exists to make them adapt to these systems at the company's behest. Fair enough 'it's a job', but she's internalised this 'empowerment' to such a level I'll be surprised if this false narrative she's perpetuating doesn't harm her mentally in the long run.
I've been in rooms with this 'alien speak' and they still do it even when you've known them for years, perhaps it's a cope or an abstraction, I'm sure many are good people.
Glad you liked the piece. Your anecdote sounds all too common, really. I had no experience with the office life until this last job, but many people have told me of similar experiences, not knowing what they’re supposed to be doing, vague titles and objectives, time wasting, etc. I truly don’t understand how there’s money for so much of this, but then I don’t really get how most businesses stay in business
"these men are well-adjusted to their absurd conventions, "
Yes they are. I suppose maybe I am,too. But not enough to ignore the absurdity.
Another alienation l'm currently dealing with is trying to join the club of the spreadsheeters. They are a suspicious bunch and not particularly welcoming.
I don't fault a man for trying to make a living, even by the spreadsheet. We all have to find some way. But I couldn't do it. The lack of welcome is increasingly customary, I believe. It's a default coldness, a spreading indifference or failure of relation
Indeed, easily the worst part of the office environment are the social rules that after nearly 5 years I still don't understand.
Maybe I never did.
Fuck bro. Your next step is Homsteading. Maybe an intentional community if you like being with people. To Freedom!
What is Truth?
Hmm, I could see myself getting up to homesteading. But truthfully, I'm also somewhat reconciled to living as an urban marginal of sorts, working as much as necessary and spending the rest of my time reading and writing and fucking off however I please
I do understand that. Also - leaving the belly of the beast ends the fun.