Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

So why should we keep these hierarchical structures instead of people just treating others equally and helping each other?

Perhaps because I know more about software design than most, and so I might be considered an 'expert', but what I know of (say) geography could be written in large letters on a very small piece of paper? Our skills vary, and so it is reasonable to see others as equals overall, but not when we consider detailed skill/knowledge areas. How that contributes to social hierarchical structures, I'm not sure...?

[Sushan]

Any two people will form hierarchies in capability and expertise. And so they should.
The trick is to realise that expertise in one area might give you authority in that area, it should not give you power over the other person who may well have expertise in another areas.

The most successful hunter/gatherer societies express this dynamic with horizontal structures, and zonal and modal powers. Specialisms are encouraged.
As societies have grown in size the greedy and power hungry have managed to push their power across generations so that hereditary power has been formed. This is a mistake, but avoidable.

Quite true about hereditary powers. It is wrong (can be right when the right person is in the place even though he/she came to that position with heredity) and should be avoided.

People can always consult specialists in various fields. But in today's world it is not either simple or free. So why should we keep these hierarchical structures instead of people just treating others equally and helping each other?

I do not think we should at all.
But even in the absence of hereditary titles; the problem remains.
Look at the sort of unbridled power of Trump, bestowed not by merit but by wealth, to be passed on to his idiot children in short shrift to prolong the agony of an American under siege from lunacy.
How do we introduce value and merit to the ranks of power when money seems to be the chief means of currency for that power.
Trump is just one example of emergent dynasties, though there are so many that have persisted for generations.

I would introduce massive death duties to break that power, and gift taxes too.

I think the issue has a lot to do with human attitudes. We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money. If we can shift this focus away from money, then the value of merits will get its real value in the eyes of humans. We may not be able to change the adults. But a proper educational system might change the attitudes of future generations.

[Sushan]

Agreed.

Unfortunately, statistically spoken, most leaders are not particularly good. They are merely good enough not to get replaced.



So, the core skills of the successful manager, are:

- How to avoid getting fired
- How to get competitors fired
- How to look good
- How to make others look bad

You do not particularly need to be competent at anything else, because the Peter Principle predicts that nobody else is either.

INdeed. But given the thread title can we avoid... I think we can. depending on the scope of control. SUb groups and small scale societies all work better with horizontal hierarchies. You will probably be part of a club or group where a small scale group will resist any kind of bossing, but allows temporary leadership for some activities.
Take a look at my post above from an anthropological perspective. It's a numbers game.

But, then why these groups remain small in size? Is it because horizontal hierarchies are applicable only to small groups? Or is it because large structures remain stable only with strong leaders and vertical hierarchies?

There are basic group dynamics and limits to social size in subsistence strategies that have not yet evolved money.
Money enables wealth and therefore power to reach across generations. When money is invented, so too is poverty and dependency.
Further specialisations occur such as a priesthood and an army which are both used to control the slaves and other workers and the whole sorry situation we call "civilisation" is born..
Then the limits to group size and the personalities of social dynamics change. In civilisations up to the 20thC is was easy to portray the king and lords as super human, ruling by divine grace and the social distance between pleb and patrician could be easily maintained, by the myths of leadership.
Some of this tendency to subservience can still be clearly seen as people queue up for a glimpse of the body of the Queen. But not even Americans are free of this tendency and worship abstracts such as "Uncle Sam" or other patriotic symbolism, which can be mobilised by flag huggers like Trump..

So, does that mean that the majority still wish to have vertical hierarchies, and because of that it is difficult to have large communities and groups that despise kings and bosses (or even leaders)? Or is it impossible to avoid the civilization structure when money is involved in any society?

[Sushan]

So why should we keep these hierarchical structures instead of people just treating others equally and helping each other?

Perhaps because I know more about software design than most, and so I might be considered an 'expert', but what I know of (say) geography could be written in large letters on a very small piece of paper? Our skills vary, and so it is reasonable to see others as equals overall, but not when we consider detailed skill/knowledge areas. How that contributes to social hierarchical structures, I'm not sure...?

If there is a structure, then to maintain that we may need experts in fields like politics and economy. In that case, those who are experts in such fields should be given a high level in the hierarchy. But still I think that can be done without giving them an unnecessary "upper hand". Yet, I am not sure even these are possible in today's society.

[heracleitos]

I think the issue has a lot to do with human attitudes. We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money.

In my opinion, it works exactly the other way around.

If you have power, you will always end up with money.

If you just have money, no matter how much, you will not necessarily acquire power. On the contrary, the real power may very well manage to confiscate your wealth.

For example, a customs official will always end up becoming a lot richer than any of the merchants who needs to get their containers past his office. The custom official's stamp of approval is an instrument that is worth millions.

A more concrete example.

Jack Ma (of Alibaba and Alipay) may be the richest man of China, but as soon as he showed the audacity to criticize the financial regulators of the CPP, they started cancelling him and his empire.

Jack Ma has kept his big mouth shut, for over a year now, and his companies have paid billions in fines for imaginary offenses. In a way, he still lucky.

All large Chinese businesses pay bribes to the CPP to stay in business. So, Jack Ma has obviously done that too.

When a Chinese oligarch falls out really badly with the CPP, he will simply get sentenced to death and executed for the criminal offence of corruption and bribery. So, in his case, Jack Ma is lucky to still be alive.

The American system works slightly differently but fundamentally, it is a very similar system. If the powers that be want you or your business gone, it is not hard for them to make that a reality.

In other words, the corporations are merely the little bitches of the ruling mafia.

[Sculptor1]

Any two people will form hierarchies in capability and expertise. And so they should.
The trick is to realise that expertise in one area might give you authority in that area, it should not give you power over the other person who may well have expertise in another areas.

The most successful hunter/gatherer societies express this dynamic with horizontal structures, and zonal and modal powers. Specialisms are encouraged.
As societies have grown in size the greedy and power hungry have managed to push their power across generations so that hereditary power has been formed. This is a mistake, but avoidable.

Quite true about hereditary powers. It is wrong (can be right when the right person is in the place even though he/she came to that position with heredity) and should be avoided.

People can always consult specialists in various fields. But in today's world it is not either simple or free. So why should we keep these hierarchical structures instead of people just treating others equally and helping each other?

I do not think we should at all.
But even in the absence of hereditary titles; the problem remains.
Look at the sort of unbridled power of Trump, bestowed not by merit but by wealth, to be passed on to his idiot children in short shrift to prolong the agony of an American under siege from lunacy.
How do we introduce value and merit to the ranks of power when money seems to be the chief means of currency for that power.
Trump is just one example of emergent dynasties, though there are so many that have persisted for generations.

I would introduce massive death duties to break that power, and gift taxes too.

I think the issue has a lot to do with human attitudes. We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money. If we can shift this focus away from money, then the value of merits will get its real value in the eyes of humans. We may not be able to change the adults. But a proper educational system might change the attitudes of future generations.

It's not about human attitudes at all.
Put the case to anyone. Do you think money should be able to buy political influence? DO you think billionarries should be able to buy politicians?
How many do you think are going to agree?
This is all about the permissiveness of power. Under the guise of freedom of speech and democracy, big money owns the media and pours out a daily diet of false reality in support of the notions that enable big money to control the political process.
This means that the people with the most money are able to control policy, media, and the political process, against the instincts of the people who would rather countries were ruled in the interests of the people.
Until you make all political contributions transparent; limit donor amount; control the amount of money spent on elections they will never be fair.

There cannot be a fair election whilst they are free; when freedom means a free to accept the highest bidder.

[Sculptor1]

INdeed. But given the thread title can we avoid... I think we can. depending on the scope of control. SUb groups and small scale societies all work better with horizontal hierarchies. You will probably be part of a club or group where a small scale group will resist any kind of bossing, but allows temporary leadership for some activities.
Take a look at my post above from an anthropological perspective. It's a numbers game.

But, then why these groups remain small in size? Is it because horizontal hierarchies are applicable only to small groups? Or is it because large structures remain stable only with strong leaders and vertical hierarchies?

There are basic group dynamics and limits to social size in subsistence strategies that have not yet evolved money.
Money enables wealth and therefore power to reach across generations. When money is invented, so too is poverty and dependency.
Further specialisations occur such as a priesthood and an army which are both used to control the slaves and other workers and the whole sorry situation we call "civilisation" is born..
Then the limits to group size and the personalities of social dynamics change. In civilisations up to the 20thC is was easy to portray the king and lords as super human, ruling by divine grace and the social distance between pleb and patrician could be easily maintained, by the myths of leadership.
Some of this tendency to subservience can still be clearly seen as people queue up for a glimpse of the body of the Queen. But not even Americans are free of this tendency and worship abstracts such as "Uncle Sam" or other patriotic symbolism, which can be mobilised by flag huggers like Trump..

So, does that mean that the majority still wish to have vertical hierarchies, and because of that it is difficult to have large communities and groups that despise kings and bosses (or even leaders)? Or is it impossible to avoid the civilization structure when money is involved in any society?

I think MOST people are not aware of the dynamics, and tend to accept the status quo. Thinking about alternatives, and becoming aware that they might actually have a choice in the fundamental way their society is run is hard on the mond. Most people tend to take the easy route.
IN the UK we've just had the third PM of the year elected. Boris was the most dishonorable, cheating, lying, cad to have ever say in no.10, yet rather than actually follow the news people wanted him back. Repeating the phrase "Bring Back Boris" is a lot easier than taking the trouble to follow the news of his various misdemeanours and accept the truth about just how crap the political system is in the UK.

[Pattern-chaser]

We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money. If we can shift this focus away from money, then the value of merits will get its real value in the eyes of humans.

For as long as the American Empire persists, the focus is always and forever profit. All else, including #merit', and even decency, is secondary to profit, and the acquisition and retention of personal wealth. In today's real world, only money exists or matters.

[heracleitos]

We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money. If we can shift this focus away from money, then the value of merits will get its real value in the eyes of humans.

For as long as the American Empire persists, the focus is always and forever profit. All else, including #merit', and even decency, is secondary to profit, and the acquisition and retention of personal wealth. In today's real world, only money exists or matters.

I disagree with that view. Political ower will always give you money, but money will not necessarily give you political power.

[Sushan]

I think the issue has a lot to do with human attitudes. We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money.

In my opinion, it works exactly the other way around.

If you have power, you will always end up with money.

If you just have money, no matter how much, you will not necessarily acquire power. On the contrary, the real power may very well manage to confiscate your wealth.

For example, a customs official will always end up becoming a lot richer than any of the merchants who needs to get their containers past his office. The custom official's stamp of approval is an instrument that is worth millions.

A more concrete example.

Jack Ma (of Alibaba and Alipay) may be the richest man of China, but as soon as he showed the audacity to criticize the financial regulators of the CPP, they started cancelling him and his empire.

Jack Ma has kept his big mouth shut, for over a year now, and his companies have paid billions in fines for imaginary offenses. In a way, he still lucky.

All large Chinese businesses pay bribes to the CPP to stay in business. So, Jack Ma has obviously done that too.

When a Chinese oligarch falls out really badly with the CPP, he will simply get sentenced to death and executed for the criminal offence of corruption and bribery. So, in his case, Jack Ma is lucky to still be alive.

The American system works slightly differently but fundamentally, it is a very similar system. If the powers that be want you or your business gone, it is not hard for them to make that a reality.

In other words, the corporations are merely the little bitches of the ruling mafia.

But what I see is your examples ssuggesting that 'money is the power'. Those large companies have bought the power using their money. Only the small companies who do not have money to buy those authorities get the consequences. Yes, the real authoritative power will only be with the officials. But with money the companies have acquired the assistance of those officials.

And on the other hand we should come to an agreement regarding what is power. Having a large support group is also a power. But that will not necessarily make someone rich.

[Sushan]

Quite true about hereditary powers. It is wrong (can be right when the right person is in the place even though he/she came to that position with heredity) and should be avoided.

People can always consult specialists in various fields. But in today's world it is not either simple or free. So why should we keep these hierarchical structures instead of people just treating others equally and helping each other?

I do not think we should at all.
But even in the absence of hereditary titles; the problem remains.
Look at the sort of unbridled power of Trump, bestowed not by merit but by wealth, to be passed on to his idiot children in short shrift to prolong the agony of an American under siege from lunacy.
How do we introduce value and merit to the ranks of power when money seems to be the chief means of currency for that power.
Trump is just one example of emergent dynasties, though there are so many that have persisted for generations.

I would introduce massive death duties to break that power, and gift taxes too.

I think the issue has a lot to do with human attitudes. We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money. If we can shift this focus away from money, then the value of merits will get its real value in the eyes of humans. We may not be able to change the adults. But a proper educational system might change the attitudes of future generations.

It's not about human attitudes at all.
Put the case to anyone. Do you think money should be able to buy political influence? DO you think billionarries should be able to buy politicians?
How many do you think are going to agree?
This is all about the permissiveness of power. Under the guise of freedom of speech and democracy, big money owns the media and pours out a daily diet of false reality in support of the notions that enable big money to control the political process.
This means that the people with the most money are able to control policy, media, and the political process, against the instincts of the people who would rather countries were ruled in the interests of the people.
Until you make all political contributions transparent; limit donor amount; control the amount of money spent on elections they will never be fair.

There cannot be a fair election whilst they are free; when freedom means a free to accept the highest bidder.

I agree. The freedom is being abused today and politics is closely associated with money in almost all occasions. If you have money, then you have the power. It is being tried (or pretended) to separate ppolitics from money. But all the policy makers being politicians, they never try to loose the power that they hold.

Only a few research about what is happening around and think rationally before making decision related to politics. But the majority are manipulated by the equally cocorrupted mass media.

[Sushan]

But, then why these groups remain small in size? Is it because horizontal hierarchies are applicable only to small groups? Or is it because large structures remain stable only with strong leaders and vertical hierarchies?

There are basic group dynamics and limits to social size in subsistence strategies that have not yet evolved money.
Money enables wealth and therefore power to reach across generations. When money is invented, so too is poverty and dependency.
Further specialisations occur such as a priesthood and an army which are both used to control the slaves and other workers and the whole sorry situation we call "civilisation" is born..
Then the limits to group size and the personalities of social dynamics change. In civilisations up to the 20thC is was easy to portray the king and lords as super human, ruling by divine grace and the social distance between pleb and patrician could be easily maintained, by the myths of leadership.
Some of this tendency to subservience can still be clearly seen as people queue up for a glimpse of the body of the Queen. But not even Americans are free of this tendency and worship abstracts such as "Uncle Sam" or other patriotic symbolism, which can be mobilised by flag huggers like Trump..

So, does that mean that the majority still wish to have vertical hierarchies, and because of that it is difficult to have large communities and groups that despise kings and bosses (or even leaders)? Or is it impossible to avoid the civilization structure when money is involved in any society?

I think MOST people are not aware of the dynamics, and tend to accept the status quo. Thinking about alternatives, and becoming aware that they might actually have a choice in the fundamental way their society is run is hard on the mond. Most people tend to take the easy route.
IN the UK we've just had the third PM of the year elected. Boris was the most dishonorable, cheating, lying, cad to have ever say in no.10, yet rather than actually follow the news people wanted him back. Repeating the phrase "Bring Back Boris" is a lot easier than taking the trouble to follow the news of his various misdemeanours and accept the truth about just how crap the political system is in the UK.

We only see what happens in UK through international news, and we only get the real picture from an insider like you. I am not sure about your country, but in mine majority of people just have predetermined favourations towards politicians. And some times they almost worship them (It is really embarrassing to see). So political literacy, rational decisions, and rational voting are just words for them.

[Sushan]

We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money. If we can shift this focus away from money, then the value of merits will get its real value in the eyes of humans.

For as long as the American Empire persists, the focus is always and forever profit. All else, including #merit', and even decency, is secondary to profit, and the acquisition and retention of personal wealth. In today's real world, only money exists or matters.

That is the sad scenario today. People do not, value anything else but money (and profit). Everyone is concerned about their own gain rather than what they can give. And it is worst now as the same concept has gone to the level of countries and continents. Few rich countries rule (unofficially) the entire world, and the poor countries just serve those (unofficial) empires.

[Sushan]

We have seen a the power of money over ages and now we even do not think about anything else which can be more powerful than money. If we can shift this focus away from money, then the value of merits will get its real value in the eyes of humans.

For as long as the American Empire persists, the focus is always and forever profit. All else, including #merit', and even decency, is secondary to profit, and the acquisition and retention of personal wealth. In today's real world, only money exists or matters.

I disagree with that view. Political ower will always give you money, but money will not necessarily give you political power.

Political power is the power given by people. Parliament members are chosen by the public. As long as the public can be manipulated with money, we have to accept that money can indeed give someone political power.

[Sculptor1]

There are basic group dynamics and limits to social size in subsistence strategies that have not yet evolved money.
Money enables wealth and therefore power to reach across generations. When money is invented, so too is poverty and dependency.
Further specialisations occur such as a priesthood and an army which are both used to control the slaves and other workers and the whole sorry situation we call "civilisation" is born..
Then the limits to group size and the personalities of social dynamics change. In civilisations up to the 20thC is was easy to portray the king and lords as super human, ruling by divine grace and the social distance between pleb and patrician could be easily maintained, by the myths of leadership.
Some of this tendency to subservience can still be clearly seen as people queue up for a glimpse of the body of the Queen. But not even Americans are free of this tendency and worship abstracts such as "Uncle Sam" or other patriotic symbolism, which can be mobilised by flag huggers like Trump..

So, does that mean that the majority still wish to have vertical hierarchies, and because of that it is difficult to have large communities and groups that despise kings and bosses (or even leaders)? Or is it impossible to avoid the civilization structure when money is involved in any society?

I think MOST people are not aware of the dynamics, and tend to accept the status quo. Thinking about alternatives, and becoming aware that they might actually have a choice in the fundamental way their society is run is hard on the mond. Most people tend to take the easy route.
IN the UK we've just had the third PM of the year elected. Boris was the most dishonorable, cheating, lying, cad to have ever say in no.10, yet rather than actually follow the news people wanted him back. Repeating the phrase "Bring Back Boris" is a lot easier than taking the trouble to follow the news of his various misdemeanours and accept the truth about just how crap the political system is in the UK.

We only see what happens in UK through international news, and we only get the real picture from an insider like you. I am not sure about your country, but in mine majority of people just have predetermined favourations towards politicians. And some times they almost worship them (It is really embarrassing to see). So political literacy, rational decisions, and rational voting are just words for them.

And where is your country?