We live in a society with a hierarchical organization, which manifests itself in work, production, enterprises, administration, politics, the state, as well as in education and scientific research. Hierarchy is not an invention of modern society. Its roots are very deep, although it did not always exist, and non-hierarchical societies functioned perfectly well. But in modern society, the hierarchical (or, which is almost the same, bureaucratic) system has become practically universal. If any collective activity is carried out, it is organized on the basis of the hierarchical principle, and the hierarchy of management and power coincides with the hierarchy of salaries and incomes. Thus, people have come to the point where they can hardly imagine how it could be otherwise and that they could evaluate themselves not on the basis of the place they occupy in the hierarchical pyramid.
The defenders of the modern hierarchical system try to justify it as the only "logical," "rational," and "economic" one. We have already tried to show that these arguments are meaningless and justify nothing, that each one of them is false, and all of them together contradict each other. We will have an opportunity to consider this more thoroughly. But the modern system is considered the only possible one, assuming that it is based on the needs of modern production, the complexity of social life, the large scale of every activity. We will try to prove that all this means nothing and that hierarchy is absolutely incompatible with self-government.
Self-governance and hierarchy of governance. Collective decision-making and the problem of representation
What does the hierarchical system mean in social terms? That one stratum of the population governs society, while the rest merely implement its decisions; and that this stratum, receiving the greatest income, derives more benefits from the production and labor of society than all the rest. In short, society is divided into those who belong to the stratum that has power and privileges, and the rest who are deprived of all this. The hierarchization or bureaucratization of all social activity is today an increasingly prevalent form of division of society. As such, it is both the cause and the result of the conflict that tears society apart.
If so, it is absurd to ask: how is self-government, the functioning and existence of a self-governing social system compatible with the preservation of hierarchy? This is like claiming that the destruction of the modern prison system is compatible with the preservation of prison guards, chiefs of security and prison directors. But, as is known, what is not said is more important than what is said. Moreover, over the millennia, the idea has crept into the minds of people from the earliest childhood that the nature of things is such that some command, others obey, some possess more, and others are content with the bare necessities.
We want a self-governing society. What does this mean? A society that governs itself. But something else needs to be specified. In a self-governing society, all decisions are made by a collective that is always concerned with the object of these decisions. It is a system in which those who carry out the activity are also those who collectively decide what to do and how to do it within the limits imposed on them by coexistence with other collectives. Thus, decisions that affect workers in a workshop must be made by the workers in that workshop; decisions that affect workers in several workshops by an assembly of these workers or by their delegates, elected and removed; decisions that affect a neighborhood by the residents of the neighborhood; decisions that affect society as a whole by the entire body of men and women who live in it.
But what does it mean to make a decision?
To decide means to decide for oneself. Decisions cannot be left to some "competent people" who are subject to "control". One cannot simply appoint people who will make decisions. If the French population appoints every five years those who will pass the laws, this does not mean that it only passes the laws. If the population appoints every five years those who will determine the country's policy, this does not mean that it determines this policy. The population does not decide, it cedes its powers to "representatives" who are not really representatives and cannot be. Of course, the appointment by different collectives of representatives or delegates, as well as the existence of bodies (committees or councils) formed by them, will in many cases be necessary. But this will be compatible with self-government only if these delegates represent the collective from which they come and therefore remain under the control of that collective. This, in turn, means that the collective not only elects them, but can also replace them at any time it deems necessary. (note: translation - at FAKB we are basically of the opinion that these so-called delegates can only act as spokespeople, representing decisions already made by the collective , and not decide themselves, which would mean delegated authority )
Thus, the assertion that there is a hierarchy formed by "competent" and in principle irreplaceable persons; or that there are representatives who are unchangeable for a certain period (who, as practice shows, become unchangeable practically always), is the same as asserting that there is neither self-government nor even "democratic government". This is tantamount to the assertion that the collective is governed by people for whom the management of common affairs becomes their own business and who, both legally and factually, fall outside the power of the collective.
The collective decision - preparation and information
On the other hand, decision-making requires understanding the situation. The collective does not decide anything, even if it formally votes, if only someone or a certain group has the information and determines the criteria on the basis of which the decision is made. This means that those who make the decision must have all the information related to the issue. In addition, they themselves need to be able to independently determine the criteria on the basis of which they make decisions. For this purpose, they need increasingly extensive training. The hierarchy is based on this fact and constantly seeks to reproduce it. Because in a hierarchical society, all information goes from the bottom to the top and does not go down, does not circulate (in fact, it circulates, but this is contrary to the rules of the hierarchical system). Moreover, all decisions go from the top to the bottom, where they are only implemented. In other words, there is a hierarchy of leadership, and these two streams of information are directed towards one goal: the top collects and absorbs the information coming from below, and transmits to the executors only the minimum information necessary to carry out the instructions, and this information can only come from it. In such a situation, it is absurd to think about the possibility of "self-management" or even "democratic management".
How is it possible to make decisions without having the information necessary to make the right decisions? And how is it possible to learn to make decisions if we are always forced to carry out what others have decided? As soon as a management hierarchy is established, the team becomes opaque to itself and a huge disorganization arises. It becomes opaque because all the information is kept at the top. And the disorder arises because uninformed or poorly informed workers do not know what they need to know to successfully carry out their task, and above all because the team's ability to self-manage, as well as the ingenuity and initiative that, formally attached to the management, are hindered and slowed down at all levels.
So to demand self-government or even "democratic government" - unless, of course, the word "democracy" is used for purely decorative purposes - and to demand the preservation of the hierarchy of government is a contradiction in terms. It would be much more correct - from a formal point of view - to say what the defenders of the modern system say: the command hierarchy is necessary, a self-governing society is impossible.
But this is a lie. When we examined the functions of the hierarchy, i.e. everything it serves, we found that for the most part these functions are necessary only in the conditions of the modern social system, and those functions that would be meaningful and useful in a self-governing system can easily be collectivized. Within the framework of this text we cannot consider this issue in its entirety. We will try to clarify some important aspects, first of all the organization of enterprises and production.
One of the most important functions of the modern hierarchy is to organize coercion. For example, when we talk about work in workshops or offices, it can be noted that there the main "activity" of the bureaucratic apparatus consists in monitoring, controlling, imposing sanctions, directly or indirectly imposing "discipline" and uniform execution of orders by those who have to carry them out. And why should coercion be organized, why should people be forced? Because the workers do not feel spontaneous, overflowing enthusiasm when they have to do what the superiors have ordered. Why? Because neither their labor nor the product of their labor belongs to them, because they feel alienated and exploited, because they do not decide either what is to be done, or how it is to be done, or what will happen next with what they have done; in short, the point is that there is a constant conflict between those who work and those who manage the labor of others and benefit from it. Therefore, a hierarchy is necessary to organize coercion, and coercion is necessary because there is division and conflict, i.e. hierarchy.
Moreover, hierarchy is presented as a means of resolving conflicts, while concealing the fact that its very existence is a source of constant conflict. As long as the hierarchical system exists, the conflict between the ruling and privileged stratum and the remaining groups of the population, reduced to the role of executors, will continue to recur.
They say that if there is no compulsion, there will be no discipline, everyone will do whatever comes to mind and chaos will ensue. But this is just another sophism. The question is not whether discipline is needed, or even sometimes compulsion, but what kind of discipline is needed, by whom it is proclaimed, by whom it is controlled, in what forms and for what purposes. Most of the purposes served by discipline are foreign to the needs and desires of those who are to realize them; most of the decisions related to the goals and procedures of this discipline are foreign to people, and compulsion is needed to make them comply with them.
A self-governing collective is not without discipline, but a collective that establishes discipline for itself and, if necessary, imposes sanctions on those who maliciously violate it. As far as work is concerned, we cannot imagine a self-governing enterprise that is completely identical to the modern one, except for the hierarchical shell. In the modern enterprise, people are forced to do work that is alien to them, work about which they have nothing to say. The amazing thing is not that they resist it, but that they resist so little. Can it be assumed for even a moment that their attitude to work will remain the same when the relations in the labor process change and the workers begin to become the masters of labor? On the other hand, even in the modern enterprise there are not one but two disciplines. A discipline that they constantly try to impose by means of coercion and financial sanctions. And another, much less obvious, but no less strong discipline that is born among workers in the brigade or workshop, when they tolerate neither those who work too much nor those who slack off from work.
Communities of people are not (and never have been) chaotic unions of individuals driven by selfishness and struggle against each other, as the ideologists of capitalism and bureaucracy try to convince us, expressing in this way only their own mentality. In groups, especially when they solve a task requiring constant joint efforts, there are always norms of behavior and the influence of the collective, which forces them to comply with them.
Self-management, competence and decision-making
Now let us consider another important function of hierarchy, which seems to be independent of the modern social structure: the function of decision-making and leadership. The question arises: why cannot collectives themselves perform this function, cannot govern themselves and make decisions for themselves, why is a special layer of people needed, organized into an apparatus that makes decisions and leads? To this question, the defenders of the modern system offer us two possible answers. One is based on the requirements for "knowledge" and "competence": decisions must be made by knowledgeable and competent people. The other option is based on the statement - more or less openly - that in any society decisions must be made by a few, otherwise chaos will ensue, in other words, the collective is not capable of governing itself.
No one disputes the importance of knowledge and competence, nor - especially - the fact that today certain knowledge and competences are available only to a few. But here too, false facts are invoked to cover up sophisms. In the modern system, power does not belong to those who have the most knowledge and competence. Those who govern are those who have demonstrated their ability to penetrate the bureaucratic apparatus, or those who, thanks to their family and social status, have "fallen on the right path" from the very beginning and then have received several diplomas. In both cases, the competence necessary to establish oneself in the bureaucratic apparatus and make a career in it presupposes, above all, the ability to defend oneself and win in the competitive struggle when individuals, cliques and clans face each other in the depths of the hierarchical-bureaucratic apparatus, and not the ability to manage collective labor. A person can be a brilliant engineer in his field, but be completely incapable of managing a department in a factory. Here it remains only to state what is happening at the moment in this sphere. Technicians and specialists are usually limited in their field of activity. The "managers" surround themselves with a certain number of technical advisers, collect their opinions on the decisions to be made (the opinions often contradict each other) and finally "make a decision". Here the absurdity of this argument is quite obvious. If the "manager" made decisions on the basis of his "knowledge" and his "competence", he would have to know everything and be competent in everything so that the decision he would choose among the different opinions of the specialists would be the best. Of course, this is impossible and the manager decides this question arbitrarily, on the basis of his "judgement". And there is no reason to consider this "judgement" to be more valuable than the decision that a self-governing collective could make on the basis of real experience, infinitely more valuable than the experience of a single individual.
Self-government, specialization and rationality
Knowledge and competence are limited by definition and are becoming more limited every day. Going beyond the boundaries of his field, the technician or specialist is no more capable of making the right decision than anyone else. Even within his own field, his point of view is fatally limited. On the one hand, he ignores other fields that are inevitably related to his own, and easily overlooks them. That is why in enterprises and in modern administrations the question of the "horizontal" coordination of management departments is a constant nightmare. It has long been concluded that it is necessary to train specialists in management coordination, who, however, also turn out to be incapable of coordinating themselves. On the other hand - and this is the most important thing - the specialists of the management apparatus practically do not come into contact with the real production process - with everything that happens there, with the conditions in which the workers have to do their work. Usually, decisions made in offices after scientific calculations, flawless on paper, turn out to be inapplicable in practice, because they do not sufficiently take into account the conditions in which they must be applied. And these real conditions, by definition, are known only to the work team. Everyone knows that in modern enterprises this is a source of constant conflicts and terrible disorder.
On the contrary, knowledge and competence can be used rationally if those who possess them are included in the production collective, if they become one of the components of the decisions that this collective has to make. Self-management requires cooperation between those who have partial knowledge and partial competence and those who have taken on the production work in the strict sense of the word. It is completely incompatible with the division of these two categories. Such cooperation must be introduced precisely so that knowledge and competence can be used fully, whereas today they are used only partially, since those who have them are engaged only in limited tasks, interconnected by the division of labor within the management apparatus. And most importantly, only such cooperation can contribute to the fact that knowledge and competence serve the whole collective, and not for private purposes.
Can such cooperation develop without conflicts between the "specialists" and the other workers? If the specialist, referring to his knowledge, claims that a certain metal, because it has certain properties, is the most suitable for a certain tool or part, then we do not see why and for what reason this could cause significant objections from some of the workers. Moreover, even in this case, a rational decision presupposes the participation of the workers; for example, the properties of the metal can play an important role in the process of processing parts or tools. But the really important decisions that are relevant to modern production always concern, first of all, the role and place of people in production. Then, by definition, there is no knowledge and no competence that could go beyond the point of view of those who actually do the work. No organization of the assembly line or assembly can be either rational or acceptable if it is created without taking into account the opinion of those who will work on it. Since no one asks them, at present these decisions almost always turn out to be wrong, and if production continues, it is because the workers organize it themselves, violating the "official" instructions and rules for the organization of labor. But even if we consider these decisions rational from the limited point of view of production efficiency, they are unacceptable precisely because they are based exclusively on the principle of production efficiency, i.e. they seek to completely subordinate the workers to the production process, to reduce them to the level of a production mechanism. And here it is not a question of the malice of the management, nor of its madness, nor even of the pursuit of profit (which is evidenced by the fact that the "organization of labor" in the countries of the West and the East is completely the same). This is a direct and inevitable consequence of a system in which some people make decisions and others must carry them out; such a system cannot have any other "logic".
But a self-governing society cannot follow this "logic." Its logic is different-the logic of people's liberation and development. The collective is perfectly capable of deciding (and from our perspective has every right to do so) how to make working hours less exhausting, less absurd, and more happiness-giving, which is infinitely more important than the merchant's extra pennies. And if this is the main choice, then no "scientific" or "objective" criterion has any value; the only criterion can be the opinion of the collective itself, which it prefers based on its experience, needs, and aspirations.
This is also true at the level of the whole society. No scientific criterion will help us decide what is better for society next year: more leisure or more consumption, faster or slower growth. Whoever claims that such criteria exist is ignorant or a liar. The only criterion that makes sense in these cases is what the men and women who make up society want - only they and no one else can decide that.
Self-management and salary and income hierarchy
There are no objective criteria on the basis of which to create a salary hierarchy.
A self-governing society is incompatible with the hierarchy of wages and incomes to the same extent that it is incompatible with the hierarchy of governance.
First of all, the hierarchy of wages and incomes today is connected with the hierarchy of management - completely in Eastern countries and in the overwhelming majority of cases in Western countries. It is also necessary to understand how this hierarchy is filled. The son of a rich man will be rich, the son of a leader has every chance of becoming a leader. Thus, for the most part, the strata occupying the highest steps of the hierarchical ladder retain this position through inheritance. And this is no accident. The social system always strives for self-reproduction. If social strata have privileges, people from these strata will do everything in their power (and privileges allow them to do a lot for this) to pass them on to their descendants. Insofar as these strata need "new people" within the given system, as the governing apparatuses expand and multiply, they select from among the descendants of the "lower" strata those who are most "suitable" to enter their ranks. In this case, it may seem that the work and abilities of the chosen ones have played their role, that they have received "on merit". But, I repeat, these "abilities" and this "merit" mean precisely the ability to adapt to the existing system and to serve it in the best way. Such abilities have no meaning from the point of view of the interests of a self-governing society.
Some people may believe that even in a self-governing society, the bravest, most resilient, most hardworking, and most "competent" individuals should be entitled to a partial "reward," and that this reward should be financial. And this feeds the illusion that a just hierarchy of income is possible.
This illusion does not stand up to criticism. Just as in modern society, it is not clear how the difference in pay can be logically justified. Why should a given competence bring its owner four times the income, and not twice or twelve times? On what basis can it be argued that the competence of a good surgeon is worth as much (or more or less) as the competence of a good engineer? And why is it not valued in exactly the same way as the competence of a good machinist or elementary school teacher?
Except in a few limited and unrelated areas, we see that there are no objective criteria by which the competence, knowledge, and education of different individuals can be calculated. And since society bears the cost of the individual's education, as is already the case, it is not clear why the individual who has already been granted this privilege should be rewarded once again with an increase in income. This applies both to "merit" and to "mind." There are individuals who are born with relatively great abilities for some activity or who have become so. These differences are generally insignificant, and their development depends on the family, social, or educational environment. In any case, if someone has a "gift," the development of this "gift" is in itself a source of pleasure, provided nothing interferes with it. And those rare individuals who really possess exceptional gifts need not financial encouragement but the opportunity to develop them unhindered. If Einstein had been interested in money, he would not have become Einstein and would probably have turned out to be a rather mediocre industrialist or financier.
Sometimes the incredible argument is put forward that without a salary hierarchy, society would not be able to find people who would agree to perform the most "difficult" duties, considering the duties of a clerk, manager, etc. There is a famous phrase often repeated by responsible officials: "if everyone earns the same, I prefer to grab the broom." But in countries like Sweden, where the wage gap is much smaller than in France, enterprises work no worse than in France, and no one there has ever seen clerks with brooms.
Rather, it can be observed that in industrialized countries, enterprises leave those whose work was really the hardest, i.e. the most exhausting and the least interesting. And the increase in wages makes it possible to stop this outflow of personnel. In fact, such work is increasingly falling to immigrants. And this phenomenon shows in all its obviousness that people, if they are not forced by necessity, increasingly refuse to do idiotic work. The opposite phenomenon has never been observed and we can bet that it will continue to be so in the future. The very logic of this argument allows us to conclude that the most interesting specialties should be rewarded the least, since in any case these are the specialties that are most attractive to people, in other words, the motivation necessary to be chosen and to engage in them is already largely inherent in the very nature of the work.
Self-management, motivation to work and production to satisfy needs
But what do all the arguments aimed at justifying hierarchy in a self-governing society ultimately amount to, what is the hidden idea on which they are based? This idea is this - people choose their jobs and work solely for the purpose of earning more than others. However, although they try to present it to us as an eternal truth arising from human nature itself, in fact it is simply a capitalist mentality that has to one degree or another penetrated society (and which, as the salary hierarchy in Eastern countries shows, also dominates there[sic!]). And this mentality is one of the conditions for the existence and strengthening of the existing system and, conversely, it can exist only as long as the system exists. People attach importance to differences in income because such differences exist and because in the current social system they seem to have great importance. If it were possible to earn a million instead of a hundred thousand francs a month, and if the social system on all sides fostered the idea that the one who earns a million is valued more than the one who earns only a hundred thousand francs, then indeed most people (not all, even today) would be motivated to do everything in order to earn a million instead of a hundred thousand francs. But if there was no such differentiation in the social system, if the desire to earn more than others was considered as absurd as the desire to obtain a noble title at all costs seems absurd to us today (at least to the majority of us), then other motivations could arise or rather spread that are truly valuable to society: interest in the work itself, the pleasure of doing well at what you have decided to do, ingenuity, creativity, respect and gratitude from others. Conversely, if the scarce economic motivation continues to exist in the future, all other motivations will be atrophied and crippled, starting from the earliest childhood of individuals.
Since the hierarchical system is based on competition between individuals and the struggle of all against all, it constantly pits some people against others and encourages them to use all means to "rise up." To present the cruel and dirty competition within the hierarchy of power, leadership and income as a sporting "competition" where the "best" win in a fair fight is to consider people as weak-minded and to believe that they do not see what is really happening in the hierarchical system, in the factory, in the offices, in the university, even in scientific research, insofar as they become a gigantic bureaucratic enterprise. The existence of the hierarchy is based on a merciless struggle of each against all, and the hierarchy intensifies this struggle. Therefore, the jungle becomes more and more merciless the higher we climb the steps of the hierarchy, and our cooperation is found only at the bottom, where the possibilities for "progress" are minimized or nonexistent. And the artificial introduction of differences at this level by the management of enterprises is aimed precisely at the destruction of this cooperation. So, as soon as privileges of any kind appear, especially economic, there immediately arises competition between individuals and at the same time a tendency to retain the privileges they already have, and for this purpose to acquire more power and take it out of the control of other people. From that moment on, the question of self-government no longer exists.
Finally, the hierarchy of wages and incomes is incompatible with the rational organization of the economy in a self-governing society. For such a hierarchy would immediately and profoundly distort the expression of social demand (la demande sociale).
The rational organization of the economy in a self-governing society actually presupposes that while services have a "price," they cannot be freely distributed, and therefore there is a single "market" for goods for individual consumption, production being oriented to the requirements of this "market," i.e., ultimately to the solvent demand of consumers. First of all, it is clear that there is no other sustainable system. Despite a new slogan that can only be approved if it is accepted as a metaphor, we cannot give everyone "everything at once." On the other hand, it would be absurd to limit consumption by authoritarian regulation, which would amount to an intolerable and stupid tyranny over everyone's preferences: why give everyone one CD and four cinema tickets a month when there are people who prefer music to images, not to mention the deaf and blind? But the "market" for individual consumption is truly sustainable only if it is truly democratic, i.e. every ballot has the same price. These ballots are everyone's income. If incomes are not equal - the vote will immediately be falsified, because there are people whose votes mean more than the votes of others. Thus, today the "vote" of a rich man for a villa on the Cote d'Azur or for a private jet weighs much more than the vote of a person with poor living conditions for decent housing or of a blue-collar worker for a second-class train ride. It should also be borne in mind that the pressure of the uneven distribution of income on the structure of the production of consumer goods is simply enormous.
This can be illustrated with an arithmetic example that does not claim to be rigorous, but is close to reality. If we assume that we can unite 80% of the French population with the lowest incomes, equal to an average of about 20,000 per year after taxes (the lowest incomes in France, which affect a large category, are the elderly without a pension or with a small pension, significantly lower than the SMIK) and 20% of the remaining population with an average income of 80,000 per year after taxes, then after simple calculations we will see that these two categories together will have sufficient income for consumption (sic!) . This also means that 35% of the production of consumer goods in the country is oriented exclusively to the orders of the most privileged group and serves to satisfy its needs beyond the "elementary" ones; or here's another example - 30% of employed workers work to satisfy the non-essential needs of the most privileged classes (assuming that the consumption/investment ratio is 4 to 1, which roughly approximates reality).
Thus we see that with such an orientation of production the "market" in these conditions will reflect not the needs of society, but its distorted image, in which the insignificant consumption of the privileged classes will acquire disproportionate importance. It is difficult to believe that in a self-governing society, where these facts would be precisely and categorically known to all, people would tolerate such a situation, or that under these conditions they could regard production as their own work, feel connected to it, without which we cannot for a moment imagine self-government.
The abolition of the wage hierarchy is therefore the only way to direct production towards meeting the needs of the collective, to eliminate the struggle of all against all and the economic mentality, and to provide all men and women with the opportunity for real participation - in the full sense of the word - in the affairs of the collective.
https://www.anarchy.bg/
https://ru.anarchistlibraries.net/library/kornelius-kastoriadis-samoupravlenie-i-ierarhiya
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten