196

I mean in that sort of case then the group would defer to the person more knowledgeable in that specialty, same as what happens when after brainstorming people split into small groups or volunteer for individual responsibilities. Crowdsourced decision making is meant to be for the bigger aspects, stuff like what the end goal of a project should be. Smaller, extremely specialized aspects should get handled by those best equipped for it, that's not a hierarchy. Listening to an expert is just respecting someone's knowledge, and as long as they don't have actual authority over you, then there's much less risk of corruption taking place. There's a quote from I think ~~Proudhon~~ Bakunin that I can't remember off the top of my head, I'll come back and edit this when I find it. But effectively, it boils down to the difference between authority as in power over people, and authority as in knowledge.

And people who help organize and manage jobs also don't necessarily need to be part of a hierarchy either. If the group agrees that someone is extremely effective at helping resolve conflicts or suggesting the best path to take and that sort of role is desirable for the project then that's what they should do. The difference is that they aren't in a position of power over anyone. They don't have the unilateral ability to fire someone (nor does any individual), or take away their income/ability to live. And since they don't have that power, they aren't in a hierarchical position over anyone. If they start trying to force their way without taking feedback then the group will stop listening to them and appoint someone else if they still feel that it'd be useful. Without a position of authority over people no hierarchy exists in the definition used in anarchist theory.

Edit: Thanks @onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com! Knew I read it somewhere on here recently.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

— Mikhail Bakunin, God and the state, Chapter 2

But yeah, respecting peoples expertise in topics, splitting up work, or appointing people to give managerial suggestions aren't hierarchical. A lack of hierarchy is not a lack of structure, it's just a lack of power and violence being used to oppress or control people. Efficient structures like these tend to naturally fall out of self-organization once the monopolies on violence used to prop up hierarchies are removed.

Not in the sense anarchists use the term. It's not that the higher ups can order anyone because there are no higher ups. In a structural sense, the councils are organized in a hierarchical order as in you can draw a tree diagram, but not in the sense that the upper ones have power over the lower ones.

they're referring to anarchist federalism, which scales in principle from neighbourhoods and work groups up to nations.

And if decisions are at rhe lowest possible levels then it seems like thats a hierarchy, which is more horizontal rather than not being a hierarchy.'

And i dont know what you meam by “the position” or “temporal” or “at the start” and that it “changes everything”.

horizontalism does not create a hierarchy, because a hierarchy (from Greek, for 'rule of priests') is a structure which creates superiors and subordinates.

say there's a community — a geographical neighbourhood, a nongeographical group with shared interests, a workgroup… — that holds meetings on their own self-management and needs. when their needs concern more than themselves, then they delegate someone to communicate their concern to a larger ('higher') group — a city, a region, an industry — on a mandate: that they are temporary (till the concern is resolved, till the end of a project, or for an arbitrary time decided by the group); that they represent the group consensus; and that they can be recalled for any reason, more specifically in the event that they aren't fulfilling their obligations to the group they represent.

proposals go up a chain, and revisions/changes are sent back down the chain. this cycle continues until the smallest ('lowest') groups are in agreement, with that agreement communicated by the delegates up to the largest relevant group. with a population like the US, these rounds of consensing can be done in the span of a month: https://participatoryeconomy.org/project/computer-simulations-of-participatory-planning/.

this structure can take infinite forms, but those structures remain fundamentally similar and therefore compatible.

there are examples like anarchist Spain, the Zapatistas, and — aspirationally — Rojava, mostly in in the Rojavan restorative justice system. to be fair to Rojava: they have been under siege for a decade.

for some thought experiments: Can This Book Save Us From Dystopia? (43m), The Future of Socialism (15m).

when the GP says 'this changes everything', they mean that the temporary and recallable nature of holding a special role in society flips the current paradigm: where politicians can promise whatever they want and then fail to deliver, because other (economically-)viable candidates are few and they already have their position. there's nothing in the current system that gives constituents the ability to immediately remove a representative who isn't representing the people who elected them, or who uses their position to further personal agenda.

a system where the people directly involved in their work and their lives are also participants in their own work and their own life creates people who are invested in the world around them.