A World Beyond Hierarchy

By Max Jones

So, to get this out of the way, some may be confused about my recent political switch. I was previously a Marxist Leninist Maoist. I have become an Anarchist. This article will serve as a clarification for those who may be confused because of a radical change in the style, language and overall framework of my content.

Hierarchies, when taken at face value, are lists or orders in which certain individuals or groups are ranked above other groups or individuals based on status or authority. For example, the relationship between a teacher and a student can be considered a hierarchy. To most, this seems natural and abundant throughout nature, which is correct, hierarchies are a naturally occurring phenomenon. However, when anarchists speak of hierarchies, they are referring to hierarchical power structures. Thus, for the purposes of brevity, we will use “hierarchy” to mean “hierarchical power structures”, unless otherwise specified. But to understand what we mean by hierarchical power structures, we must first define what a power structure exactly is.

Power vests beings with the capability to achieve one’s desires. Power itself is not inherently negative; on the contrary, it is a fundamental human desire since it grants humans self-agency. However, the worrisome aspect lies in the concentration of power. Power structures are societal frameworks that empower individuals beyond their individual capacities. A hierarchical power structure is self-explanatory, it is a power structure which functions on the existence of hierarchies. For example, if one were to examine the American economy, it is propped up through powerful corporations, and said corporations function off of internal hierarchies, broadly meaning that the entire economy predicates on the existence of hierarchy. Or we could look at the American government, the government functions off of an internal hierarchy which enables it to wield great power over the entire country. Hierarchies are natural, but hierarchical power structures are not, and are a purely human phenomenon.

If this is the case, what is the alternative? In order to maintain our society and culture it seems almost necessary that we exist under such hierarchies. The anarchists propose that we adopt horizontal power structures, power structures which function based on consent and a lack of any hierarchy. A confederation of workers councils, communes, and committees is an example of a horizontal power structure. These structures enable individuals to project power beyond their individual means, and eliminate the potential for exploitation since power is diffused, not concentrated into a single being at the top of the hierarchy. People may express the belief that our current hierarchical power structures are indeed democratic, purely because we vote for our legislators, executors, and judiciaries. This is naive, just because you vote for your master, does not mean you are any less of a slave. Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision which decided that abortion was a constitutional right, was overturned in spite of the majority of Americans supporting Roe v. Wade, 62% of Americans in fact[1]. Where is the democracy? It does not matter what your stance on abortion is, it doesn’t change the fact that an oligarchy overruled the desires of millions with a simple wave of a hand. Hierarchical power structures can never be democratic as they are predicated on the concentration of power in the hands of the few while the masses, the ones who build this country, get no say. The United States also isn’t just politically undemocratic, but is also economically undemocratic. In the United States, political power and influence often align with economic wealth. Wealthy individuals and corporations can exert significant influence through campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and financial support for political candidates. This concentration of economic power can translate into political power, shaping policies and regulations that favor the interests of the privileged few. This is evidenced by the fact that as time went on, from the revolution onward, inequality in the United States has only gone up.[2]

If hierarchical power structures are so bad, then why are hierarchies in general not bad? This isn’t true. While it is true that hierarchies are common throughout nature, exploitative ones are the result of specific environments and cultures. For example, a patriarchal household in which the husband wields significant power over his wife and children. This isn’t a hierarchical power structure since the husband is not projecting any power beyond his individual means, but we still consider this hierarchy bad. What is the criteria for determining whether or not a hierarchy is justified? David Graeber explains one method of criteria, the idea of a “self-subverting power relation”. What is meant by this is a power relation, or in this case a hierarchy, that is actively self-subverting itself. Graeber uses the example of the relationship between a teacher and the student, as the teacher bestows knowledge upon the student, the teacher slowly withers away his own power, until the student becomes the master, and the teacher no longer has any authority. In this, we find a concrete method of determining whether or not a hierarchy is justified. If we look back to our example of the patriarchal household, we see that the husband does not actively erode his own power, and instead seeks to strengthen it at all costs, regardless of the fact that it is actively hurting those around him.

For example, the Spartans[3] were known for their comical and rigid social and political system, which emphasized military prowess and discipline. Their society was organized around a unique power structure known as the dual kingship, where two hereditary kings ruled simultaneously. These kings were considered the highest authority in Spartan society, and their lineage traced back to legendary figures, such as Heracles. Although this is a very extreme example of a power structure, we can use it in our study nonetheless.

The power structure in Sparta was reinforced by the Gerousia, a council of elders composed of 28 men over the age of 60 and the two kings. This council was responsible for making important decisions and advising the kings on matters of state. Gerousia played a significant role in shaping Spartan policies and legislation, ensuring the perpetuation of the existing power structure.

Additionally, the Ephors, five magistrates elected annually, had considerable power in Spartan society. They were responsible for overseeing the kings, maintaining the laws, and acting as guardians of the state’s customs and traditions. The Ephors could take measures to check the power of the kings and ensure that the established hierarchy was maintained.

Moreover, the Spartan system maintained control over the number of subjects through strict citizenship laws. Only those born to Spartan citizens, known as Spartiates, were considered full citizens with political rights and the ability to participate in decision-making. The Spartiates constituted a small elite group within the population, ensuring a limited number of subjects with full political rights.

On the other hand, the Perioikoi, free inhabitants of Sparta who were not full citizens, and the Helots, who were state-owned serfs, comprised a much larger part of the population but lacked political rights. The Helots, in particular, were subject to harsh treatment and controlled through coercion by the Spartan state. This control over a larger number of subjects who had no political voice further solidified the power structure of the Spartan state.

We can understand that this power structure naturally leads to a class divide between those with economic and civic power and those with none who experience the effects of this power.

In order for a power structure to enact coercion effectively it will need to constantly perpetuate itself, through expanding its means of coercion and its number of subjects. Power structures concentrate resources such as wealth, land, and the means of production in the hands of a privileged few. Those who hold economic power can wield it to further their interests and accumulate more resources, while those without access to such resources are left at a disadvantage, this is how power structures perpetuate themselves.

For example, amazon’s founder and former CEO, Jeff Bezos, became one of the wealthiest individuals globally, amassing vast personal wealth through his ownership and leadership of the company. As of [September 2021], his net worth was estimated at [over $200 billion][4]. This concentration of wealth in the hands of a single individual exemplifies how power structures can perpetuate themselves by concentrating resources in the hands of a privileged few.

Jeff Bezos, as the CEO of Amazon, had considerable influence over the company’s decision-making processes and corporate direction. His role as both a visionary and decision-maker allowed him to shape Amazon’s strategies, policies, and market dominance.

Amazon’s continuous expansion and diversification have enabled the company to strengthen its means of coercion in the market. With its dominant position in e-commerce, cloud computing, and logistics, Amazon has significant leverage over suppliers, competitors, and even governments.

Amazon’s economic power and influence have also extended to its ability to shape policies and regulations. The company’s lobbying efforts and financial resources enable it to sway political decisions that align with its interests, perpetuating the power structure that benefits large corporations.

Economic power translates into political power, as wealthy individuals and corporations finance political campaigns, lobby for favorable policies, and exert power over decision-making processes. This influence can skew policies in favor of the wealthy elite, further deepening the class divide.

Amazon’s influence has been evident in shaping labor and employment policies, particularly related to issues such as wages, working conditions, and employee rights. Amazon has been involved in lobbying for corporate tax policies that favor large corporations and online retailers. Given its dominant position in the e-commerce market, Amazon has sought to influence regulations that impact online retailing. This includes issues related to competition, data privacy, and consumer protection. Amazon Web Services (AWS), the company’s cloud computing division, is a major player in the technology sector. Amazon has sought to influence policies related to cloud computing, data storage, and cybersecurity. As concerns over climate change and sustainability grow, Amazon has faced pressure to address its environmental impact. The company’s influence has been observed in debates over environmental regulations and climate policies. Amazon’s significant market share and dominance in certain sectors have raised antitrust concerns. The company’s influence on policies has been a subject of debate and investigation.

So we understand that those with economic control, as in control over capital and the means of production entirely naturally have civic control as well.

This alignment of economic and civic control further solidifies the power structure’s ability to perpetuate itself. The concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a privileged few creates a class divide, where those without access to such resources are left at a disadvantage. The disadvantaged individuals and communities bear the brunt of the effects of this power structure, experiencing limited access to essential services, representation, and opportunities for social mobility.

Essentially, power structures seek to benefit a population of parasites who are alien to the people and benefit from the economic and civic exploitation of the masses.

The primary problem with hierarchy is as so: hierarchy and power structures alienate their subjects, in which the hierarchy depends, from control of society. And this is harmful to common society

References:

1. Nadeem, Reem. “Majority of Public Disapproves of Supreme Court’s Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.” Pew Research Center — U.S. Politics & Policy, 6 July 2022, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/.
2. Coppola, Daniela. “U.S. Lobbying Expenses of Amazon 2021.” Statista, 11 June 2023, www.statista.com/statistics/1035836/lobbying-expenses-of-amazon/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20Seattle%2Dbased%20online. Accessed 22 July 2023.
3. Cartledge, Paul. Sparta and Lakonia. 1979.
4. Bloomberg. “Bloomberg — Are You a Robot?” Bloomberg.com, 2019, www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/.