Hierarchy, Nature & Society.

[ev]

I'm enjoy watching national geographic now and then when there is nothing decent on the history channel, but onto something more relevant.

I was watching TV the other day and it occurred to me that Hierarchical structures are found in practically ALL species, of course the dynamics of these structures varies from Ants to Apes, but what exists is some form of hierarchy, for example, a queen ant for ants or an alpha male for Apes.

These hierarchy are clearly natural and often allow species to survive. What I am saying is that many people here believe hierarchy in society should be completely abolished, I'm saying, if hierarchy is a natural result of social relations, how could it be possible to get rid of it?

I think i could be corrected in regard to my observations on social structures in the animal kingdom and it's similarities between human social structures (whilst acknowledging the complexity in the later) regardless my point is still valid. Note: This is mainly a response to anarchist sociology.

[mikelepore]

Hierarchy in society is unrelated to the hierarchy in nature. The hierarchy in society is based on who was fortunate to receive power from someone who previously held power, who has on file at the town hall a deed to a piece of property, who has an army to back up their instructions, etc. Rather than being based on natural differences, the social hierarchy operates oppositely to natural differences, not based on personal skill but making personal skill irrelevant, etc., as described in Marx's manuscripts of 1844. The need for props shows that social hierarchy is artificially forced into existence by conventional institutions. The institutions that people have made they can also unmake.

_________________________________________

Marx wrote:

_________________________________________

"That which exists for me through the medium of money, that which I can pay for, i.e., that which money can buy, that am I, the possessor of money. The stronger the power of my money, the stronger am I. The properties of money are my, the possessor's, properties and essential powers. Therefore, what I am and what I can do is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy the most beautiful woman. Which means to say that I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness, its repelling power, is destroyed by money. As an individual, I am lame, but money procurs me 24 legs. Consequently, I am not lame. I am a wicked, dishonest, unscrupulous and stupid individual, but money is respected, and so also is its owner. Money is the highest good, and consequently its owner is also good. Moreover, money spares me the trouble of being dishonest, and I am therefore presumed to be honest. I am mindless, but if money is the true mind of all things, how can its owner be mindless? What is more, he can buy clever people for himself, and is not he who has power over clever people cleverer than them? Through money, I can have anything the human heart desires. Do I not possess all human abilities? Does not money therefore transform all my incapacities into their opposite?

"... Money, therefore, appears as an inverting power in relation to the individual and to those social and other bonds which claim to be essences in themselves. It transforms loyalty into treason, love into hate, hate into love, virtue into vice, vice into virtue, servant into master, master into servant, nonsense into reason, and reason into nonsense.

"Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and exchanges everything, it is the universal confusion and exchange of all things, an inverted world, the confusion and exchange of all natural and human qualities.

"He who can buy courage is brave, even if he is a coward."

[ev]

Hierarchy in society is unrelated to the hierarchy in nature. The hierarchy in society is based on who was fortunate to receive power from someone who previously held power, who has on file at the town hall a deed to a piece of property, who has an army to back up their instructions, etc. Rather than being based on natural differences, the social hierarchy operates oppositely to natural differences, not based on personal skill but making personal skill irrelevant, etc., as described in Marx's manuscripts of 1844. The need for props shows that social hierarchy is artificially forced into existence by conventional institutions. The institutions that people have made they can also unmake.

_________________________________________

Marx wrote:

_________________________________________

"That which exists for me through the medium of money, that which I can pay for, i.e., that which money can buy, that am I, the possessor of money. The stronger the power of my money, the stronger am I. The properties of money are my, the possessor's, properties and essential powers. Therefore, what I am and what I can do is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy the most beautiful woman. Which means to say that I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness, its repelling power, is destroyed by money. As an individual, I am lame, but money procurs me 24 legs. Consequently, I am not lame. I am a wicked, dishonest, unscrupulous and stupid individual, but money is respected, and so also is its owner. Money is the highest good, and consequently its owner is also good. Moreover, money spares me the trouble of being dishonest, and I am therefore presumed to be honest. I am mindless, but if money is the true mind of all things, how can its owner be mindless? What is more, he can buy clever people for himself, and is not he who has power over clever people cleverer than them? Through money, I can have anything the human heart desires. Do I not possess all human abilities? Does not money therefore transform all my incapacities into their opposite?

"... Money, therefore, appears as an inverting power in relation to the individual and to those social and other bonds which claim to be essences in themselves. It transforms loyalty into treason, love into hate, hate into love, virtue into vice, vice into virtue, servant into master, master into servant, nonsense into reason, and reason into nonsense.

"Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and exchanges everything, it is the universal confusion and exchange of all things, an inverted world, the confusion and exchange of all natural and human qualities.

"He who can buy courage is brave, even if he is a coward."

Ah, thank you. I've neglected to acknowledge that capitalism makes social skills irrelevant. But, we have acknowledged that heirarchy does exist (even in human social conditions) naturally & normally based on physical or intellectual traits. So in a anarchist sociological environment, how could hierarchy not exist? There would have to be some form of 'natural' hierarchy (measured by physical, intellectual capacity & contribution) and thus hierarchy could not be abolished? (It could in respect to capital created hierarchy but i think that would be all?)

Sorry if my thoughts arn't coherent but I'm typing what I'm thinking.. in a hurry. appreciate your replies.