I agree with you, but looking all along history, the whims of the ultra rich or the ultra powerfully or the ultra influent _have_ structured the world. All this time, the people with the means to shape the world have shaped it. So, maybe, no matter what we do, there is no escaping this. Only maybe filtering the poeple who get the power somehow.
Only in the Anglosphere and only since the Restoration in Britain. One need only look to the English, French and Russian revolutions to see the outsized influence the declasse have had on history.
Not even talking about Prussia/pre-WWI Germany in which the most powerful people were a non elected incredibly poor class of generals and civil servants.
> Not even talking about Prussia/pre-WWI Germany in which the most powerful people were a non elected incredibly poor class of generals and civil servants.
Power manifests itself in many forms, whether it be through money or persuasion or charm or tactical prowess. The point remains, decisions are made by the few for the many. And simply being good as something, does not make you a benevolent force.
That now, we decide the criterion is money as opposed to honor or holiness, is of little importance. They can all be perverted as soon as their utility is obvious.
>Power manifests itself in many forms, whether it be through money or persuasion or charm or tactical prowess. The point remains, decisions are made by the few for the many. And simply being good as something, does not make you a benevolent force.
Tautology is tautological.
Those with power in France in 1798, 1808 and 1818 were using completely different systems of merit. You could not have predicted Napoleon using the old system of power, nor could you have predicted the Bourbon Restoration using the revolutionary system of power.
That hierarchy is used by and large in all organizations is due to the fact we're limited by technology, not an inherit law of nature. The original Soviets (not the USSR) and Catalonian anarchists, had they survived, would have been examples of the many deciding for the many. Depending on how much you believe the literary canon classical Athens was a successful example of that for close to a century.
I believe you had a point with this, but it eluded me. Can you explain (at the risk of destroying the joke?)
> The original Soviets (not the USSR) and Catalonian anarchists, had they survived, would have been examples of the many deciding for the many.
But they didn't, and the fact that they did not pushes the balance towards the possibility that this might not be such a practical idea.
I think that hierarchy is not necessarily a law of nature, but is so common one might be excused for thinking it so. If there is some alternative, I can not conceive it in my mind - not at least in a realistic form - and I would be very pleased to have it explained to me.
I think there is some sort of a circular reasoning regarding this, in my mind. I think that in order to have a more egalitarian and self-directed society you need self-directed individuals. And yet,(according to my mental model) these individuals are the result of the society that produces them.
The point your making is that those with power have power. Which is a tautology. The point I'm making is that the qualifications for having power change constantly and unpredictably.
I do not think power being concentrated has anything to do with human nature, just the difficulty in taking action as a group. If you've even been in a meeting with a dozen people roughly of the same standing it takes a long while to decide anything. If this was a revolutionary situation you'd have the authoritarians already taking over the tv and radio stations before you've read the minutes from the last collectivist group meeting.
Even Athens and Rome realized this and would elect or appoint people with extraordinary power in a crisis.
When direct brain communication is invented I doubt we will see single individuals rise to power again.
For how long? Have you seen the elites arising from the revolutions you point out? I wouldn't even dare say that those revolutions were even driven by "common" men, they were at best fooled at worst tricked by the drivers of the revolutions.
> I wouldn't even dare say that those revolutions were even driven by "common" men,
But they were, though not in a good way. One of the easiest-to-spot dynamics in a chaotic "revolution" is extreme violence as huge mobs of "common" folks fight for power and influence, striving to become the new "big men" and "drivers" of the revolution itself. Nobody is being fooled or tricked, other than by perhaps fooling or tricking themselves; there are winners and losers to the struggle, but these are only evident after the fact.
And yet, the "mob" had drivers and men leading it, even when small groups was all there was. Take 5 people and put them in a room and hierarchies will emerge. Not even a singular one, necessarily, but perhaps several hierarchies concerning different facets. But they will emerge.
