Those aren’t exclusive. Collaboration and leadership can coexist, especially when the leadership is accountable to the led. Differences in skill and experience exist, period, so acknowledging this and accounting for it is the best way to meet everyone’s needs best from everyone’s skills and talents. It also allows those that have less skill to gain guidance and training in a less directly responsible manner.
It’s not even just differences in skill and experience. The person who is busy cutting a path through the first necessarily cannot also see the entirety of the forest. The person who is taking the aerial view of the forest necessarily cannot be cutting through it.
There is a hierarchy of scale and complexity. It can be solved with voluntary hierarchies of work, but it cannot be ignored. Consequences of actions can take minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, or decades to emerge. The people worried about the immediate consequences of individual actions are not going to have the capacity for also worrying about the long-term consequences of collective actions over time.
We know this. We see this all the time. And yet this axiomatic-bordering-on-religious stricture against hierarchy chooses to believe there’s some way to handle hierarchies of complexity without hierarchies of coordination.
Yes, fantastic way to put it, again further illustrating why complex society requires different positions of focus, including different levels of organization. You cannot have local governments functioning properly without a cohesive central government, and a central government cannot properly handle or comprehend the complexities of local life without strong local governments. Democratic centralism and whole process people’s democracy are proven tools of meeting the needs of the people.
Those aren’t exclusive. Collaboration and leadership can coexist, especially when the leadership is accountable to the led. Differences in skill and experience exist, period, so acknowledging this and accounting for it is the best way to meet everyone’s needs best from everyone’s skills and talents. It also allows those that have less skill to gain guidance and training in a less directly responsible manner.
It’s not even just differences in skill and experience. The person who is busy cutting a path through the first necessarily cannot also see the entirety of the forest. The person who is taking the aerial view of the forest necessarily cannot be cutting through it.
There is a hierarchy of scale and complexity. It can be solved with voluntary hierarchies of work, but it cannot be ignored. Consequences of actions can take minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, or decades to emerge. The people worried about the immediate consequences of individual actions are not going to have the capacity for also worrying about the long-term consequences of collective actions over time.
We know this. We see this all the time. And yet this axiomatic-bordering-on-religious stricture against hierarchy chooses to believe there’s some way to handle hierarchies of complexity without hierarchies of coordination.
Yes, fantastic way to put it, again further illustrating why complex society requires different positions of focus, including different levels of organization. You cannot have local governments functioning properly without a cohesive central government, and a central government cannot properly handle or comprehend the complexities of local life without strong local governments. Democratic centralism and whole process people’s democracy are proven tools of meeting the needs of the people.