That is hardly the case.
You assert that irrational hierarchies will not develop.
I assert that based on the man naturally pools his own resrouces and capital that your assertion is complete bunk.
Is there a reason you're still prattling on about this? I've already made it quite clear that I don't favor the "one share, one vote" scheme practiced in some ESOPs. I favor a "one person, one vote" scheme so as to maximize the practice of direct democracy in worker-owned and managed enterprises.
What you don't understand is that with in socialism there is a class of people who naturally develop a sedentary lifestyle in favor of actually producing something.
I would hope that this isn't related to a fallacious belief regarding an alleged "lack of incentive" in a socialist economy. It isn't, is it?
It doesn't matter if you support it or not.
Your assertion is that an irrational one won't develop, that is just crap.
Over time as one group or individual amasses this capital an irrational hierarchy develops.
You still haven't reconciled this, instead you say what you think will happen and not what will happen or you refrain from calling it what it is.
Of course it matters. If no "one share, one vote" scheme exists in a worker-owned enterprise,
there's no capacity for mere share accumulation to result in greater decision-making power. A very basic and elementary fact, yet you have somehow proven capable of badly misunderstanding it...
Not inaccuracies they are the truths outside of your textbook perfect society.
What's most amusing here is that the only person advocating a "textbook perfect" society is you, inasmuch as advocacy of "free markets" fails to analyze numerous aforementioned issues, such as the prevalence of information asymmetries, agency costs, etc.
You can post all the short term examples of greatness with social programs etc etc, it still doesn't prove that your perfect society will develop with minimal irrational hierarchy developments.
We have again encountered several fallacious claims by you. Not only have I not pointed to "short term examples" to indicate long term gains (I note your continued ignorance of the mentions of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, the Israeli kibbutzim, and EZLN-controlled Chiapas, incidentally), I never claimed to favor the existence of a "perfect society." Indeed, such a belief would require the utopianism possessed by supporters of free market capitalism. In reference to "minimal irrational hierarchy," there are obviously existing examples of this, such as the anarchist collectives of the Spanish Revolution or the Free Territory of Ukraine. We could also point to the brief existence of the Paris Commune and the later French student/worker uprising of 1968, though your mendacious criticisms would likely be revived. We could also point to smaller "colonies" of sorts such as the Whiteway Colony and Freetown Christiania, though they're of limited value when discussing the implementation of large scale libertarian socialism. In reference to the expansion of worker-owned and managed enterprises, we could also indicate the Argentine "factory recovery" movement and the autogestion in Titoist Yugoslavia. And all this, of course, is merely a sampling.
It won't happen, man is selfish whether you want to believe it or not, irrational hierarchies will develop as they have for the whole of history.
All your plan does is leave a power vacuum for a centralist charismatic leader that appeals to the group think of your "horizontal democracy"(laugh).
As usual, you have failed to substantiate your claims with any relevant commentary. You might first note that the power-hungry have already seized control in current societal and economic conditions, but that would likely not be disingenuous enough for your purposes. Regardless, your analysis fails to comprehend the active nature of direct participation that has existed throughout the anarchist tradition and in essentially every anarchist society that has ever come into existence. It was put best by Kropotkin:
The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the revolutionized territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting such a person and refusing to help him with their labor or to willing supply him with any articles in their possession. They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be wrong.
Just as the Spanish anarchists resisted the pretensions of the Republican government, and of Caballero, Companys, Comorera, etc., so will a legitimately anarchist population resist an imposition of hierarchy or statist mandates, even if they initially come from within. Empirical evidence has indicated the veracity of this.
It is a joke to even suggest that this perfect democracy would stand the test of any measure of time.
No one has spoken of "perfect democracy." Regardless, your argument constitutes an appeal to ignorance, because while there have not been long-lasting anarchist communities or societies on an especially large scale, neither have there been large-scale anarchist communities or societies that collapsed of their own accord, as the result of an internal failure of anarchist principles. Throughout the existence of the Spanish anarchist collectives, their progress was hampered not by the failure of direct democracy or collectivization, but by external sabotage from Leninist and Stalinist opponents. (Inaccurately called "socialists" today.)
Your clearly ignore psychology in favor of tired old false arguments like your lame train station example. Humans do mean things all the time for self, personal comedic fulfillment.
Certainly. The analogy was merely intended to illustrate the absurdity of rational choice theory, since the reality is that self-interested behaviors have a tendency to manifest themselves on the social and collective level rather than on the purely individual level. If each individual attempted to maximize their own self-interest with no regard for that of others, the result would be a chaotic absurdity, similar to that of Hardin's inaccurately applied "tragedy of the commons."
Would your perfect society not do this? Would the members of your perfect society not express the cruelness or group think, the follow the leader syndrome that humans possess?
Of course such conditions would likely manifest themselves from time to time, as hierarchical organization is a biologically natural tendency, in my opinion. But there is also a degree of subservience to hierarchy manufactured by present societal and economic conditions, as in the aforementioned example of schools functioning as a component of the capitalist mode of production. Hence, it is not unlikely that hierarchical organization patterns can be consciously overcome, as was the case in the aforementioned anarchist societies that enjoyed a prosperous record of existence, just as biologically natural proclivities to rape, assault, and kill can be overcome.
I just don't understand why you keep trying to distract me from the crux of your argument with the infant industry argument when a company that is less efficient than the old shouldn't develop, Infant industry be damned if it can't compete.
There is no "distraction" involved. I noted that the state functioned as a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy, contrary to free marketers' bleating about "government intervention." I pointed to the infant industry argument to support this claim. You did not and have not replied, which lends one to believe that you likely don't understand the argument and possibly don't even know the infant industry argument is. If so, I would recommend having a look at Ha-Joon Chang's
Kicking Away the Ladder.
As noted therein, trade liberalization promotes adverse socioeconomic impacts as long as heavily industrialized countries entice poorer and underdeveloped countries into remaining dependent on trade with them rather than utilizing their productive assets into forming a viable manufacturing and industrial sector of their own, much the same way that capitalism necessitates worker dependence on the wage provider, so that he may deprive them of the products of their labor.
It does not go against human nature to act in cooperation or act in competition.
What I said was that those acts are inherently selfish.
You are failing to see this. They are doing it because it is easier for them to achieve their goals, if another easier move advantageous way of achieving their goals comes around they will choose that path.
Nobody has denied the reality of this. Indeed, as I said before, socialism simply ensures that wage and/or compensation norms are altered to accurately reflect supply and demand criteria, a condition not present in a capitalist economy.