In “Empire of the Rising Scum,” Robert Shea observed that, regardless of their ostensible mission, hierarchical institutions tend to be headed by people whose primary skills are careerist climbing and bureaucratic in-fighting. As I’ve said before, you simply cannot become a President of the United States, or a Fortune 500 CEO, unless there’s something fundamentally wrong with you. The same is true of the intellectual capacity of those who manage to advance upward within hierarchies. Being a team player, engaging in groupthink, demonstrating an ability to shut off critical thinking when evaluating the communications of a superior — these are qualities that authoritarian institutions select for.
But in addition to selecting for stupidity and meanness, such institutions impress those traits even on those who didn’t previously possess them. Hierarchies are systematically stupid. No matter how intelligent the people running them are as individuals, the internal dymanics of the hierarchy make them functionally stupid. That’s because power distorts communications, rendering them incapable of conveying accurate information. The reason, as R.A. Wilson pointed out, is that nobody tells the truth to someone with a gun — or with the power to fire them, or any other kind of unaccountable and unilateral power over them. The result is one-way communication flows, the utter isolation of institutional leadership from accurate feedback about the effects of their decisions. When an individual’s perceptions are so distorted that she receives no accurate feedback on the effect of her actions on her environment, she’s mentally ill. And hierarchical institutions, likewise, are functionally psychotic.
Authoritarian institutions tend to be governed by “best practices” and management fads based entirely on what their leadership hears from the leadership of other authoritarian institutions — people who are as clueless regarding the actual effects of these practices as they are. The reason is that the people at the tops of the pyramids — in the C-suites — communicate much more effectively with people at the tops of other pyramids than they do with those at the base of their own pyramid.
As organization theorist Kenneth Boulding said, those at the tops of hierarchies tend to live in almost completely imaginary worlds. Hierarchies are mechanisms purpose-evolved to tell naked emperors how great their clothes look.
A similar process, based on the distorted incentive structure when one possesses unaccountable authority over others and can externalize unpleasantness on subordinates while appropriating rewards for oneself, takes place in the ethical realm as well. Many simulations of authority relationships — perhaps most notably the Stanford Prison Experiment — have shown the nasty things that happen when subjects are randomly divided into those with and without authority. People who are randomly assigned the role of guard or master, and put into a position of exercising unaccountable authority over fellow subjects assigned the roles of prisoners and slaves, quickly grow into their role. The “guards” in the Stanford Prison Experiment, given authority to impose unpleasantness and otherwise make decisions affecting others without the latter having any feedback, soon so dehumanized the “prisoners” and so enjoyed brutalizing them that the two-week experiment had to be terminated after only six days.
So if you wonder why your CEO has no qualms about collecting a $20 million bonus while downsizing half the workforce and increasing the workloads of everyone else, the answer is simple. On an emotional level, she’s long ago convinced herself that you aren’t even human. People in authority, in their organizational roles, tend to experience the functional equivalent of a psychotic break with reality, and to act like sociopaths toward their subordinates.
Power over others, by its very nature, degrades those who wield it, turns them into monsters, and poisons their every relationship with their fellow human beings. There’s no “reform” that can change that, short of abolishing authority itself. And that’s what we anarchists want to do.
Translations for this article:
- Portuguese, O Poder Não Apenas Atrai Pessoas Mesquinhas e Estúpidas — Ele As Torna Assim
- Spanish, El Poder No Sólo Atrae A Gente Mezquina Y Estúpida— Los Hace Así
- Russian, Власть не просто привлекает дураков — она их создаёт
Citations to this article:
- Kevin Carson, Power breeds society’s ills, Deming, New Mexico Headlight, 07/09/12
Excellent article, Kevin. I think workers know this on some level, but the propaganda of our state capitalist system convinces them that they are immature or "too radical" if they actually talk about this phenomenon out loud. My own experience in a not-for-profit healthcare system–which I naively thought would be more ethical and compassionate than for-profit corporations–supports the claims in this post. The state AND the boss need to go!
Kevin, I'd like to thank you personally, as well as C4SS, for all of the hard work. And, on a personal note, I should also mention that I have recently "come out" as an anarchist, because I have been emboldened by information from sources like C4SS. I'm in my early thirties–thus I'm not a college kid who treats anarchism as a form of rebellion against mom and dad or as some kind of radical frat– and I've done my research. I've given this a lot of thought and looked at matters of state and capital from many angles. It is not a decision I took lightly. Indeed, within the last year I was still giving some thought to working in law enforcement or other aspects of the criminal justice system.
After much deliberation, it just makes sense that we need to organize society from the ground up. Like most honest anarchists I can say I don't have a blue print of what a free society should look like. Too a large extent, we will have to sort out the details democratically as progress is made. But I will no longer be content with little reforms. Thanks again for challenging me to throw off the chains instead of just asking that they be loosened a little bit.
Thanks a lot, Dave! And I hope you enjoy your anarchist journey.
My recent post New Book in the Works
Good article. The Stanford Prison Experiment, however, was full of methodological flaws that make its conclusion problematic at best. It's not to say you're wrong, but this particular experiment didn't prove it. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4102
My recent post Click one of the post titles above to include it at the end of your comment
Kevin, a friendly word of constructive criticism from a fellow writer: trim your paragraphs and utilize the active voice more often. Rhetorical tools to help get your message across.
I like the content. There exist some serious underlying psychologies beneath statism and hierarchy. Much of it seems fear based, from a lack of trust of humans but I suspect statists initially lack trust of themselves.
But domestication stifles independence as well. The existence of hierarchies self perpetuates this pattern as this article describes.
My recent post Dystopian/Utopian False Dichotomies
Wouldn't it be better to spell out Robert Anton Wilson? (Some readers might not know who you're referring to; others might find your work when searching for references to RAW.)
My recent post A New Era for Worker Ownership?
The increase in authoritarianism and hierarchical walls of a company usually correlates with the size of the company itself. The information problems that affect states affect large companies also. Because of the increasingly blurred picture from top to bottom the lower members down the chain are increasingly stripped of any autonomy in their work and access to information from above. Further, contextual reasoning is thrown out in favour of third-party, heteronomous 'company policy' which leads to all manner of stupidities in decision making.
The end product is an oppressive environment which stifles individual autonomy (and from that, creativity) and enforces a culture of staunch informational esotericism. The lowest worker is thus treated with almost zero trust and is encouraged to be an unthinking automaton.
My recent post The Dictatorship of the Past
Brazen disregard for truth has been the rule in all political struggles of the last century. Suffice it to mention the famous "twenty years of treason," an argument which had its share in deciding the outcome of the 1952 elections in the United States. Paradoxically, however, there is no real need for a vast system of slanders in the campaigns of the "regular" parties, considering that the truth they could tell about each other is deadlier than the most fantastic inventions.
Still more paradoxical is the fact that some of the vilest forms of slander have been systematically practiced by the parties and groups of the Left and the extreme Left which claim to be imbued with higher moral principles and to be fighting for a better world. Which seems to prove that not only actual power, but also the struggle for it exerts the corrupting influence attributed to it by Lord Acton.
–Max Nomad, Aspects of Revolt
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B000LGKPYE/ref=nosim…
My recent post A New Era for Worker Ownership?
The casual conflation of the U.S president with the CEO of any Fortune 500 company is disquieting. I'm not defending big business per se, and like most people here I am suspicious of how they achieved their prominence. But is it really accurate to say that there "must" be "something fundamentally wrong" with these CEOs? What's wrong with them? In what sense? All of them?
With politcians, it's easy and obvious. They are self-important parasites who we will one day be rid of, hopefully.
Carl: "With politcians, it's easy and obvious. They are self-important parasites who we will one day be rid of, hopefully."
And I would say the same of most any member of the corporate executive class, Carl. What do you say about a person who grows wealthy by squeezing his wage slaves for all their worth? Who uses intimidation and threats to stifle any hint of opposition from the rank-and-file? What about a person who is so deluded that they believe all gains made by the company are the result of sound management practices? What is one to think of a person who toys with hard-working people like a cat pawing at a cornered mouse? Let's hang the worker's livelihood over their heads, because we must have a more "flexible" work force! Disgusting, but I guess that's capitalism so we are all supposed to bow in homage.
I think self-important parasites is probably a good description of such people, at least in their institutional role. Sure, they may be kind to their spouses and pets, but the same could have been said of many slave holders,right?
Not at all how it works. A Corporation works to produce a revenue stream for it's shareholders, working for a profit for for to stay in business. Employees at all levels must be seen as overhead; and necessarily so. As one rises up in a Corporate 'chain of command', only the best will be selected to stay; and that selection process tends to weed out the stupid and mean. Just because one commands a bonus for his or her department's successes doesn't automatically make 'em 'mean and stupid', just means they've learned how to manage employees for profitable growth and sustained income for the shareholders.
Anarchists are not well-equipped to exist in this overpopulated world. Maybe if the world's population is cut by 2/3 or more (an unspoken 'green', 'left-wing' desire, most of 'em being closeted misanthropes) then perhaps in small communes anarchy and anarchists will find their niche. But not here, and not now.
First, 'green' & 'left-wing' are not synonyms. 'Green' thought has a complicated, ambiguous history. But left wing thought has historically been based on a very high estimate of human nature. It still is. Not all of us see human beings as exclusively self-intererested. Green politics is not categorically misanthropic. That is just the deep greens. Most greens are not human haters in the slightest.
Next, that is how a corporation works on paper. And it is true as far as it goes. But, what does 'management' consist in? And what are the qualities being selected for? The ability to 'get along' or 'be a team player' is not an unquestionable good. Depends on what one is doing.
I see a version of Hayek's 'fatal conciet' argument here. Bear in mind he was targeting state socialists, not anarchists. And even then, his argument is not wholly rational.
@Serr8d:"As one rises up in a Corporate 'chain of command', only the best will be selected to stay; and that selection process tends to weed out the stupid and mean."
That is laughable bullshit. You are either acting as a corporate cheerleader or you are a Young Republican that has never actually worked full time. In my experience, Carson's assessment is quite accurate. The people who rise in a capitalist firm are generally those who leave their conscience at home before they head to the office. They don't get where they are because they are superior to the rest of us, smarter than the rest of us, or even more qualified than the rest of us. Maybe that's what you learned from Rand and Mises, but it's dead wrong. Successful managers mostly learn to suck the right ass and to rule through intimidation. That is how it is in my workplace and I don't think my workplace is that atypical. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Sorry, but you're not going to get "left-wing thought has historically been based on a very high estimate of human nature" past the scrutineers: if I was in a particularly benevolent mood I might accept that the Left had a high estimate of human *potential*, but broadly speaking the history of Leftist politics is a bunch of people who think THEY know better than the masses, how the masses ought to behave… and are prepared to stuff folks in a gulag to 'educate' them on how to properly behave.
The Left has no fewer compulsions about abrogating individuals' freedom, than does the Right. In fact if you line up the atrocities committed by soi-disant "left" groups and soi-disant "right" groups, the score is about even (and let's not bother with the tired schlock about how Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin weren't "really" Leftists – let's pretend that they thought what they claimed to think, and were inspired by those by whom they claimed to be inspired).
In fact there is only one (anti-)political paradigm that genuinely has faith in human nature (in particular the human tendency to co-operate)… you guessed it: it's us voluntarists (I dislike "anarchist" as a label: arché exists and always will, due to differences in endowments, talent and effort).
Leftism pretends to a kinder, gentler tyranny – with the State only existing for as long as is necessary to drive the proletariat to a new shinier tomorrow. Anyone who believes that is as gullible as most religionists: the State will always find a way not to 'wither away', given the vast amoutns of wealth and power that are in play (and the sorts of people who are attracted to unearned wealth and power).
Forget Left and Right, young feller: view them as two different forms of parasite on the human social host, and you'll be starting from a far better teleological position.
Dave, you had a boss who was a prick: haven't we all. I am as averse to the layers of bullshit-artists in the modern corporate world as the next guy, but the argument that nobody rises above the middle except by triangulation is nonsense. (That said: it is ABSOLUTELY 100% true in bureaucracies, which I why I do not fear the NSA/CIA/DIA/NHS alphabet soup… it's populated at all points above entry level with people who are incompetent: the talent leaves after one 2 year hitch, leaving behind the careerist triangulators).
A lot of 'corporate' environments are highly bureaucratic though. It's bureaucracy that stultifies, not corporate structure per se: the hard thing is how a corporation can prevent itself from becoming a bureaucracy (or if it's even possible, given the tendency of upper management to be dim-witted types who think an MBA is something other than a collection of second-year Uni subjects).
Technocrats are the problem, first and foremost. And technocrats thrive far more in .gov (and .mil) environments than they do in private sector environments.
The psychological states of business executives do not concern me, their behaviour does! Whether or not an executive is "deluded" when it comes to his own importance is irrelevant, all else being equal.
In the examples you gave of "squeezing his wage slaves for all their worth" and "toy(ing) with hard-working people like a cat pawing a cornered mouse", what is the precise nature of the coercion? Was hiring workers in the first place unjust? Were the workers deluded when they sold their labour hours? Is the executive responsible for the consequences of their delusion, or just his own? Should the executive make less money on behalf of his own workforce?
Carson's claim that there is "something fundamentally wrong" with any successful CEO seems unsubstantiated, whether or not you agree with the idea of wage-labour or oppose the existence of corporations.
P.S I have never been told to "bow in homage" to capitalism – the opposite is a common experience, however.
What is true for territorial power is not necessarily true for exterritorial power over volunteers only, free do secede, under personal law. Voluntarism and secessionism would act as limiting and correcting factors, which are eliminated under territorial governments. See my Panarchy a to z, being put online at present at http://www.panarchy.org – A to L are up – and the numerous other references offered on this and other sites on this subject. A search for panarchism can also provide many more references than an individual can fully explore. My two libertarian peace books at http://www.butterbach.net do also embody this idea and practice.
maybe you're conflating left-wing ends with the people who used right-wing means to achieve them i.e. the authoritarians you mentioned. I'll stick to core left-wing principles being achieved through decentralist means, but thanks for the advice.
Voluntarism as a philosophy is alright, but it could be just as exploitable and distorted as any other philosophy with the slavery contract as an example of how a voluntary action such as signing the contract can lead to that person's free-will coming into conflict with said contract sometime in the future, and a security firm hired for the enforcement of such a contract. How much faith can you have in a human being when you buy her as a slave and use the pinkertons or blackwater to make sure she remains your slave?