Why Hierarchy?

It is a relatively undisputed finding of sociology that all large, complex organizations are hierarchical.  There is small control group, a large group that acts on behalf of the control group, and an even larger group which is acted on.  You can  look at the organization of a political party, a bureaucracy, a corporation, a labor union, a church, basically any large political organization.

There are studies of hierarchical organizations versus non-hierarchical organizations.  The bottom line is that hierarchical organizations are more productive than non-hierarchical organization, even if the control group receives the lion share of production.  That is, being at the bottom of a hierarchy is more rewarding than being an equal member of a non-hierarchical organization.  You get a smaller cut, but a greater absolute share than the egalitarian, which matters if we are speaking of nutrition.

As soon as people began to create complex social organizations--that is--with agriculture, hierarchical governments and societies began to emerge.  Given our focus on warfare, one can understand that a more productive hierarchical economic system will produce a better, stronger, and healthier army than an non-hierarchical order.  Not surprisingly, hierarchy wins, and will always win, no matter how egalitarian the rhetoric of the ruling class.

However, there are two specific political problems that any hierarchical system has to contend with.  The first is guarding against an elite which takes too much for itself, undermining all the classes below itself, and causing the lower stratums to "opt-out" or revolt.  Also, as we can witness from the mixed experiences in decolonization, elites can undermine the ability of a hierarchy to function productively if their greed knows no measure.  We can see this is small part in America, when we look at our stalled economic growth, which has resulted from the re-distribution of wealth from workers (who consume their income) to elites (who invest their income, e.g. send it overseas).  While plutocracy is a problem, plutocracy can often be solved within a constitutional framework.  The People's power can be concentrated into a leader, who contests with the plutocrats and re-establishes a just order.  This is the vision of populism, and this vision is embodied in the Presidencies of Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in this Country.  American Democracy has had its periodic bouts of extreme economic liberalism, plutocracy and government by the special interest, followed by a strong Presidency backed by Congress who routs the special interests.  These periodic battles between the power of money and the power of the People have taken place throughout our history without the elimination of democracy, freedom or constitutional government.

The second problem stems from the group or groups at the bottom of the hierarchy, which consists in getting them to "buy into" the system.  If the bottom of the hierarchy revolts and indulges in lawlessness and anarchy, if unchecked, this situation creates a true civil war, and necessitates extreme repression by the State in an effort to preserve itself.  We have revolution and counter-revolution.  If revolution defines itself in strict egalitarian terms, that is, ending or finally destroying the hierarchy, the revolution is premised on a contradiction.  If the revolutionary order is going to function, it must be hierarchical, but its function is to destroy hierarchy.  Thus, egalitarian revolution's first task is to engage in total war to destroy the existing hierarchical order.  If and when egalitarian revolution succeeds in destroying the existing order, and taking control, it invariably must wage war on itself.  Moreover, because it's modus operandi is inherently contradictory, the war by nature can never end.  Thus, we can see that egalitarian revolution, in its own formulation, can only be manifest in an endless cycle of political repression, as we can discern from the careers of Stalin or Mao.  In contrast, counter-revolution, while employing the same brutality as the Communist, can re-stabilize society, and can often bloodlessly transition from an authoritarian state to a democratic order.   

From the standpoint of this blog, revolution is always bad, and egalitarian revolution can only result in endless tyranny.  The point of governance is to avoid civil war in the first instance, but if a civil war breaks out, then to use all existing power to suppress it.  Thus, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and his jailing of Southern newspaper editors for publishing their opinions was not only the lawful and proper exercise of Constitutional power, but wise and judicious. 

How to avoid revolution in the first place?  First, the sign of the true Sovereign is his willingness to die on behalf of his people.  Any true leadership seeking to be viewed as legitimate must embody an ethos of self-sacrifice on behalf of the People.  This is not a matter of a profession of faith, but a demonstration of a willingness to walk the walk.  Second, the Nation should be governed on behalf of the common good, not merely to enrich wealthy special interest groups.  If the government allows itself to be viewed as in the pockets of concentrated economic interests, it will lose legitimacy and support.  Last, although the government should address the common good, the true Sovereign serves those who have the least the most.  It is most important that the lowest always identify with the highest--this creates national unity and harmony.  We can see this clearly in the Presidency of Lincoln, whom the newly freed slaves viewed as a national liberator.  The government must serve the interests of all, but the interests of the poorest, first.

Of course, one can find these three principles in the Gospels, and these principles underlie the basis of the Christian profession of faith.  As America has increasingly secularized, we have seen these three principles inverted.  The new sovereign tests his power based on the willingness of the subjects to die for the state in imperialistic wars for "democracy".  The new sovereign governs on the basis of special interests, and denies the ontological existence of a common good.  The new sovereign balances the budget on the backs of the poor.  We can ask, how long will this new sovereign reign, now that he/she has put aside the Bible in favor of Milton Friedman or John Rawls?  The cost of freedom is paid in blood, not secular philosophy.

Social justice is real, but the basis of social justice is not the provision of egalitarian rights, positive freedom or negative freedom or any other such nonsense.  Social justice is about creating a sense of social cohesion across lines of societal division--which are inevitable--and the purpose of social justice is to bring about national unity and strength--which stated negatively means social justice is about avoiding civil war and revolution.  Social justice is not about bringing about a utopian future, where everyone is "truly" equal and there are no social divisions, it is about insuring a basic level of mutual trust and respect for law and order across all the inevitable social divisions.  It is about managing social divisions, and promoting a sense of higher unity and purpose in a sense of a shared national life.  All societies are hierarchical, but excessive inequality undermines productivity, public health and social cohesion.  All societies have elites, but some elites are dedicated and selfless public servants, and others are just corrupt plutocrats and gangsters.  All societies have their poor, but the poor in some societies are actively invested in the system and in self-improvement.  They are not simply the passive receipts of welfare checks, or the active enemies of the social order.

I look at the problems facing America today, and I see a left-liberal America selling "life-style" consumerism and Communist egalitarianism, neither of which is compatible with itself, let alone with real social justice or a politically stable social order.  On the other hand, I see a right-libertarian America selling individual rights, Social Darwinist Christianity and completely silent with respect to social justice.  Markets are fine, but when the losers in your economic system revolt, your markets won't save you.  Americans seem to be impressed with the absolute power of political repression, especially torture, but repressive states fall too.  Unless there is real national unity and real social justice, all the jack boots and torture squads in the world will only forestall the inevitable.