3 ms·
A traditional hierarchy is a tree, whereas a flat governance aims to be as close as possible to a connected graph. It's significantly easier to maintain a tree
by Aunche 2y ago
A traditional hierarchy is a tree, whereas a flat governance aims to be as close as possible to a connected graph. It's significantly easier to maintain a tree than a connected graph, especially with a sufficient group size. You're unlikely to find many people willing to invest so much effort into maintaining a flat organization, and even if you do, often times it's a better investment for those people to be actively making progress on that shared goal rather than governance.
IMO, a regular representative democracy is "good enough." It may be biased towards the elite, but it's still by far the most successful form of governance when it comes to creating large systemic change. The perceived ineffectiveness of it comes from people's unwillingness to put actual work, which applies to any other form of organization as well.
- mordae 2y agoNo, it's not. It heavily favors the elite to the point it ended up like it is today all over the world - halfway to plutocracy with a touch of oligarchy.
- Aunche 2y agoWhat people consider oligarchy is actually allowing the outsourcing of governance to the elite. Corporations are disproportionately represented because they are the ones who do the most research and strategizing. The high profile victories of the post WWII era (e.g. Civil Rights, the Clean Air Act, OSHA) were achieved by grassroots groups dedicating themselves to similar levels of effort. On the other hand, modern day advocacy and political engagement prioritizes entertainment and memeyness. Even today, people achieve victories over the elite when they take civic engagement seriously like NIMBYs blocking billionaire developers.