The hierarchy is a value system that classifies people by whom and for what they control and their obedience to those who are above them. It is a form of organization where power is distributed unequally, allowing some people to control others.
In the hierarchy, low must comply with the above, or suffer the consequences - which can range from dismissal if you work in a company and disobeying their superiors, or even prison, if you violate any law created by the elected representatives of the people. There is no freedom in hierarchical systems, we are obliged to abide by the decisions of the "authorities", or the majority in a democratic system, even if we disagree with them - and this can end up causing a lot of resentment, especially in those who feel a victim of injustice.
Every decision that is imposed will generate discontent in those not involved in the decisive process or not felt contemplated by the decision. Of these troubled people can peacefully accept the outcome, but others can resist and fight this decision. And it's usually with threats, implied or open the power structure remains and imposes its will. This happens when, for example, workers go on strike to express their repudiation of cutting benefits and side are threatened by their bosses to resign and cutting wages if they do not return to work, while on the other the state, through the police , the threat of arrest and physical violence if they do not accept their destiny peacefully. The police, in turn, are coerced to crack down on protesters, but they shall be punished for disobedience.
Generally people do not need or be forced to make decisions that harm others. We are taught early on that "who does not command, obey," and we were not encouraged to question these rules .So do our best to preserve our position in the hierarchy and we feel good to exercise power over others. The system encourages a hunger for power, where we are constantly trying to expand our influence on people and things around us, because only then we will know that we are not at the base of the pyramid and have at least some power over others - as it often does not we have power over ourselves.
But even those who are at the top of the pyramid can be said free: the president of the country still have to obey the same laws, created by the same MPs, have to comply with the companies that fund their campaigns, their political allies without whom it could not govern the financial market that threatens to break the country do not have their desires satisfied. In fact the pressure on those who are at the top are perhaps even stronger than on the other - it's quite common for presidents of large corporations to work more than 12 hours a day and never take a holiday - and the power over others end up having to compensate for lack of freedom and power over their lives.
A great centralization of power - where the president and hundreds of congressmen and judges decide on the lives of millions of people - generates the common people a huge sense of powerlessness in relation to its own destiny. It is not we who decide how many hours we work each day, as our children will be educated, how much we pay taxes and how those taxes will be used, etc. The democratic system, only allows people to manifest in the elections and protests (provided they are orderly), and it serves more to legitimize the existing system than to cause significant changes.
All hierarchical power use any argument to stay in power: the kings and queens of the European Middle Ages claimed to be representatives of the Christian God on Earth, while the modern political legitimize its power through the vote (although almost always who has the most campaigns expensive and more support of the media that is elected). We choose not to be governed: governments and hierarchy are much older than modern democracies and are perpetuated through a historical scheme in which older generations impose their laws and injustices on children and youth. In fact, democracy was the way that the ruling class found to legitimize and perpetuate his power when he felt threatened. This is how the hierarchy remains: when it begins to grow the number of people questioning the system, the system itself proposes reforms that sound promising, but in practice very little change.
And when the system is not willing to undergo reforms or they do not work to calm tempers, and it seems that finally the system will undergo more significant changes and possible revolutions are created large external or internal threats - terrorism, communism, fundamentalism - to make the population afraid that things get worse, and so these changes are muffled, and a police state is established. So it was with the anti-globalization movement that gained strength in the northern hemisphere in the late 20th century and that was forgotten when there were the attacks of September 11 and then the war in Iraq, which have served as justification for imposing anti-terrorism laws that still hampered more people's lives fighting for changes in the system.
Anarchy, on the other hand, is the kind of organization where there is no centralized power, it is in the hands of all people. There are no authorities, everyone is free to make their own choices. No one needs to give up their will and their power, decisions are made through dialogue and consensus . If an idea does not please anyone, the discussion continues until they find a solution that is accepted by all.
Anarchy is not synonymous with clutter or chaos, as many people believe, on the contrary anarchy is a system to work requires responsibility and mutual respect. Anarchy will never work if we maintain selfish and competitive mentality promoted by capitalism and other hierarchical systems. For her work we need to embrace mutual support and voluntary sharing, so that all people can feel supported, including and not lack anything necessary to live. When people feel included and respected as part of a healthy community, they have less reason to commit acts of violence.
In modern society, to maintain the hierarchy, created a myth that if there is someone to tell what to do, people will not do anything without an "authority" to kill each other (funny, do not there was a single war that has been initiated by anarchists). But even with all the capitalist advertising and meritocracy - that is pounded in our head of the school to the labor market, with the intention of making us believe that we are in an eternal competition and that only those who study more, work harder and is more competitive will do well in life - we have a tendency to cooperate and we support each other. We are social animals: our ability to live in society and to use our languages to cooperate in complex tasks is our most distinctive evolutionary trait.
Where there is no dictating authority how people should behave, our cooperative behavior is a breach and manifests itself: when a group of friends decided to organize a party or intimate dinner and each contributes as you can, dividing the tasks, someone makes shopping, another person kitchen, another wash the dishes; disaster and calamities, when the state fails, we see people organize themselves into networks, share resources and demonstrate solidarity with strangers; on Internet forums where people voluntarily share information and experiences and dedicate their time to help strangers to solve problems. Even during an exam at school, trying to isolate and put individuals against each other in a competition of who knows more, just the teacher out of the room that the children help each other, those who know more about certain content help you they know less. But as soon as the authority back to the classroom, she discovers that a child helped another, it will punish the two, as if helping those in need were something reprehensible.
If even despite all encouraging competition and selfishness, whether at school, at work, in love relationships, people still insist on mutual support and cooperation, imagine if these qualities were encouraged! What if we lived in a system that rewards those who work for the good of the team, who help and share its resources with others? And if the schools a student who helped other were rewarded instead of punished? If the team sports winning true were those people who help others to overcome adversity? If at work instead of being rewarded for achieving sales targets, people were promoted to help colleagues and provide a useful service to the community? If we were not taught to always pay the minimum for a product or service, but they all contribute t
How long will we let the system mold in your personal pleasure when in fact we should shape the system to reflect our dreams?