INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ORGANIZATION RESEARCH
http://www.anarchy.no/iifor.html - IIFOR P.B. 4777 Sofienberg N- 0506 Oslo - Norway

Economic-political sociology and industrial organization research

Rank-Difference-Index - RDI

Horizontal industrial organization and in general

ANARCHIST CLASS-ANALYSIS

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE CLIMATE CRISIS – THE GREEN GLOBAL SPRING (GGS) – CONTINUES AT FULL SPEED, SEE: http://www.anarchy.no/green.html & http://www.anarchy.no/ggs1.html

English Summary:

Here we shall discuss and shed light on social classes, and the relations between classes, with respect to management broadly defined. We shall investigate Bottom - Up managerial systems versus Top - Down managerial systems and horizontal organization versus vertical organization, and influence on the societal decisions from the different social classes, in this connection. Democracy and anarchy, as well as the degree of democracy - also industrial, and the libertarian & anarchist degree, are strongly related to such influence, as we will explain briefly here initially and more thoroughly later in the analysis. We identify and start with 7 basic social classes economical and political/administrative, and put these together, i.e. aggregate these into the two main societal classes: A = The People = The Bottom of the societal pyramid, and B = The Bureaucracy = The Authorities = The Top of the pyramid. While usually mainly all of the societal decisions are taken by B = The Bureaucracy = The Authorities = The Top, the influence broadly defined on the societal decisions of A = The People = The Bottom, may all in all and broadly defined still be significant, in general = x %, between 0 % and 100 %. And thus the influence of B = The Bureaucracy = The Authorities = The Top, are usually equal to or close to = 100 % - x%.

NB! Sometimes the influence by the domestic Top is significantly less than 100 % - x%, due to foreign influence. And then 100 % - the degree of democracy in society, equal to 100 % - the influence on the societal decisions in %, by the People (the Bottom), is shared between the domestic Bureaucracy (the domestic Top) y % and the foreign influence z %, where x % + y % + z % = 100 %. NB! For a given x %, a fixed relative influence by the People, = a given democracy degree, it may be quite the same if the rest of the influence ( 100 % - x %) is from foreigners z % or the domestic Top y % or a mix. But it may happen that foreign influence z % adds to a local Top influence, via double repression, and thus x % = 100 % - (y % + z %) becomes significantly less, i.e. decreased degree of democracy.

In the next section we will mainly discuss cases with no foreign influence, thus the influence of the Top, the domestic Bureaucracy is y % = 100 % - the degree of democracy (i.e. 100% - the percent degre of influence on the societal decisions by the People) = 100 % - x %. Remember:

A = The People = The Bottom's influence broadly defined and seen all in all on the societal decisions estimated in %, = x %, is equal to the degree of democracy in the society. Say, if the influence by A = The People = The Bottom, x % = 0 % (= the degree of democracy), and the influence by the Top is 100% - 0 % = 100 %, i.e. there is No democracy at all (but extreme ultra-fascism, see the map below). And if the influence by the A = The People = The Bottom on the societal decisions is x % = 50 %, = the degree of democracy (= significant democracy and also real, (while real democracy, i.e. x % = 50 % to 100%)); the influence of B = The Bureaucracy = The Authorities = The Top, = 100 % - x% = 100 % - 50 % = 50 %, i.e. fifty - fifty and equal influence by the Bottom and the and Top. And if the influence by A = The People = The Bottom on the societal decisions is x % = 100 %, = the degree of democracy (= Full Democracy); the influence of B = The Bureaucracy = The Authorities = The Top, = 100 % - 100 % = 0 %.

Now first below we shall 1. look in detail upon each of the 7 basic social classes, and 2. aggregate these into the two main classes mentioned above, including illustrating the composition of the respective main classes. Then we shall discuss and shed light on the relations between the classes, mainly focused on the mentioned influence on the societal decisions from the two main classes, and look at various things that affect this influence from the respective main classes. In a comprehensive footnote *) we shall go deeper into these questions and also discuss the optimal way of management and organization in general. The concept of industrial organization related to management and economic-political sociology is here broadly defined. Mathematical precisations of the theory, with examples, are found below this English summary and the footnote, related to Table 1. The text in this table is in Norwegian, but the variable names are also translated to English, see above the table.

The Rank-Difference-Index, RDI, originally developed by a consultant to IJOR/FB & IIFOR some years ago, that measures how top-heavy the political/administrative rank-hierarchy/rank-pyramid is, and the Gini-index, that measures how top-heavy the income-hierarchy/income-pyramid is, are explained. They are both 100% (=1) with 100% vertical organization, political/administrative and economical respectively, and zero with 100% flat organization, no rank differences and no income differences respectively. The two indexes are interesting in itself, and for further estimates of the degree of democracy = the libertariam degree, of an organization seen all in all, or a whole society, say a country. How to do this, in theory and practice, via several indicators of influence on decisions, including the the two indexes, is further investigated and explained in the IIFOR-report about (click on:) The Economic-Political Map, but not here. Some results of this research are however summarized below.

As mentioned above at least seven significant and basic social classes of rank and income, may be accounted for in anarchist, i.e. real democracy (or the lack of it) - sociology, political economy and social plus industrial organization research, not just two, i.e. the division in A, "people", and B, "authorities" = the bureaucracy, is a simplification, but a scientific valid one, when properly aggregated from the 7 basic classes. The people, A, seen as a class, is defined in contrast to the superiors in rank and/or income, B, i.e. the authorities/bureaucracy political/administrative and/or economical broadly defined. A and B are aggregated classes, and we have here in this document defined A and B precisely, based on the seven more basic social classes. This is necessary for statistical, emprical class analysis and proper aggregation. First we have the following classes, two of income and two of rank:

1. low and

2. middle income classes, as well as the

I. autonomous class of rank, i.e. selfemployed on individual and co-operative basis or approximately similar positions, [i.e. persons working in firms with small rank differences that are relatively independent and well educated consultants and similar functionaries/specialists in the hierarchic enterprises without subordinates, and a relatively free position vis-à-vis the superiors, in public and private sector (not accounting for contractors with no real autonomy and with more or less slave-contracts)], and the

II. "bottom line" skilled and non-skilled workers, houseworkers, and lower functionaries in the hierarchic enterprises in private and public sector, including contractors of the above mentioned type.

Furthermore a) the unemployed, persons with disability and partial incapacity, old, sick, students and political prisoners, are among the people. The persons with relatively lowest rank and income b) are usually only a small part of the population, sometimes called the marginalized. As a small group of the people broadly defined, this group must appeal to the solidarity of the rest of the people, to get better off. They usually do not have the resources to free themselves alone. Hard and violent actions will usually only increase the coercion and marginalization. Group a) and b) may be seen as a part of II, "the bottom line", but may have separate interests and problems, and sometimes should perhaps be accounted for as separate classes, but here we don't - using "Ockham's razor".

The B, authorities, are the

3. relatively rich (economical plutarchs or plutarchists, economical upper class, above the middle income) and the

political/administrative rulers, III the top and IV, the lower commanding officers within the hierarchical enterprises in public and private sector, being criminal [typical ochlarchs/ochlarchists, i.e. mafia, terrorists etc., - any villain is an arch/ruler, small villains, middle villains and arch villains as well] - or not, i.e. to put it simple, the bureaucracy economical and/or political/administrative broadly defined in private and public sector.

The authorities = bureaucracy, B, are the logical union of the three upper classes, 3, III and IV, i.e. B = 3 U III U IV, meaning the upper class persons may either be plutarch/plutarchist and/or top or lower commanding officers, - if you have any of these economical or political/administrative characteristics you are among the upper classes, the bureaucracy* broadly defined economical and/or political/administrative in private and/or public sector, and not a member of the people, A.

If you have neither of these characteristics, i.e. are neither plutarch/plutarchist, nor top, nor lower commanding officer, you are among the people, A. Thus A is the negation of B, when A + B = P, is the whole relevant population, i.e. usually the grown up persons in a society, where the age defining "grown up" may be discussed. NB! A is thus usually not the sum of 1., 2., I. and II. Say, if you are among I. or II. but also 3, you are not a member of the people. And even if you are a member of 1., the low income class, but also of IV, the lower commanding officers, you are not a member of the people, but of the authorities, the bureaucracy.

Some of these non-criminal of the upper classes, may be idealists and be solidaric with the people, and thus in a way, at least ideologically, also be a part of the People, not the upper classes. The anarchist prince, Pjotr Kropotkin, is a well known example of such an idealist. Instead of put in class III or IV, the upper classes of rank, such idealists may sometimes be put in the most relevant of the other classes of political/administrative rank, say, among the autonomous, class I. Ad idealists and allies: People from the upper classes - the Top - Bureaucracy in private and public sector, that are idealists and support the People, are welcome to join in and de facto be members of the People. Also international idealists and troops (say, from NATO and/or other allies) supporting the people in a country are in general welcome to join in and in reality and de facto be members of the People in a country.

Some of the formally seen people may be solidaric with the upper classes, say, perhaps in the purpose of climbing in the hierarchies, and thus in reality more or less be among the ramifications of the bureaucracy. Sometimes they may be accounted for as member of class 3, if aspirating to be rich, or III or IV if aspirating to be political/administrative "crown princes", or be seen as "yellow" followers of the upper classes, and accounted for as a kind of "sergeants", respectively. But usually a class analysis will follow the occupation and position structure, the political/administrative rank and remuneration systems/maps of the industrial organizations broadly defined. And thus, there is rarely a unity within the people A, spontaneously, with no coordination measures. The basic classes of the people A may initally have many different interests, both seen as basic classes and as individual members of the classes. Many people within A love their leaders, or look at them as a necessary more or less evil. Thus, class struggle from the People A against the Top, B, spontaneously without any organization, and with significant momentum, may be relatively rare.

To unite the interests of the People, the real democrats have introduced a People's Council. The mandate of the People's Council is to collect and coordinate the People's demands, order & commands related to for example a managerial action network, and deliver them to the Bureaucracy that should be pressed (i.e. forced, via the People's influence in general) - Bottom - Up - to meet, execute and perform the demands, orders & commands of the People. As mentioned the People is the Bottom of the societal pyramid, the Grassroots, and the Bureaucracy (the Authorities) broadly defined in public and private sector is the Top of the Societal pyramid, i.e. economical and political/administrative.

But in general, unless special cases, 1, the People on the one hand, and the others, the domestic Bureaucracy plus outsiders with influence (for a country = supranational net influence) - both working from the Top, on the other hand, 2. have different - conflicting interests (often rooted in different class interests) and demands, orders & commands. And in general, i.e. with conflicting demands, the demands, orders and commands of the People will only be met - including fulfilled, complied and satisfied, to the extent the People A have influence on or over the societal decisions, mainly taken by the Bureaucracy - the Authorities B, the Top, i.e. aggregated and on average corresponding to the degree of democracy. In the more rare case without conflicting demands initially, i.e. common demands, orders and commands from the Top and Bottom, the demands of the People will be met including fulfilled, complied and satisfied, tendencially more than corresponding to the relative (%) influence of the People on the societal decisions = the degree of democracy. This among others things means the influence of the people and the democracy degree in such cases will tendencially be overestimated if indirectly measured by the aggreggated and averagely relative extent the demands, orders and commands of the People are met including fulfilled, complied and satisfied.

The People however may, 1. in a situation (cases) with initially conflicting demands, orders & commands (often rooted in different class interests), via 2. different actions - direct and/or indirect, move the Bureaucracy's initial demands, orders & commands more towards the initial People's demands, orders & commands (idealistic by the Bureaucracy, across probable class interests), i.e. 3. in the end achieve more or less common demands equal to the People's initial demands, and in this way 4. get the People's demands, orders & commands met including fulfilled, complied and satisfied accordingly, and 5. also the People accordingly, to this extent, have influence on or over these societal decisions, mainly taken by the Bureaucracy, and 6. to the extent these cases are representative for the system in general i.e. aggregated and on average corresponding to a part of the degree of democracy in the society.

This reasoning can easily be expanded to include 1. initial claims, demands, orders & commands from outside the community (for a country = supranational demands), and different actions by the People to move the initial demands, orders & commands from outside, say, supranational, more towards the initial People's demands, and 2. including also the similar related to the Bureaucracy (see above), to 3. in the end achieve more or less common demands equal to the People's initial demands, 4. and so on (see above). To the extent these cases including the People, the Bottom of the societal pyramid vs both the Bureaucracy and from outside (say, supranational) working from the Top, are representative for the system in general i.e. aggregated and on average corresponding to a part of the degree of democracy in the society, this part mainly reflects the idealistic rooted as opposed to the class-interest rooted part of the degree of democracy in the society. The degree of democracy is the sum of idealistic rooted and the class-interest rooted parts of it.

It is thinkable that real democracy and even full democracy can be reached in all types of organizational posts and staffing structure hierarchies narrowly defined, economical and/or political/administrative, also very authoritarian countries initially, by sufficiently more idealism, as opposed to class-interests related to the managerial decisions, but in practice idealism is hard to achieve on such level, at least over longer time. There are probly more idealism in countries with high degree of democracy initially, than in the more authoritarian systems. And actions from the People directed at more idealism and a hike in the degree of democracy in society this way, are problably more likely to succeed in real democracies (anarchies) than in more authoritarian countries. A successful idealistic directed action may also be less hard and more like velvet, compared to actions challenging the organizational posts and staffing structure hierarchies. Even a pure idealistic democratic revolution, a significant hike in the democracy degree only due to increase in the idealistic rooted part of the degree of it, may happen in the real democratic countries Norway, The Swiss Confederation and Iceland, say, connected to solutions to societal crises and big problems in general, perhaps not very likely, but it is still a real possiblity.

NB! The general societal democracy degree is an average, an aggregate of 1. the economical degree of democracy and 2. the political/administrative degree of democracy, see (click on:) aggregation formula. Real democracy = anarchy and anarchism, means both 1. and 2. are significant, i.e. equal to or more than 50% influence over both the economical and the political/administrative decisions by the People. This means that in the general case with conflicting interests and demands, orders and commands of the People - Bottom vs the Top, the People's demands orders and commands, both economically and political/ministrative will correspondingly only be met, including fulfilled, complied and satisfied significantly, i.e. to the relative extent of equal to or more than 50 %, in a Real Democracy = Anarchy & Anarchism.

NB! Many societal topics with de facto conflicting demands between Bottom and Top, among them the Green, included the ones related to global manmade warming, among other things "drop coal" in the most polluting countries China, USA and EU; have both an economical and a political/administrative dimension, and demands, orders and commands of the People in this connection will on average only be met including fulfilled, complied and satisfied, significantly, i.e. to the relative extent of equal to or more than 50%, in a Real Democracy = Anarchism and Anarchy. Thus the demands of the People related to The Green Global Spring Revolution's "Action: China, USA and EU! Drop Coal!", i.e. "drop coal" in the most polluting countries China, USA and EU, will only be significantly met including fulfilled, complied and satisfied, if the GGS also manage to change the systems in the 3 countries to Real Democracy = Anarchy & Anarchism.

As mentioned above - to unite the interests of the People, the real democrats have introduced a People's Council. The mandate of the People's Council is to collect and coordinate the People's demands, order & commands related to for example a managerial action network, say, within the Green Global Spring Revolution GGS, and deliver them to the Bureaucracy that, in the case of GGS should be pressed (i.e. forced, via the People's influence in general) - Bottom - Up - to meet, execute and perform the demands, orders & commands of the People. As mentioned the People is the Bottom of the societal pyramid, the Grassroots, and the Bureaucracy (the Authorities) broadly defined in public and private sector is the Top of the Societal pyramid, i.e. economical and political/administrative.

The relations between the basic classes, and the people broadly defined A vis-à-vis the upper classes, B may have a structural form of hard repression, less repression, and elements of co-operation with more or less coercion. Thus, the hierarchy (if any) may be organized more or less from the bottom upwards, or from the top to the bottom. All of the population, or at least the grown up persons, have both a political/administrative and an economical coordinate. Some may have a high score both political/administrative and economical, some may have a low score on both dimensions, and some may have mixed scores. A class-analysis must also take into account these relations between the classes, not only the class structure in a narrow sence, i.e. the posts and staffing structure hierarchy economical and/or political/administrative. As mentioned usually a class analysis will follow the occupation and position structure, the political/administrative rank and remuneration systems/maps of the industrial organizations broadly defined.

Thus a given hierarchy narrowly defined may also be more or less authoritarian, dependent on how authoritarian the relations between the classes and the persons are. And thus, performance must be included in the concept of organizational structure, thus more broadly defined, especially with respect to the keyfactor influence on societal decisions by the People, workplace, industrial, municipal etc. and political/administrative and economical in general for the societal degree of democracy = libertarian degree = the anarchist degree, when real democracy is reached. These relations of performance may be from ultra- to less authoritarian to more or less co-operative, with small rank and/or income differences, i.e. 1. the system may work more or less from the bottom and upwards, more or less horizontal organization broadly defined, or 2. the opposite, from the top, downwards towards the bottom, more or less vertical organization, see (click on:) Horizontal Organization etc. for more information about this topic, and (click on:) System theory presenting statistical indicators for concrete measuring of the relative influence on the societal decisions by the People, i.e. for economical democracy and political/administrative democracy respectively, and aggregated to the societal degree of democracy = libertarian degree via an (click on:) aggregation formula.

.As mentioned the central factor in this connection is the influence broadly defined on the societal decisions from the Bottom (of the societal pyramid, economically and political/administrative) i.e. The People = Class A, as defined above. The decisions in itself are usually and mainly taken by the Top of the societal pyramid, i.e. The Bureaucracy = Class B, as defined above. But the Top = The Bureaucracy may have varying degree of influence on (the outcome of) the societal decisions, in principle from 0 % towards 100%, where The Top = The Bureaucracy's influence is (100% - the influence by the People, or even less with direct, net influence on the decisions from outside the society/organization).

And "The influence by the People = The Bottom" in this connection may be depending on a lot of factors although 1. the trend is that this influence is a) small in vertical organizations (top-heavy bureacracy structure) because of, say, power corrupts etc., and b) larger in a horizontal organization (flat pyramid bureaucracy structure), but, 2. around this trend the influence may variate a lot, say, dependent on class struggle broadly defined directed at the workplace-environment, -psychosocial factors and -ochlarchy, in general to improve relations in real democratic direction between persons within a given posts and staffing structure hierarchy economical and political/administrative narrowly defined.

Thus, as indicated avbove, in general there are two ways of making the system less authoritarian in direction real democracy and more it,

1. To change the posts and staffing structure hierarchy narrowly defined, economical and/or political/administrative, in horizontal direction, and thus increase the trend-influence, i.e. towards less authoritarian both economically and political/administrative. In general cut top-heavy bureaucracy posts and staffing structure narrowly defined, resulting in more flat and less hierarchy, with a) fewer bosses in rank and income and/or b) more middle class economy and autonomous class (class I above) i.e. persons with little to zero workplace bosses.

2. To change the relations between the persons within a given posts and staffing structure hierarchy, in horizontal direction, i.e. towards less authoritarian both economically and political/administrative. Say, less workplace ochlarchy, better work-environment i general.

The struggle to achieve 1. and 2. is anarchist class struggle, in general a fight for increased degree of democracy towards real democracy and more of it, i.e. more influence on the societal decisions by the People - The Bottom in general, i.e. both economical and political/administrative. Real class struggle is non-ochlarchical (ochlarchy = mob rule broadly defined, including chaos). It may take the form of direct actions: strikes, also general strike and workplace occupation strike, direct dialog, negotiations and arbitration, sit-ins, demonstrations, press releases, referendum and direct democracy in general, etc. and indirect actions (e.g. voting in elections of mandated persons, general and local, etc.).

The anarchist ideal has 100% horizontal organization, i.e. 100% socialism and autonomy, no hierarchy, and no authoritarian relations between people/persons, and no authorities political/administrative and economically, and no disorganization, chaotical tendencies. Thus, there is 100% anarchy, order included.

NB! All these conditions defining 100% anarchy degree, i.e. the anarchist ideal, are in principle defined in terms of influence on the societal - including organizational - decisions, and in principle not on who takes the decisions or something else. Anarchism, the libertarian and democracy, and degrees of this, is 100% a question of influence on decisions. All other things are only relevant as far as they affects the influence on the societal decisions. To be more precise: anarchism, the libertarian and democracy is a question of influence on the societal decisions by the People = Bottom = Class A, as defined above, versus the influence on the societal decisions by the Bureaucracy = Top = Class B, as defined above, which is 100 % - the influence by the People = Bottom, measured relatively - in % (and - possible foreign influence).

The "turning point", when both the political/administrative and economical influence on the societal management are going more from the people, from the bottom upwards, than from the top, the bureaucracy + foreigners (if any), downwards towards the bottom, is the middle point of the economical-political map. [See map below]. Here is where the anarchist quadrant on the E.P. map begins, and with even more influence from the bottom upwards relatively to the opposite, from the top (the Bureaucracy + foreginers) downwards towards the bottom, the system becomes increasingly more and more anarchistic, i.e. going inwards and/or upwards in the anarchist quadrant of the map, see Economic-political map and The formula of anarchism. Anarchy and anarchism are thus (click on:) real democracy and real democracy is anarchy and anarchism. And within the anarchists quadrant of the EP-map the degree of democracy = the degree of anarchy = the libertarian degree.

The "turning point" is connected to all of the anarchist principles, but particulary one is important in industrial organization research, i.e. the concept and principle of "autogestion", say, briefly defined in Donals Rutherford's Dictionary of Economics, Routledge 1992, as "A French approach to workers' participation in the running of enterprises... This philosophy of management holds that enterprises should be less hierarchical, with all employees participating directly in decision-making, especially about work organization, employment procedures (e.g. promotion), technology and methods of production. This democratization would include a new framework for discussions between enterprises."*) There may be degrees of a) participating, b) more or less direct, and c) in the relative amount of decisions, but the central point of autogestion is securing influence by the workers, a large part of the People, on the industrial organizational decisions (a large part of the societal decisions), from just significant (50 %) real democracy towards full democracy = 100 % degree of democracy = libertarian & anarchist degree = 0% authoritarian degree. NB! the principle of autogestion may be generalized to the whole People and influence on the societal decisions in general, not only industrial.

Furthermore a revolutionary change in anarchist direction, = significant increase in the degree of democracy = libertarian degree - in real democratic direction, and more of it, is about changing the social structures of positions and organization, human relations included, towards more socialism and autonomy, less rank and income differences, more efficiency and fairness, and taking into account the other IFA-principles, the Oslo-Convention and anarchist human rights, i.e. significant. Anarchists are mainly fighting (class struggle) for changing the economical and political/adminstrative organization, the structure of positions and relations, not against persons and other resources. However if an especially "bad boss" is in position, it may be useful to put some effort in getting a new and less authoritarian, and more competent type, i.e. improving the relations within a given posts and staffing structure hierarchy in real democratic direction.

This economic-political mainly sociological theory of social and industrial organization should also be seen in context with a) the general theory of anarchist economics, also discussing other aspects of industrial organization, such as market power, e.g. to avoid concentration of market power; profit and bureaucracy (system) costs, etc. summarized at General theory, and b) the praxeology works referred in International Journal of Organization Research, see IJOR. Also relevant in this context is the article Horizontal organization, about more decentralized, downsized -- especially the bureaucracy, team-oriented organizations with empowered workers. Empowerment is a keyword in this connection. For horizontal organization of police and defense corps, see Antimilitarism - an anarchist approach.

Horizontal organization, a bottom - up approach, as opposed to a top - down approach, economically and political/administrative, means organization without ruler(s) - arch(s), i. e. not without management, but 1. organization with significant small income and rank differences, 2. empowered workers with significant influence and freedom within a framework, and 3. real democratic control one way or the other. It is not a system where the management takes orders from the workers, unless the case with 100% flat organization. A horizontal organization has a degree of flatness, an anarchy degree, between 50 % and 100 %, the anarchist ideal. Workers mean the frontline in an organization.

The "frontline" here means the bottom (line) of an organizational pyramid, that is relatively flat - with little hierarchy - in a horizontal organization, i.e. not a top-heavy pyramid. The workers = frontline = bottom line, are a part of the Bottom = People = A, as defined above. As mentioned, anarchy and anarchism = real democracy, also as pointed out in the report Real Democracy by IIFOR, is all about influence on the societal decisions by the People, and in principle not on who take the decisions or something else. These factors are only interesting for the degree of democracy in general to the extent they have effect on the People's influence on the societal decisions.

If the People, Grassroots, Bottom, including workers, take decisions, fine, because this very likely also means influence on societal decisions. But as mentioned usually the societal decisions are taken by other than the People, mainly by the upper classes, the tops of the pyramids, i.e. the Bureaucracy = Top = Class B, as defined above, and then there is the question of influence on the societal decisions. Big influence means high degree of democracy = libertarian degree = anarchist degree (defined only within the Quadrant of Anarchism = Real Democracy, on the Economic-political map, and similar in reality). Lack of influence by the People (the Bottom) means authoritarian and lack of democracy = low degree of democracy, and an equally low libertarian degree.

NB! In a real democracy, i.e. both economical and political significant democratic, the Authorities - Bureaucracy - Top - must not only listen to the People, but act (decide - take decions) significantly according to the People's demands (commands & orders), in a Bottom - Up approach, because the influence by the People on the societal decisions is significant both economically and political/administrative in the meaning equal to or more than 50% degree of democracy along both these dimensions of the societal pyramid. Thus the relative influence by the People (= democracy degree in %) also corresponds or is equal to the degree i.e. the extent, that their demands (commands & orders) in general are met via the societal decisions, usually and mainly taken by the Authorities = Bureacracy at the Top of the societal pyramid, NB! i.e. with conflicting demands from the others than the People, i.e. of the domestic bureacracy plus from outside, - the demands from the Top seen all in all and in general.

In the opposite and more rare (due to usually different class-interests) case of joint demands by the bottom and top, the People's demands may be met without any influence, i.e. even in an authoritarian Top - Down System. Thus the degree i.e. the extent, that the People's demands (commands & orders) in general are met via the societal decisions, usually and mainly taken by the Authorities = Bureacracy at the Top of the societal pyrami, only corresponds or is equal to the relative influence by the People on the societal decisions (= democracy degree in %) with conflicting demands.

In a real democracy the societal, i.e. both the economical and the political/administrative demands (commands & orders) broadly defined must be significantly met i.e. including fulfilled, complied and satisfied, NB! i.e. with conflicting demands from others than the People, or else the society in reality and de facto is not real democratic, a real democray = anarchy & anarchism, but partially or generally significant authoritarian, in the meaning more than 50% authoritarian degree economically or political/administrative or both.

NB! If demands (commands & orders) of the People not are met via the societal decisions with conflicting demands, the accompanying influence of the People is correspondingly low and the degree of democracy = libertarian degree is equally low, and the authoritarian degree = 100% - the degree of democracy (= libertarian degree) is correspondingly high. This may apply generally both economical and political/administrative, or partially - either economically or political/administrative, or perhaps may be also for specific topics, say, greenhouse gas emissions and manmade global warming and especially burning and use of coal in this connection. However, how fruitful it is to look at this as a small isolated system "for coal - and drop or not" can be debated.

As a part of a general demand to drop coal globally by the People at large, the People also demand that China, USA and EU, the biggest polluters, shall drop coal, preferably 100%, but this demand is so far not met at all. Here "not met at all" de facto means zero influence by the People on the societal decisions of this specific topic, i.e. zero democracy degree = zero libertarian degree. This again means the global economic-political system in this connection is extreme ultra-authoritarian and totalitarian - extreme ultra-fascist, i.e. a 100% authoritarian Top - Down managerial system related to this specific topic. This means extreme environmentally ultra-fascism at least related to this specific topic!

To meet the People's green demand - preferably drop coal 100% - in these 3 countrie, it is most likely necessary 1. to change (thinkable via a partial revolution with sufficient pressure on the Top) the specific systems related to coal to a 100% democratic - full democracy Bottom - Up managerial system, because 2. the Tops will most likely never and not voluntarely change their demands for the coal, i.e. deeply rooted in basic economical and political/administrative upper class interests, and use their so far 100% influence on the decisions of this topic to meet the People's demand for zero coal via the present 100% ultra-authoritaran Top - Down system. To just walk & talk and appeal for "drop coal 100%" to the Top of this 100% authoritarian Top - Down system for this specific topic, will most likey never work.

Such a "thinkable partial revolution" as mentioned in point 1. above is probably not possible in practice within the present general authoritarian economic-political systems (structure including performance) of these 3 countries, i.e. significant authoritarian Top - Down systems, China even with an ultra-authoritarian Top - Down system of about 70% authoritarian degree. The continued "use coal - not drop coal" of the 3 countries should probably be seen as a result of the systems in general, i.e. a lack of significant green democratic tendency, and not as an islolated small system for a specific topic "drop coal. New "Green Men" on the high tops, with a new "Drop-coal" performance, may perhaps work, without changing the size of the Bureaucracy or hierarchy narrowly defined, but probably a more general system change, a green & democratic revolution in horizontal, real democratic direction is necessary to "drop coal" in these 3 countries.

NB! The "degree of flatness" of an organization is as indicated above defined in terms of influence on decisions, in principle not on who take the decisions, same as for the democracy and libertarian/anarchists degree. It is thus 1. thinkable that a big hierarchy, a top-heavy pyramid organization with a large top = large bureacracy, can be 100 % democratic = 100% anarchist, i.e. 100 % influence by ordinary members (Bottom) on the decisions, a 100 % bottom - up approach, but 2. economic-sociological theories and social sciences in general, including empirical research as well as all historical and recent experience, show that this will in general not happen in practice. Power corrupts, etc. and thus only a relatively flat pyramid, with little bureacracy, is compatible with "100% flatness" of an organization, but NB! a 100% horizontal organization in terms of influence need not be 100 % topless regarding decisions i.e. no pyramid at all.

As mentioned above, the anarchist, libertarian and democracy degree is a question of influence on the societal decisions by the People = Bottom = Class A, as defined above, versus the influence on the societal decisions by others, including 1. influence by foreigners if any + 2. influence by the domestic Bureaucracy = Top = Class B, as defined above, that 1. + 2. are 100 % - the degree of influence by the People in %. A and B were after a detailed class-analyzes, defined as aggregates from 7 basic classes of political/administrative rank and income.

NB! Remembering 1. this complex nature and composition of the main societal classes, i.e. The People = Bottom vs The Bureaucracy = Top + foreigners; 2. the two indexes, RDI and Gini, for measuring how top-heavy the pyramid-structures economic and political/administrative are, and 3. adding some more necessary indicators for influence by the People and thus estimation of the degree of democracy = the libertarian degree, etc., see (click on:) The Economic-Political Map; 4. the following summarizes the analyzes done above and ad little more, a.o.t. from the footnote *) below, see also the picture of the Economic-Political Map below:

REAL DEMOCRACY IS ANARCHISM AND ANARCHY - ANARCHISM AND ANARCHY ARE REAL DEMOCRACY

FULL DEMOCRACY = 100 % DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY = 100 % ANARCHY DEGREE  = THE ANARCHIST IDEAL = THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL

REAL (I.E. INCLUDING GREEN) DEMOCRACY = ANARCHY = ANARCHISM = LIBERTARIAN = LIBERAL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

LIBERAL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY MUST NOT BE MIXED UP WITH MARXIST SOCIALDEMOCRACY

NORWAY, THE SWISS CONFEDERATION AND ICELAND ARE REAL DEMOCRATIC = ANARCHIES - WITH 50 % - 55 % DEMOCRACY DEGREE

THE DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY = THE LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = THE ANARCHY DEGREE WITHIN ANARCHISM

50 % DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY OR MORE BOTH ECONOMICAL & POLITICAL/ADMINISTRATIVE = SIGNIFICANT OR MORE REAL DEMOCRACY = ANARCHISM

THE DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY = 100 % - THE AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = THE LIBERTARIAN OR ANARCHIST DEGREE

100 % DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY = 100 % LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = 100 % ANARCHY DEGREE

100 % DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY = 0 % AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 100 % LIBERTARIAN DEGREE  = THE LIBERTARIAN IDEAL

50 % DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY OR MORE BUT ECONOMICAL OR POLITICAL/ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITARIAN = SEMI-DEMOCRACY & SEMI-LIBERTARIAN TOP DOWN SYSTEMS

< 33 % - 50 % > DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY (= LIBERTARIAN DEGREE) = < 67 % - 50 % > AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = SEMI-DEMOCRACY & AUTHORITARIAN

USA, SEVERAL EU-COUNTRIES, UK, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND AND ISRAEL ARE SEMI-DEMOCRACIES & AUTHORITARIAN
I.E. NOT REAL DEMOCRACIES, THEY HAVE AUTHORITARIAN, TOP - DOWN SYSTEMS, BUT NOT ULTRA-AUTHORITARIAN AND TOTALITARIAN!

THE DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY = LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = < 0 % - 33 % > = THE AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = < 67 % - 100 %> =
ULTRA-AUTHORITARIAN AND TOTALITARIAN TOP - DOWN ECONOMIC-POLITICAL SYSTEMS, I.E. VERY FREQUENT WORLD WIDE!

0 % DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY = 100 % AUTHORITARIAN DEGREE = 0 % LIBERTARIAN DEGREE = EXTREME ULTRA-FASCISM

THE PEOPLE = THE BOTTOM OF THE SOCIETAL PYRAMID VS THE BUREAUCRACY = THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID

THE DEGREE OF DEMOCRACY = THE PEOPLE'S INFLUENCE ON THE SOCIETAL DECISIONS MAINLY TAKEN BY THE TOP - IN %

REAL DEMOCRACY = A BOTTOM - UP MANAGERIAL SYSTEM = ANARCHIST AND LIBERTARIAN

NOT REAL DEMOCRACY = A TOP - DOWN MANAGERIAL SYSTEM = IN GENERAL OR PARTLY AUTHORITARIAN

REAL DEMOCRACY = ANARCHISM & ANARCHY ON THE ECONOMIC-POLITICAL MAP AND IN REALITY:

"

*) The stars indicate the position of the Norwegian economical-political system after the revolutionary change in 1994/95.

Fig. 1. Picture of the Anarchist Economical-Political Map - Only the systems in the Anarchist Quadrant are real democratic.

A mathematical precisation of the map is presented below.

NB! We usually have used " , ", the European standard instead of American/UK standard, i.e. " . " as decimal separator. The term "ca" is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately.

*) Notes on horizontal industrial organization and more. The term bureaucracy broadly defined as the upper classes in the above mentioned way means only the characteristics or functions as archs economically and/or political/administrative in contrast to planning and pure administrative, coordinating work done in a rational, optimal, way. It is the "ranks above grassroots functions" economically and/or political/administrative, not the persons as such, that are interesting in this context. Thus, without these characteristics or functions, a person is no longer among the upper classes. And thus, doing away with the bureaucracy, the upper classes, it means of course not to do away with these persons, but their functions as archs, plutarchy included, i.e. a change in social organization towards more and more real democracy economically and political/administrative. Furthermore, as any "dead meat" none or little working persons in the industrial organizations de facto make other people slave for them, one way or another, they are all among the archs, and thus a part of the bureaucracy.

The word "bureaucracy" origins from French, a) "bureau" meaning writing table or desk, an office and or people engaged in an office; in old French a coarse brown cloth with which writing tables were covered, from "burel" a coarse cloth, and b) "cracy", that origins from Greek "kratia, from "kratein", to be strong, usually connected to management, a) ruling/archy or b) horizontal management/anarchy = real demo-cracy. Bureaucracy is usually, and here, used for ruling by upper classes, or the ruleres/superiors in itself seen as professionals, at job, not the persons seen privately. In an anarchy of low degree there may be an insignificant tendency of bureaucracy, but if the bureaucracy is significant, it is ruling and archy. As upper classes usually rules from tables and offices and/or using "brown tie" in the meaning authoritarian, this may be a relevant word to use for upper classes, the archs/rulers, broadly defined.

It also traditionally means governmental officialism or inflexible routine and the concentration of authority in adminstrative bureaus, as well as inefficient "paper mills". In this context "governmental" should not be mixed up with public sector or administrative and coordination work in itself, just the authoritarian tendencies in private and public sector, tendencies of plutarchy/capitalism and/or political/administrative hierarchy. Planning work must not be mixed up with ruling, to plan vs to rule, and it is an input, i.e. cost, not output, i.e. a final good in itself creating human welfare or utility. Bureaucracy is also the opposite of autogestion and the other anarchist principles, implemented in an optimal way. Efficiency, a.o.t. to avoid concentration of market power; and fairness, decentralization, also geographically, and autogestion, are among the key-factors or basic principles, see System theory and General theory. Management by objectives (MBO) instead of by bureaucratic ruling, is another key-factor.

Thus, it shall be optimal but as little as possible of planning, not to mention ruling, in an efficient and fair society and economy. Planning and co-ordination, management work, must never be a) allowed to grow bureaucratic, as an approximation to Parkinson's law, nor in a way of nothing is done as in Holberg's "Den stundesløse", and not quasidemocracy as in "council communism" and similar, where b) de facto large transaction and planning costs and majority or minority (if manipulative) dictatorship, ochlarchy (mob rule) and quasiscience, everything medium or bad, and no best or optimal quality, will rule, and c) no efficiency and fairness, as well as the other anarchist principles, will be achieved.

Councils and general dialog, both confederal, federal or local, have a place in an efficient and fair system, but decentralization, delegation and mandating from the bottom to the top, if any, (or from the top, if any, to the bottom) using different skills and competence, differentiation, large scale facilities and (new) technology in an optimal way is a must. The situation where everybody tells everybody what to do in a common micro-management, everybody shall know everything about everybody and everything, is archy, not anarchy. Mandated persons must have freedom within a framework decided by councils or congresses or similar. The framework must be optimal, regarding a.o.t. efficiency and fairness, not too wide or too narrow. If the framework is too wide it is lack of management, if the framework is too narrow it is micro-management, i.e. inefficient.

General assemblies and councils, "stortings" and "lilletings", are just for certain general decisions of more principal character and general controlling, and shall not be archies, doing micro-management and ochlarchy included, with cantankerous persons setting "standards", but anarchies, i.e efficient and fair, etc. And, say, new technology as internet and e-mail, cheap and efficient and fair in use, and with written matter of fact material with summaries and links to more material, and based on real science and quality level, etc., should be used as much as possible in stead of time-consuming, travel-cost ricing, and manipulative personal meetings. Pamps on holiday type conferences with champagne, caviar and limmos are not cost efficient.

The purpose of the system is simply that competence, scientifical reasoning, etc. have influence and get through in an efficient and fair way in the system, also based on the other anarchist principles, and ignorance, populism, quasi-science and ochlarchy, the oppostie of the anarchist principles, - not. A system where greedy incompetent persons rule by ochlarchy and competence and genius have no influence, is not anarchist. A system that asks the incompetent persons all of the time what to do, and not competence, is not anarchy or anarchist. If so, democracy is not real but turns into ochlarchy on way or the other. Anarchism is quite the opposite of this. In an anarchist system everybody should be educated to, or by other means, understand their own limitations with respect to competence, and shut up when things pass this border, not act according to "§ 1. The boss is always right, and if this is not true, then § 2. § 1 always rules", implementing it as "I", with big I, is the boss, always.

The system should, seen all in all, always be directed to create the right amount of outputs with at less costs as possible, never mixing up the final utility and output of real law and order, security and defense, with its's costs, and of course not planning and co-ordination work, not to mention ruling, i.e. pure input and costs, with output and utility. The "good feeling" of having power to rule others, is a false feeling, both in itself, say, because it corrupts, and because the ruled have the opposite feeling, even if they may be fooled to think it should be so, told that, say, slave-contracts are freedom and the boss is always right. Thus, the ruling feeling is an evil, and certainly not the good. The good feeling, the feel good factor, of having influence because of skills and competence and new thinking, creating more output directly or indirectly via more efficiency and fairness etc. in society, is however a positive feeling of being a civilized human being, connected to politics/administration and economics, and is no danger, but a social "fringe benefit".

Unless 1. a theoretical only situation with 100 % flat - horizontal organization with no pyramid and top at all, i.e. one thinkable but in practice for a country not implementable way to reach 100 % anarchy, the ideal at the top of the economic-political map, with 0 % authoritarian degree (see the map below this Summary), 2. the societal decisions, economical and political/administrative, are done within a, say, a) relatively small & flat-topped, or b) a top-heavy, - pyramid organization mainly at the top of the pyramid, and mainly not at the bottom. The People, i.e. the Grassroots and Bottom Class, on the bottom of the pyramid, may however have more or less real and de facto influence over and on the decisions, mainly taken by the top of the pyramid. This applies to both anarchist, i.e. real democratic - and more authoritarian, systems. The degree of democracy, measuring relatively how much the People govern, is in principle dependent only on the amount of influence by the People over and on the societal decisions - and in principle not on the amount of decisions taken by the People. But of course more societal decisions by the People, say, via referendum and industrial democracy with empowered workers in firms with horizontal organization, in general also increases the amount of influence, and thus the degree of democracy.

The amount of influence over and on the societal decisions by the People, i.e. the degree of democracy, may, at least theoretically be between 0 % and 100 %, and is dependent on a lot of factors, some contributing upwards and others contributing downwards. In general and in practice, the degree of democracy, influence from the people on the societal decisions broadly defined, economically and/or political/administrative, coincides with the libertarian degree. The libertarian degree is 100 % - the authoritarian degree. Thus, all that contributes to a more authoritarian society means less democracy, and all that contributes to a less authoritarian society means more democracy. The influence over and on the societal decisions by the People, the Bottom (Class) and Grassroots, may also be increased via more "checks and balances", direct actions and indirect actions (e.g. elections) and more, but NB! in general and in practice a top heavy pyramid, i.e. with a large and powerful hierarchy and Bureaucracy, mainly a) prevents more than minimal influence from the bottom, and b) secure Top - Down rule only. However within a small relatively flat-topped pyramid it is easier to achieve significant (fifty - fifty) and even larger influence by the people - the bottom, and establish Real Democracy, i.e. Anarchy, with a significant Bottom - Up approach. And with sufficient small bureaucracy and hierarchy, mainly based on elected and instant recallable delegates, with lots of "checks and balances", it is even possible to achieve 100 % influence by the people on the decisions, and 0 % authoritarian degree, and thus reach 100% anarchy degree, the anarchist ideal at the top of the economic-political map and in reality. 100% anarchy degree means 100% Real Democracy, i.e. Full Democracy, that the People govern hundred percent. In other words and summarized, the following is very likely: Vertical organization a.k.a. State-organization - a top heavy societal pyramid economical and/or political/administrative means a large Top, Hierarchy, Bureaucracy and Upper Class, in general with little influence from the Bottom, the People - Grassroots on the decisions; a Top - Down managerial system. Horizontal organization - a relatively small & flat-topped pyramid means a small Top, Hierarchy, Bureaucracy and Upper Class, in general significant towards large influence from the Bottom, the People - Grassroots on the decisions; a Bottom - Up managerial system. For sufficient innovation external consultants should be used, if not internal forces are strong enough.

As indicated above, the degree of democracy, influence from the people on the societal decisions broadly defined, economically and/or political/administrative, coincides with, i.e. equal to, the libertarian degree. A Real Democracy has a significant degree of democracy or higher, i.e. equal to 50 % or above, meaning the influence from the People on the societal decisions is 50 % or more. The libertarian degree is 100 % - the authoritarian degree. The economic-political map below this Summary has an overview of the authoritarian degree for different types of systems. Ad the map and in reality - the degree of anarchy, a.k.a. anarchy-degree or anarchy degree, is equal to the libertarian degree, but only defined within the Quadrant of Anarchism on the map, and similar in reality. 1. The degree of democracy, equal to the libertarian degree; and 2. the opposite - the authoritarian degree, equal to 100 % - the libertarian degree, and 3. the anarchy degree, equal to the libertarian degree within the Quadrant of Anarchism on the economic-political map and similar in reality, - varies a lot between different countries world wide. A significant shift upwards in the libertarian = democracy degree for a country, is per definition a democratic and also a libertarian revolution, this may be slow or quick, and be a non-violent velvet revolution, or may be violent. The Green Global Spring Revolution (GGS) that started in September 2019 is slow and a velvet, mainly non-violent, revolution. The present global system is mainly a top-heavy pyramid with a clear Top-Down approach, where the green demands of the People, 1. the general: less than 1.5C global warming, and 2. the first special: China, USA and EU! Drop Coal! cannot be met. The GGS-Revolution will establish a global Bottom - Up system where the People's green demands 1. and 2. are met.

The theory of social organization and systems presented at Economic-political map and mathematically at Formula of Anarchism should as indicated above in general be seen in the context of the economic-political sociology and industrial organization research at this page, i.e. Class analysis etc. and the general theory of anarchist economics at General theory , as well as the praxeology research referred in International Journal of Organization Research, see IJOR , Folkebladet - Anarkistorganet and the most of the rest of the AIIS files. And this is just a summary of the research of the International Institute for Organization Research at Web IIFOR .

These pages have several words that are well known to highly educated people. However many people are well educated, but perhaps not highly enough. If you want to see the definition of a word or phrase used in this context, try first to search in the mentioned html-files. Secondly, if you want more information, try the anarchist search engine powered by Google at AIIS. Third, if you have problems with understanding words that are not defined at the AIIS web-pages, try , say, Cambridge dictionary .

If you, after doing the best to understand, still have problems learning the material, click on the Anarchist International University Federation and its Basic course for help. If you have questions about the research and/or want more results, click on IIFOR.

Anarchism, i.e. horizontal organization, is a.o.t. based on dialog, and free - matter of fact - criticism. To achieve this, it is necessary to understand what it is all about. A minimum basic knowledge to be taken seriously in a debate on anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism is probably the material at the Basic course, i.e. a brief summary of the updated research front on anarchism.

The main variables used in Table 1. translated to English. Rank and income difference indicators.

An indicator of political/administrative rank differences, is the Rank-Difference-Index, RDI = ([rank(B)/rank(U)] - 1)/3 for B > 0 and U > 0. RDI = ([rank(B)/rank(U)]-1)/3 = ([(b+U+1)/(1/(B+b+1))]-1)/3 = ([(b+U+1)(B+b+1)]-1)/3. If B and U is zero, all belong to the autonomous class, RDI = 0, no rank hierarchy. In the case with 100% vertical organization, rank(B) is about 2 and rank(U) is about 0.5, thus rank(B)/rank(U) is about (2/0.5) = 4; ([rank(B)/rank(U)] - 1) = 3 , and ([rank(B)/rank(U)] - 1)/3 = 3/3 = about 1, i.e. about 100%. Thus the RDI is about 1, 100%, with 100% vertical organization political/administrative, maximum rank differences, and RDI is zero with 100% flat organization. If b is exact 100% (= 1), i.e. one on the top and one on the bottom, A = 0, and b includes an infinite number of sub bosses, the RDI is exact = 1 (100%). If B = 0,1, b = 0,2 and U = 0,4 and A = 0,3; RDI = ([rank(B)/rank(U)] - 1)/3 = ([(b+U+1)(B+b+1)]-1)/3 = ([(0,2+0,4+1)(0,1+0,2 +1)]-1)/3 = 0,36 = 36%. (Rank (A) = 1).

Ad economic classes: overklassen = upper class; middelklassen = middle class; underklassen = the sub class; the upper class is part of the bureaucracy. An indicator of income-differences is the Gini-index. It is 100% (1) if one has all income (in an infinetely large population), and 0 if all have the same income. For more information about the Gini-index, click on: Gini-coefficient.

The logical union of the economic upper class and (B + b) is the bureaucracy, authorities = B. The relevant population (usually the adults) - B, is the people, grassroots = A.

For the rest of the words you may use the translation tool from Norwegian to English (or other languages) at "Links" at the bottom of this document. The Gini-index is one of the factors in the measurment of the degree of socialism, and the Rank-Difference-Index, RDI, is one of the factors in the measurment of the degree of autonomy, related to the anarchist economical political map.

TABELL 1: KLASSEANALYSE - DE SJU SAMFUNNSKLASSENE
POLITISK/ADMINISTRATIVE OG ØKONOMISKE KLASSER
STILLINGSMESSIGE RANGS- OG LØNNSKLASSER

Tabellen over belyser klassestrukturen økonomisk og politisk/adminstrativt på en prinsipiell måte. Når en skal avgjøre hvor demokratisk et system er, i hvilken grad det fungerer mer nedenfra - fra folket - og opp, enn ovenfra, fra øvrigheten og ned, må en imidlertid ikke bare se på klassestrukturen, men også relasjonene mellom klassene og personer. Det er jo ikke det samme om sjefene er kav psykopater og autoritære maktmennesker eller relativt frihetlige og demokratisk anlagt. Men klassestrukturen er åpenbart et relevant studieobjekt i en anarkistisk systemanalyse. Den er også knyttet til koordinatene på det økonomisk politiske kartet, det økonomiske og det politisk/administrative, graden av sosialisme og autonomi, selv om man altså ikke må se seg blind på klassestrukturene alene, men ta hensyn til relasjonenes karakter når koordinatene for et system/objekt skal fastlegges.

En indikator for rangsforskjeller basert på de strukturelle klasse-forholdene er Rank-Difference-Index, RDI = ([rang(B)/rang(U)] - 1)/3 for B > 0 and U > 0. Rangsklassene B, b, U og A måles som andeler av populasjonen, f.eks. B = 0,1, b = 0,2, U = 0,4 og A = 0,3. Summen av alle klassene = 1,0. Hvis B og U begge er null, er alle med i den autonome klassen og RDI = 0, dvs. det er ikke noe rangshierarki.**) Rang(B) kan maksimalt bli 2, dvs. med én på toppen og ca 100% (= 1) underordnede. Rang(U) kan minimalt bli 0,5, dvs. med én på bunnen og ca 100% (= 1) overordnede. I tilfellet med 100% vertikal organisasjon, én på toppen, ca 100% undersjefer og én på bunnen, blir rang(B) maksimal = ca 2 og rang(U) minimal = ca 0,5 og dermed ([rang(B)/rang(U)] = 2/0,5 = ca 4. Dermed blir ([rang(B)/rang(U)] - 1) = 4-1 = 3 og RDI = ([rang(B)/rang(U)] - 1)/3 blir 3/3 = ca 1 (100%). Ved 100% vertikal organisasjon er altså RDI = 1, 100%. Ved 100% flat organisasjon er RDI = 0. I eksemplet i tabellen blir RDI ca 0,36, dvs. 36%, som er en ganske "normal" verdi. Dersom det er uendelig mange personer i b, dvs. b = eksakt 100% (=1), og null A, og vi har en på toppen og en på bunnen, blir RDI eksakt lik 1, dvs 100%. Man kan også si at viss antall personer i b vokser over alle grenser, og A = 0, så vil RDI gå mot 100%, (=1) som en grense.

Et annet spesialtilfelle, en toppsjef og en underordnet og A = 0 og b = 0, gir underordnede, dvs. underklassen lik 50% (= 0,5) og overordnede, dvs. toppsjefene også lik 50% (=0,5) og dermed rang(B) = 1,5 og rang(U) = 1/(0,5 +1) = 1/1,5 = 2/3 = ca 0,67. Dermed blir RDI = ([1,5/0,67]-1}/3 = (2,24-1)/3 = (1,24)/3 = 0,41 eller 41%. Dersom alle bedriftene eller mer generelt organisasjonene i samfunnet er av denne typen, f.eks. småbedrifter med en sjef og en underordnet, får vi samme resultat, dvs. RDI = 0,41 = 41%, ikke særlig topptungt. Samfunner er da ikke spesielt hierarkisk sett under ett, men heller ikke veldig flatt politisk/administrativt organisert. Består samfunnet av nesten bare småbedrifter som er kompaniskaper, uten over og underordning, blir A = bortimot 100% (= nær 1) og B og U blir små tall, f.eks. B = 0,01 (1%) og U = 0, 01 (1%) og så blir rang(B) = 1,01 og rang(U) = 1/(0,01+1) = 0,99, og RDI = ([1,01/0,99] -1)/3 = 0,02/3 = 0,0067 eller 0,67%, dvs. tilnærmet flatt organisert. Er alle bedriftene kompaniskaper uten over- og underordnede er A = 1 (100%) og B=U=b=0, og da er som nevnt RDI = 0, samfunnet er 100% flatt organisert politisk/administrativt.

Rank-Difference-Index, rangsdifferanse-indeksen kan altså variere mellom 0 og 1, (100%), og er større jo mer topptungt og vertikalt systemet er politisk/administrativt, og er null ved helt flat organisasjon.

Som nevnt er Kvantitav rang = (underordnede+1)/(overordnede+1). For underklassen U blir kvantitativ rang, rang(U) = (0 + 1)/(B + b + 1) = 1/(B + b + 1), hvor B og b er målt som andel av populasjonen i samfunnet, f.eks. dersom toppsjefene B = 0,1 og undersjefene b = 0,2 er rang(U) = 1/(0,1 + 0,2 + 1) = 1/1,3 = 0,77. For toppsjef-klassen B blir kvantitativ rang, Rang(B) = (underordnet+1)/(overordnet+1) = (b + U + 1)/(0+1) = b + U + 1. F.eks. når U = 0,4 og b = 0,2 blir rang(B) = 0,2 + 0,4 + 1 = 1,6. Rangsdifferanse indeksen RDI =  ([rang(B)/rang(U)] - 1)/3 = ([(b+U+1)/(1/(B+b+1))]-1)/3 = ([(b+U+1)(B+b+1)]-1)/3 = ([1,6/0,77] – 1)/3 = ([1,6x1,3]-1)/3 = (2,08-1)/3 = 1,08/3 = 0,36, eller 36%. I dette eksemplet er den autonome klassen = 1 - (0,1+0,2+04) = 0,3, eller 30%.

En tilsvarende indikator for inntektsforskjeller er Gini-indeksen. Den er 100% (1) når én har all inntekt, og 0 når alle har lik inntekt. Gini-indeksen måler hvor topptung den økonomiske pyramiden er. Har én all inntekt, er indeksen 1 (100%), og har alle lik inntekt er indeksen 0. I de skandinaviske landene ligger Gini-indeksene på rundt 0,25, dvs. 25%. For mer informasjon om Gini-indeksen, klikk på: Gini-coefficient .

Det statistiske grunnlaget for rangs- og lønns-analysene er ulike former for sosio-økonomiske data i vid forstand, bl.a. bedrifters organisasjonskart med stillings- og avlønnings data, og som også belyser over- og underordningsforhold o.l.

Forøvrig, dersom offentlige myndigheter hele tiden griper direkte inn i privatliv og privat næringsliv i en form som de facto betyr at private er satt "under offentlig administrasjon", eller det offentlige på en utilbørlig måte blir styrt/influert av (det økonomiske) plutarkiet, så det også blir politisk/adminstrativt plutarki - eller mafiaen overtar det meste og det blir generelt oklarki (pøbelvelde, mob rule), må slikt medregnes i kommandostrukturene og klassesystemet. Den autonome klassen kan da de facto opphøre å eksistere, og hierarkiet blir mer topptungt enn de vanlige nærings-strukturene i privat og offentlig sektor skulle tilsi. I siste instans kan det bli et totalitært enevelde/monarki eller fåmannsvelde/oligarki, kun med kommandolinjer nedover, som styrer praktisk talt alt via et enormt byråkrati i et fullstendig korrupt kaos og med tilnærmet 100% vilkårlighet, hvor a) folket en masse er redusert til sulteforede slaver i fangeleire uten innflytelse på noen ting, fullstendig prisgitt øvrigheten, dens luner, sadisme, tortur og mordlyst - inkludert folkemord, og b) denne overklassen plutarkisk røver tilnærmet alt, - hvor skillet mellom offentlig og privat sektor/sfære er tilnærmet helt utvisket, rettferdigheten er ca null og effektiviteten tilnærmet den samme. Dette er nær det absolutte nullpunkt på kartet hva det frihetlige angår, dvs ca 100% autoritært, "den fullkomne totalitære faenskap".

Jens Bjørneboe skjønte glimtvis litt av dette, i "Bestialitetens historie", men han overdrev. Likevel var de nok så skremmende disse studiene at de kanskje bidro til at han gjorde ende på seg p.g.a. alvorlig depresjon. De skrekkvisjonene enhver med noenlunde fantasi kan tenke seg av autoritær bestialitet via bruk av moderne genteknologi, kloning, bioteknologi, datateknologi, robotteknikk, implantasjoner, psykofarmaka, tortur i alle former, i autoritære systemer, er så jævlige at det kan få enhver til å sette mye inn på å få til en frihetlig humanistisk utvikling, mer demokrati, og hindre fremveksten av autoritære systemer i liten og stor skala. Bare sett i gang å tenke på dette selv, - la skrekkfantasiene løpe litt, og du vil nok innse at Orwell's "1984" er barnemat av mulig jævelskap, i forhold til hva den moderne teknologiske utvikling kombinert med autoritære systemer kan medføre, - så forstår du nok hva som menes. Slike autoritære systemer må aldri få anledning til å utvikle seg! Det er mulig det må settes stopp for en del tendenser i forskningen, ut fra en realistisk forståelse for hvordan dette en gang i fremtiden kanskje kan misbrukes til jævelskap av et oppdatert mektig "Talibanistisk" regime, el.l.. Hva som allerede i dag måtte foregå av tvilsom forskning i denne forbindelse kan også tas i betraktning... å definere systemer 100% på bunnen av det økonomisk-politiske kartet, se Economic-political map, dvs. innoldet i ekstrem ultra-fascisme, er altså ganske umulig, det blir kun snakk om en tilnærming. I tilknytning til det økonomisk-politiske kartet er tilsvarende diskusjon for toppen av kartet gjort, og eller ikke her er det mulig å definere det annet enn tilnærmet. Det absolutte, 100% frihetlige samfunn, kan bare tilnærmes. 100 % demokrati er greit å definere teoretisk ut fra 100 % innfytelse over samfunns-beslutningene fra folkets side, men det er nok vanskelig å implementere i praksis. Friheten kan som kjent ikke fanges absolutt - straks man tror man ha funnet hele oppskriften, så finner man snart likevel noe som kan forbedres.

Klasseanalysene er først og fremst myntet på land og internasjonale sammenligninger mellom land, men kan også brukes på mindre områder, som kommuner/kollektiver, bedrifter/næringer, eller motsatt, større regioner eller verden sett under ett. En fornuftig kalibrering for landsanalyser kan ta hensyn til den internasjonale situasjon og det politisk mulige. Hvis man er fullstendig "allergisk" overfor enhver skjevhet i inntektsfordelingen, eller i det politisk/adminstrative rangs-system, vil hele verden framstå som ultrafascistisk og de ulike land kun ha ubetydelige gradsforskjeller av dette. En slik kalibrering er vel ufruktbar med hensyn på praktisk frihetlig politikk og for demokrati-utvikling. Det kan medføre urealistisk håpløshet og desperasjon. En motsatt type kalibrering, hvor nær sagt alt som kaller seg demokrati regnes som signifikant anarkistisk, er vel omtrent like ufruktbart. Det kan medføre likegladhet og mangel på engasjement - "det er bra som det er". Det må værer en viss realisme i midtpunktet på det økonomisk-politiske kartet ved kalibreringen, nemlig der systemet prinsipielt "vipper over" - slik at det alt i alt med en viss rett kan sies å fungere mer via innflytelse fra folket - nedenfra og opp, enn fra øvrigheten - ovenfra og ned (pluss eventuell overnasjonal negativ innflytelse fra utlandet), økonomisk og politisk/administrativt i privat og offentlig sektor. Her ligger det en klar prinsipiell føring på en vitenskapelig fruktbar kalibrering, selv om en slik betraktning/kalibrering i praksis sannsynligvis må bygge på en del konvensjonelt fastlagte størrelser, delvis basert på skjønn.

Det er altså relativt uvitenskapelig å kalibrere det økonomisk politiske kartet i hytt å pine, subjektivt. Da mister man det reelle poenget angående midtpunktet. Dette kravet til kalibrering av midtpunktet gjør at kartet intensjonelt ikke skal brukes som et mikroskop til å forstørre autoritærer tendenser og dermed kjøre alle mulig systemer mot bunnen på kartet, eller det motsatte, forskjønne virkeligheten på en urealistisk måte i frihetlig retning, så all autoritær humbug kommer høyt opp på kartet. Dersom man har moro av det kan man naturligvis ta seg den kunstneriske, subjektive frihet, å forstørre alle autoritære tendenser og, som enkelte pønkere [ikke anarkopønkere] skjelle ut relativt libertære land som gjennomført ultrafascistiske høl, eller det motsatte, hausse opp verden som et tilnærmet paradis - "den beste av alle mulige verdener", begge deler kan kanskje av og til være bra mental-terapi, men anarkistisk - og dermed realistisk vitenskapelig og politisk, er ikke noe av dette.

IIFOR har beregnet demokrati-graden = libertær-graden, = (100% - autoritærgraden), for alle land som er nevnt i HDI-statistikken fra FN, også de som FN ikke har beregnet HDI-rang for. Her er følgende praksis blitt fulgt i estimeringen av libertærgraden:

The formula of anarchism is just a mathematical precisation of the economical-political map at Systems theory. The estimimates of the degree of anarchism, or more general the libertarian degree [= democracy degree], are calculated by the formula of anarchism at Anarchist formula in principle on basis of estimates of the degree of socialism (economic democracy) and the degree of autonomy (political/administrative democracy). The degree of socialism and the degree of autonomy may be measured in several practical ways. One is just to ask people what they think about the matter for a given country. Another more objective way of practical measuring is the following: The degree of socialism is dependent on income-differences, (say, measured by the gini-index), and efficiency, (say, measured by GDP per capita). The degree of autonomy is dependent on the rank-differences, see Economic sociology, life expectancy at birth (years) and adult literacy rate, see Ranking of countries according to libertarian degree. The estimates of the libertarian degree at this file are done via the more ojective way/method. The mentioned indicators are also relevant for de facto influence on the societal decisions by the People, i.e. in direction their interests, meeting of their general demands and class interests.

The estimates are accounting for economic and political/administrative freedom, solidarity, and equality etc. also degree of democracy vs. authoritarian & totalitarian systems, i.e. mostly dictatorship, heavy ochlarchy or extreme capitalist liberalism, in a practical way. The gini-index measures how top heavy the income hierarchy is. If one has all of the income the index is 100. This is the most top heavy income hierarchy. If everybody has the same income, no hierarchy - the distribution is flat - the index is zero. As a rule of the thumb a gini -index less than 35 indicates socialism (possession), and an index more than 35 indicates capitalism - economical plutarchy (property). This is only a rule of the thumb, the concept of socialism also includes efficiency. Thus a system with high efficiency, a large GDP per capita, and a gini -index at 30 may be more socialist than a system with low GDP per capita and a gini -index at 25. Socialism means a lot of wealth plus a reasonable flat distribution of income. The libertarian (= democracy) degree is as mentioned dependent on the degree of socialism and the degree of autonomy, see Formula of anarchism. The ranking and point estimates at Ranking of countries according to libertarian degree = democrcy degree, are made by IIFOR . IIFOR has published point estimates of the libertarian degree for all of the countries mentioned in the HDI -statistics of the UN, also the countries without HDI rank. The estimates of the libertarian = democracy degree for countries ranked from 101-186 are between ca 29%-20%. The ranking of countries from 101-186 is very uncertain. Also the estimates for the 100 most libertarian countries are a bit uncertain.

Countries with less than 33 ,33 % libertarian degree, i.e. more than 666 per thousand authoritarian degree are totalitarian, i.e. either dictatorships, heavy ochlarchies ( ochlarchy = mob rule broadly defined), say, with rivalling polyarchy, or have a very low degree of autonomy and/or socialism (flawed "democracies") in general. The countries ranked from no 65-186 according to libertarian degree, have less than 33 ,33 % libertarian degree, and are thus very authoritarian, i.e. totalitarian. On the other end of the ranking we have three anarchies of low degree, no 1 Norway with ca 54% anarchy degree, no 2 Switzerland with ca 53% degree of anarchy and no 3, Iceland with ca 52% degree of anarchy. These societies are real democratic, the systems work significantly more from the bottom, grassroots, and upwards, than from the top downwards to the bottom. Thus it is anarchism. Real democracies = Anarchies have more than 50% anarchy degree, i.e. significant. The countries in the middle, ranked from 4-64 according to libertarian degree, are semi-democratic, the systems work more from the top downwards to the bottom, than from the bottom, grassroots, and upwards, but they are not totalitarian. They have a libertaria = democracy degree between ca 49,99% - 33,32%. These countries mostly are parliamentarian democracies. The investigation is based on UN-statistics, OECD statistics, EUROSTAT, statistics from the Statistisk Sentralbyrå in Norway , and several other sources (mainly national statistics). In the column for the libertarian = democracy degree we have used ",", the European standard instead of American/UK standard, i.e. "." as decimal separator. The term "ca" is an abbreviation for the latin circa, which means about or approximately. More information about methodology for estimation of the libertarian degree, see Economic-political map.

**) Vi har her implisitt forutsatt at den autonome klassen A øker og erstatter hierarkiet på ordnet vis. Dette er ikke den samme situasjonen som kan oppstå om de overordnede b + B bare "går hjem" el.l., dvs. et hierarki med ubesatte overordnede stillinger. Det kan da oppstå en kaotisk situasjon. Denne er nærmere diskutert i Anarkidebatten, i artikkelen "Anarki kontra kaos, regjering og kaos-herskere", søk på anarchy vs chaos i debatt . En slik kaotisk situasjon er ikke videre stabil, det kan utvikle seg andre former for kaos, et nytt hierarki eller de menige uten ledere svinger seg opp til rang 1 og går inn i den autonome klassen. Det er også en generell diskusjon om anarki kontra kaos i den aktuelle artikkelen i Anarkidebatt. Ellers er det flere relevante artikler på Anarkidebatten. Spesielt kan nevnes "Anarki kontra stat - en kortfattet utredning om stats- og anarki-begrepene", "Sammenbrudd i sentraladministrasjonen skaper oklarki - ikke anarki" og "Styring og styrere kontra hersking og herskere". Også Et kortfattet notat om anarkibegrepene og Konsistent anarkistisk politikk på dagsaktuell, mellomlang og lang sikt er relevante i denne konteksten.

Resolution, decided with general consent, by:
The International Anarchist Congress
The 11th Anarchist Biennial 27-28.11.2010
International Congress-Seminar on Anarchism
The AI/IFA network represents more than 50 000 anarchist world wide
To see the Website of the Congress - Click here!
Updated

Back to Homepage

Back to Scandinavian Index

Links