Primavera De Filippi has argued—both directly and implicitly through her work on governance, decentralisation, and blockchain—that **the Hobbesian model of [[Politics|political]] order is inadequate for the world we now inhabit**. Here is a clear way to understand the point: --- ![[Primavera De Filippi.jpg]] ## **1. Hobbes’ view of nations: hierarchical by design** For Hobbes, a nation is held together by a **sovereign** who imposes order from above. The legitimacy of the state derives from its ability to [[Control]], coordinate, and command. Society is imagined as a pyramid: - sovereign at the top - institutions and bureaucracies beneath - citizens below these This model presumes: - central authority - top-down rule - obedience as the basis of stability From De Filippi’s perspective, this is not just [[hierarchical]]—it’s structurally _incapable_ of handling complex, networked societies. --- ## **2. Primavera De Filippi’s critique: hierarchy cannot govern complexity** De Filippi’s work in digital governance, commons-based peer production, and decentralised networks argues that: - modern systems are **distributed**, not centralised - trust emerges from **protocols, processes, and cooperation**, not sovereign command - hierarchical control stifles adaptability and collective intelligence Thus, nations—as imagined through Hobbes—are not only hierarchical but _outdated_. They are built for a world of slow communication, central authorities, and obedient subjects. Her implication: **the nation-state is maladapted** to digital coordination, planetary interdependence, and polycentric governance. --- ## **3. Why she argues hierarchy is the problem** De Filippi’s claim is not simply “nations are hierarchical”; rather, she argues that **hierarchy reproduces scarcity, dependency, and narrow decision-making**. It: - limits participation - enforces rigid boundaries - concentrates power - cannot respond to crises that are global, non-linear, and interlinked Her work suggests replacing hierarchy with **networked governance**, **commons stewardship**, and **modular, cooperative institutional design**. --- ## **4. The deeper point: abandoning Hobbes ≠ abandoning governance** De Filippi is not advocating for chaos; she is pointing to emergent forms of order: - distributed ledgers - polycentric commons - peer-to-peer infrastructures - federated communities - cooperative organisational forms This is governance defined not by a sovereign but by **co-ordination, transparency, and shared protocols**. --- ## **In short** Yes, according to Primavera De Filippi, the **Hobbesian concept of the nation-state is inherently hierarchical**, and that hierarchy is increasingly incompatible with the complexities of our interconnected world. She does not argue for no governance, but for **new, decentralised modes of governance** that reflect how people and systems actually organise today. --- Primavera De Filippi’s critique of the Hobbesian nation-state aligns neatly with several alternative traditions: ### **Anarcho-syndicalism** Where Hobbes insists on a single sovereign, [[Anarcho-syndicalism]] proposes **federated, worker-run networks** that coordinate horizontally. Power flows through associations, not hierarchies—mirroring De Filippi’s emphasis on distributed governance. ### **Polycentric governance (Ostrom)** Elinor Ostrom shows that complex commons are best managed through **multiple, overlapping centres of decision-making**, not a single central authority. This echoes De Filippi’s argument that contemporary problems exceed the capacity of hierarchical nation-states. ### **Permaculture** [[Permaculture]] rejects monocentric control in favour of **diverse, interlinked, adaptive systems**—the ecological analogue of decentralised governance. It treats stability as emergent rather than imposed. ### **Thrutopia** Thrutopian thinking imagines pathways _through_ the meta-crisis by cultivating “small islands of coherence” capable of shifting a system. Decentralised, networked governance structures—precisely those De Filippi describes—form the political architecture of such futures. **In essence:** all four traditions share a core belief that **hierarchy cannot hold the complexity of the world we now face**, and that more distributed, federated, reciprocal forms of organisation are needed. `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`