Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

The most common candidates are things like greed, laziness, violence, etc.  I don't find these things to be common or inherent in people at all.  I rather believe that the environment in which these behaviors are observed is taken for granted, and that human beings will behave completely counter to these "human natures" in different situations.

Actually, my common candidates are 1) the almost-inate human quality to start closely bonding with people who are around them 2) the human quality to believe things that the people who they are close to say and believe and 3) that people will try to better themselves, their environment, and others if given the chance. Now, these are all great qualities. Kind of. They are the start of any human inner culture too. The commune and the police station alike. The police have their own internal culture, the army has its own internal culture, and even saying these two things forces generalizations as each individual segment inside of these has their own internal culture. In fact, every time you put humans together, you're going to get a unique internal culture based on the unique humans you've put inside of them. We can generalize until we're blue in the face, and we can point to commonalities. But politics is what you get when you put two people in a room with each other, and it only gets more complicated the more people are added to the equation.

So whatever political solution that makes anarchism work has to take into consideration that 1) It is human nature to wish other people the best 2) It is very common that humans think they know best for other people and 3) they are going to want to do something about it.

That's not even taking into account how to deal with bad actors, this is just what you have to deal with from what the majority of people are going to call good. I first brought up warlords because I can see them being a problem, and sure, they'll get to be a problem fast because there are a number of pretty selfish people. On the other hand, we're both living in a civilization that cannot be unintertwined from its roots in what its leaders and founders considered benevolent intervention. Maybe it would be pretty great if we all stayed out of each others business, but we're all kind of too thoroughly poisoned by ideas for anarchy to work, in my opinion. There has to be some kind of organization, there has to be some kind of authority, and it's got to be very specific, and I personally feel that it has to be extremely regulated.

Maybe I am just too collectivist.

[Shadowlord]

Plastic bullets, of course, Reelya.

[Orange Wizard]

Crap, I missed my chance to mock the pro-gun people.

[Shadowlord]

You don't reply to things from two pages ago? 

[Orange Wizard]

Well I mean it was probably just going to be shitpost-tier "moar guns = less shootin amirite" so it's not like anyone missed out on anything.

[Solifuge]

That's all pretty general and wishy-washy. What's your idea, your approach? What do you think human nature untouched by society's vices actually looks like?

Along with Wilfor here, the most primitive societies (as in first-to-form, small scale, or primary, not as in "those savages") generally operate on the principal that banding together makes them able to shore up each other's weaknesses. Society and human nature is fundamentally pro-social and geared toward things that create mutual benefit and increase survival.

Tribal egalitarianism provides for each according to their need, provided by each according to their ability. Might sound familiar; slight paraphrase to make a pont, but it's accurate. They generally have no property, no class system, no central government, and don't engage in warfare. Punishment when necessary generally takes the form of exile from the community and the benefit it provides. It's not at all perfect either; people still squabble and struggle, and act in self interest when the community can't provide for everyone. Historically it's only worked at scales when every member can potentially know every other member and see them as humans too; it hasn't yet been successfully implemented at a macro scale due to a tendency to view people we don't know personally as "Other" and either not worth sharing our local bounty with, or even as a drain or danger to our survival. I'd argue that we're only just now developing the global scale communication tech that could allow folks to overcome that tendency to "Otherize" people, and may some day soon be able to approach something more akin to a global tribe like this.

Anyway, in the understanding of myself and a beloved former anthropology professor of mine, is the closest thing to human nature; cooperative survival for mutual benefit and improvement, while helping those who need help however possible. We don't often see that in macro, but still see it surviving in our peer to peer daily interactions. If people are stable and well cared for emotionally and physically, they'll just about always help out the people they meet and can see the humanity in.

[SalmonGod]

I'm in danger of getting sucked into spending all night on this.  I really don't have time to engage in subjects like this anymore to the degree required to do them justice :/

That's all pretty general and wishy-washy. What's your idea, your approach? What do you think human nature untouched by society's vices actually looks like?

Yeah, and I feel the counters I get are usually on about the same level.  My position just isn't the one that's accepted by default, so the bar for legitimacy is set astronomically higher.  Not that you're necessarily being unfair or anything by wanting more information.  But I've done this thousands of times and know where it goes (and sort of has already).  I posit a vision, and people say "but that can be ruined by ___".  Yeah, well... every political idea that's ever been put into real practice was sold on an ideal, and I'd like to see a single one that hasn't fallen short.  People get trampled or fall through the cracks.  There's struggles and conflicts and compromises.  It's all muck and always will be.  Political ideology is just choosing your flavor of muck.

Being posed a question like this is a trap in multiple ways. 

First, because if I present an ideal, then I get told the ideal will turn out to be muck.  Well, of course it will.  But that's not saying much until everyone else can describe how their political ideals won't or haven't been turned to muck.

Second, because summarizing the whole functioning of a society on a different paradigm is actually really fucking hard.  I'm sure if you asked a dreamy feudal serf to casually summarize his vision of social democracy that he'd struggle, too.  I've offered a lot over the years on this board about anarchist forms of organization, but I'm really not up to it right now.  I don't think it should be required, anyway, for criticisms of what is to be considered valid.

If you destroyed society/civilization/whatever to "free" everyone, the nature of the best people is irrelevant if the worst people can still get enough followers and take control by force or "cult of personality."

Also, then there'd be nobody to stop injustices from being perpetrated by the strong onto the weak, of which there are innumerable examples which ignore the laws and in some times and places were ignored by it).

Anarchist perspective is that organizational methods built on hierarchy function by just incorporating these things in ways that are acceptable to the dominant culture, so how is this a criticism unique to anarchy?  The primary motivation behind anarchist thought is to develop means of organization that are not literally designed to be a form of subjugation dressed up as something nicer.

Actually, my common candidates are 1) the almost-inate human quality to start closely bonding with people who are around them 2) the human quality to believe things that the people who they are close to say and believe and 3) that people will try to better themselves, their environment, and others if given the chance. Now, these are all great qualities. Kind of. They are the start of any human inner culture too. The commune and the police station alike. The police have their own internal culture, the army has its own internal culture, and even saying these two things forces generalizations as each individual segment inside of these has their own internal culture. In fact, every time you put humans together, you're going to get a unique internal culture based on the unique humans you've put inside of them. We can generalize until we're blue in the face, and we can point to commonalities. But politics is what you get when you put two people in a room with each other, and it only gets more complicated the more people are added to the equation.

So whatever political solution that makes anarchism work has to take into consideration that 1) It is human nature to wish other people the best 2) It is very common that humans think they know best for other people and 3) they are going to want to do something about it.

That's not even taking into account how to deal with bad actors, this is just what you have to deal with from what the majority of people are going to call good. I first brought up warlords because I can see them being a problem, and sure, they'll get to be a problem fast because there are a number of pretty selfish people. On the other hand, we're both living in a civilization that cannot be unintertwined from its roots in what its leaders and founders considered benevolent intervention. Maybe it would be pretty great if we all stayed out of each others business, but we're all kind of too thoroughly poisoned by ideas for anarchy to work, in my opinion. There has to be some kind of organization, there has to be some kind of authority, and it's got to be very specific, and I personally feel that it has to be extremely regulated.

Maybe I am just too collectivist.

You hardly say anything here counter to anarchism.  Anarchy is not the rejection of organization and politics.  Some schools of anarchist thought are, but just anarchism by itself is not.  The only un-anarchist thing you say here is that authority is needed, and even that depends on what you specifically mean by authority.  If your authority is granted by consensus and kept on a tight enough leash, it's probably compatible.  Anarchy literally means "no rulers".  Elected officials, depending on what functions they perform and how, are not necessarily rulers, and most of the better elaborated schools of anarchy make use of elections (with very short terms and restrictions on executive power).

[Orange Wizard]

Anarchy literally means "no rulers".

If everything is tightly regulated so that change requires consensus from many groups, you end up in a deadlock that can't change, even if many groups are clamouring for it. And then some arsehole busts out Madame la Guillotine.

[Flying Dice]

A boot stamping on a human face, forever?

If you destroyed society/civilization/whatever to "free" everyone, the nature of the best people is irrelevant if the worst people can still get enough followers and take control by force or "cult of personality."

Also, then there'd be nobody to stop injustices from being perpetrated by the strong onto the weak, of which there are innumerable examples which ignore the laws and in some times and places were ignored by it).

That's the beginning and end of it, really. Anarchists, like every other ideological group pushing for little/no government, are inherently myopic. They think things through up to the point where society is torn down, but then suddenly stop thinking and assume that everything after that point will be a cheerful live-and-let-live paradigm where everyone leaves everyone else alone if they don't want to work together of their own free will.

That's bullshit. We've seen time and again what actually happens when society disintegrates: the people who have extant power bases in the form of military force, material resources, money, &c. quickly reestablish society in their own image. For anarchism to be anything other than a continual cycle of violence you would need a species in which every single individual, without exception, is content to live according to their own ability to provide for themselves, without envying the possessions of others, with no willingness to freeload, and with no desire to dominate others. That species ain't humanity.

S'part of why I have so much respect for the Dead Kennedys. They goddamn think about the stuff they write songs about.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Seems like the more
I think I know
The more I find I don't
Every answer opens up so many questions

Anarchy sounds good to me
Then someone asks, 'Who'd fix the sewers?'
'Would the rednecks just play king
Of the neighborhood?'

How many liberators
Really want to be dictators
Every theory has its holes
When real life steps in

So how do we feed
And make room for
All the people crowded on our earth
And transfer all that wealth
From the rich to those who need it

[Chorus:]
Where do ya draw the line
Where do ya draw the line
Where do ya draw the line
I'm not telling you I'm asking you

Ever notice hard line radicals
Can go on start trips too
Where no one's pure and right
Except themselves

'I'm cleansed of the system.'
('Cept when my amp needs electric power)
Or-'The Party Line says no.
Feminists can't wear fishnets.'

You wanna help stop war?
Well, we reject your application
You crack too many jokes
And you eat meat

What better way to turn people off
Than to twist ideas for change
Into one more church
That forgets we're all human beings

[Chorus]

In Toronto someone blew up
A cruise missile warhead plant
10 slightly hurt, 4 million dollars damage

Why not destroy private property
When it's used against you and me
Is that violence
Or self-defense
You tell me

[Chorus]

[SalmonGod]

Anarchy literally means "no rulers".

If everything is tightly regulated so that change requires consensus from many groups, you end up in a deadlock that can't change, even if many groups are clamouring for it. And then some arsehole busts out Madame la Guillotine.

This is one of the things I think mass communications should be helping us with.  I see this kind of deadlock as often the result of too many people being involved who have nothing to do with the subject.  Technology should be helping us to connect with and focus on issues we have a stake in.  And if the people who actually have a stake in something can't agree, then there should be deadlock until agreements can be made. 

[smjjames]

That's bullshit. We've seen time and again what actually happens when society disintegrates: the people who have extant power bases in the form of military force, material resources, money, &c. quickly reestablish society in their own image. For anarchism to be anything other than a continual cycle of violence you would need a species in which every single individual, without exception, is content to live according to their own ability to provide for themselves, without envying the possessions of others, with no willingness to freeload, and with no desire to dominate others. That species ain't humanity.

That kind of sounds like the penultimate Communist ideal utopia, I think.

Or Eden before Adam and Eve got kicked out, of course though, it was just those two.

Or the Eloi from The Time Machine.

[Solifuge]

Anarchy literally means "no rulers".

If everything is tightly regulated so that change requires consensus from many groups, you end up in a deadlock that can't change, even if many groups are clamouring for it. And then some arsehole busts out Madame la Guillotine.

This is one of the things I think mass communications should be helping us with.  I see this kind of deadlock as often the result of too many people being involved who have nothing to do with the subject.  Technology should be helping us to connect with and focus on issues we have a stake in.  And if the people who actually have a stake in something can't agree, then there should be deadlock until agreements can be made. 

To this and to some of the anti-anarchistic points, that's what I was trying to address in my last post. Many societies don't need central government to be healthy, functional, and to allow neighbors to lift up neighbors. That's actually a part of our human nature which centralized government and empires repress, in a way I don't really want to explain unless anyone's particularly curious. The problem is not that human nature is just fundamentally cruel if it can get away with things, but rather that we split up "Us" and "Them" rather aggressively. When well-cared-for and emotionally fulfilled, we're helpful allies to our neighbors, but are often still territorial or combative with "the others"

Better communication, and a better window into the state of the world has already done wonders to reduce "Otherness" and bring the people of the world closer. It's possible that a world with the internet and modern communication, and it's ability to expand who our "Neighbors" are, could enable a healthy, peaceful, and mutually beneficial form of "Distributed/Peer-to-peer Self-Governance" or Anarchism or World-scale Tribal Egalitarianism, and allow it to thrive.

[Flying Dice]

That's bullshit. We've seen time and again what actually happens when society disintegrates: the people who have extant power bases in the form of military force, material resources, money, &c. quickly reestablish society in their own image. For anarchism to be anything other than a continual cycle of violence you would need a species in which every single individual, without exception, is content to live according to their own ability to provide for themselves, without envying the possessions of others, with no willingness to freeload, and with no desire to dominate others. That species ain't humanity.

That kind of sounds like the penultimate Communist ideal utopia, I think.

Or Eden before Adam and Eve got kicked out, of course though, it was just those two.

Or the Eloi from The Time Machine.

Yep. Anarchism's ideal world is pretty much identical to the theoretical final stage of Marxism. And, as you noted, it's wholly unrealistic.

Of course that's only talking about things in terms of whether they're possible. It's also worth remembering that even if such a world were possible, we'd have little or nothing of the technological gains we've made in the past few thousand years. If you started from our current tech base you might manage to maintain small-scale intranets and telephone networks, &c., but nothing on our current scale. Nothing that needs microchips, petrochemical products, or basically anything that requires substantial infrastructure to make. If you can't turn it out in a machine shop, you don't have it.

If we talk theoretical in the sense of "what if things were always like that," you'd have a society of stone-age hunter-gatherers with some small-scale agriculture and maybe basic metalworking (in the sense of "dump iron or tin & copper into a brick furnace, try to shape it), relying on muscle, water, and maybe wind power. Anything beyond the scale of a village of a dozen or two people is unlikely. Leisure time is limited and consists at best of simple instruments and oral storytelling.

That's your choice. If it works (unlikely) every has to live in a goddamn preindustrial shithole with nothing to do but work and sleep. If it doesn't work you have to deal with a new society that's almost certainly worse than the one you got rid of.

[SalmonGod]

Better communication, and a better window into the state of the world has already done wonders to reduce "Otherness" and bring the people of the world closer. It's possible that a world with the internet and modern communication, and it's ability to expand who our "Neighbors" are, could enable a healthy, peaceful, and mutually beneficial form of "Distributed/Peer-to-peer Self-Governance" or Anarchism or World-scale Tribal Egalitarianism, and allow it to thrive.

This, and I think there are new opportunities logistically.  One of the paths of least resistance social constructs I mentioned earlier is that hierarchy enables higher level organization given a lack of communications technology by streamlining the flow of information.  As communications technology advances, more complex and productive organization becomes possible through the organic spread of information instead.

Spoiler: On the other hand, I totally understand why we'd want to stick with what we know is working, right? (click to show/hide)

I'd say the severity of flaws I can point out in statist & capitalist ideologies are about on par with the boogeymen weighed against mine, wouldn't you?

[Shadowlord]

Anarchy literally means "no rulers".

If everything is tightly regulated so that change requires consensus from many groups, you end up in a deadlock that can't change, even if many groups are clamouring for it. And then some arsehole busts out Madame la Guillotine.

This is one of the things I think mass communications should be helping us with.  I see this kind of deadlock as often the result of too many people being involved who have nothing to do with the subject.  Technology should be helping us to connect with and focus on issues we have a stake in.  And if the people who actually have a stake in something can't agree, then there should be deadlock until agreements can be made.

WRT mass communication, the next question you have to ask is: Are people becoming more tribal*, or less tribal as a result of it?

* reinforcing their views by dismissing anything that doesn't accord with their worldview, getting their information only from people or organizations that they trust (because their words are confirming their pre-existing beliefs).

I keep hearing that the internet is encouraging tribalism, because you can connect with people who think the same stuff and unfriend anyone who disagrees with you, or go on a subreddit with only like-minded people, etc.

Obviously it's different on this forum, we have people with completely different perspectives and we don't necessarily immediately dismiss anything anyone else says. Though Toady still comes around and bans people and disappears posts.

I know I have a mental list of people and news organizations that I consider biased in one way or another, and some that just aren't worth reading.

Spoiler: I think this is off-topic so I spoilered it (click to show/hide)

For instance, I ignore the wall street journal and I have forgotten why (probably the hard server-side paywall). Breitbart basically only writes propaganda, so I ignore it. Fox spins everything to appeal to a specific demographic while trying to manipulate them (e.g. also propaganda). George Will only writes idiocy (I don't know if he honestly believes what he's writing but I get that impression). Krauthammer I read sometimes, and usually disagree with, but sometimes he writes something I end up agreeing with. I think Ann Coulter is either a nutjob or playing a character, and I sometimes read what she writes for a laugh.

Mother Jones is pretty obviously biased in the other direction. Rawstory presents news through a confrontational anti-conservative (or anti-fox) POV. They don't say that, but you can see the framing. I don't usually watch network news, or CNN, or MSNBC, but I didn't notice any bias in NBC news when I watched them. The Washington Post and New York Times are almost certainly progressive, although I think that's a good thing - they investigate injustices and the like that should outrage anyone, and report on them.

One example difference: Where Donald Trump thinks that illegals need to be thrown out (and Mitt Romney called for "self-deportation"), progressives worry that they're being exploited (NYT expose from last year about nail salon workers - you may have seen it already), for example.

SalmonGod: You know, we (humans) actually regrew the forests of New England after deforesting the whole place. Maybe Europe should give that a try. I assume Europe is still forestless. Not that regrowing the forests will stop climate change or anything. OFF TOPIC STILL SORRY.

Also: I would suggest reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for an example of an anarchist/libertarian society that works, but ... it only works in the book, of course. It relies on the existing Lunar colony culture, which is drastically different from any culture on Earth. I think IRL you'd likely end up with something more like The Expanse.