|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
A syllogism for anarchy 1
#26838934 - 07/22/20 06:00 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I was going to reply in that 'terrorist cops' thread but holy hell I'm just gonna stay out of there. Still, here is my argument about the so-called utopian nature of anarchy - if anyone wants to challenge it:
1st premise: All humans are fallible. 2nd premise: If all humans are fallible, any system of organisation designed and run by humans will be similarly fallible. Conclusion: Therefore any system of 'checks-and-balances' designed to prevent abuse of authority is fallible.
1st premise: If all systems of checks-and-balances designed to prevent abuse of authority are fallible, given enough time every position of authority will be abused. 2nd premise: Abuse of authority is amplified by concentration of authority. Conclusion: Therefore a system of horizontal organizational structure that limits the concentration of authority will be more effective at limiting abuse of authority than a hierarchical organizational structure would.
Basically, my support of anarchy just comes from being a realist - but I'm curious what all you utopians holding out for your benevolent dictatorship think.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
I'm actually completely with you until your final conclusion, but you're going to have to explain what you mean by that better.
I don't believe in any "good" institution. Just in the "least worst" one. I'm an anarchist in spirit actually, (anarchist/gnostic), but in the flesh I simply cannot be with my worldview.
EDIT: I'm definitely not holding out for utopia.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (07/22/20 06:11 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,499
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Assuming arguendo that your conclusion is logically sound, it still only addresses one problem with societal structure. It doesn't factor in the problems that society is intended to combat nor does it factor in other problems created by the existence and maintenance of a society. If corruption/abuse of authority is the only problem we care about, the solution is easy: No one has any authority. Problem solved.
But society is intended to address a host of problems that groups of humans encounter when trying to coexist. Scarcity, balancing of rights, utilitarian maximization of good, etc. are all very important issues that need to be addressed in some fashion. I've known you long enough to know that you have thought of all of these, but in your OP, they've all been ignored.
As a result, I'm inviting you to explain how your horizontal distribution of power theory addresses those issues, and if you're willing, contrast and compare the effectiveness of your theory vis a vis these issues with the effectiveness of perhaps the American republic or any other government, existing or historical.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
|
Are you familiar with the distinction between horizontal and hierarchical organizing? Take a look at the image below - the top one represents hierarchical organizing, the bottom one horizontal organizing.

Under a hierarchical organizational structure, power is concentrated in a small number of individuals at the top who are given the authority to make decisions for those below them. Let's assume one of those people in the image will abuse their authority, it's a bit like playing Russian roulette - if they're one of those at the bottom it won't be much of an issue, but what if that person is the one at top?
Whereas under a horizontal organizational structure, the basic unit is the affinity group. Each affinity group generally consists of a small number of people who directly share their lives together (as you can see, there can be overlap with other affinity groups). Each affinity group is autonomous and can act on their own to solve problems in their community, but they can also cooperate with other affinity groups when necessary to achieve more ambitious goals.
Once again, let's assume one of the people in the image would abuse their authority - it doesn't matter who, in every instance the authority of the abusive person is significantly limited. Even an entirely corrupt affinity group would not have any authority over other affinity groups. This is what I mean when I say that horizontal organizational structures are more effective at limiting abuse of authority than hierarchical organizational structures.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil]
#26839085 - 07/22/20 07:14 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Assuming arguendo that your conclusion is logically sound, it still only addresses one problem with societal structure. It doesn't factor in the problems that society is intended to combat nor does it factor in other problems created by the existence and maintenance of a society. If corruption/abuse of authority is the only problem we care about, the solution is easy: No one has any authority. Problem solved.
But society is intended to address a host of problems that groups of humans encounter when trying to coexist. Scarcity, balancing of rights, utilitarian maximization of good, etc. are all very important issues that need to be addressed in some fashion. I've known you long enough to know that you have thought of all of these, but in your OP, they've all been ignored.
As a result, I'm inviting you to explain how your horizontal distribution of power theory addresses those issues, and if you're willing, contrast and compare the effectiveness of your theory vis a vis these issues with the effectiveness of perhaps the American republic or any other government, existing or historical.
True - I've only made the argument that horizontal organization is better at limiting abuse of authority, not that limiting abusive authority necessarily leads to the overall best results. I probably won't be able to reduce my response into another syllogism, but I definitely have some thoughts to share.
But before I get all caught up in my reply and forget to eat, I'm gonna make something to eat.
--------------------
|
Darwin23
INFJ



Registered: 10/08/10
Posts: 3,277
Loc: United States
Last seen: 1 day, 18 hours
|
|
I actually just wrote a post summarizing the evolution of political theory and the evolution of the state. You ought to read Hobbes.
My fiancee is Venezuelan. A perfect example of why you hate governments, no? The government has mostly abandoned the people and they're no longer the greatest threat, the gangs are. If you'd like to see anarchy in action, I invite you to watch this video from 45 minutes outside of my fiancee's hometown: (EXTREMELY GRAPHIC: anarchy). If you're having trouble watching, that's a man who is accused of being a snitch near a gold mine in north eastern Venezuela. First they cut his tongue off which they make him chew up to swallow. Then they cut his fingers off which they also make him chew on. At the end, there is a still frame of him with no fingers, his tongue cut off and both of his eyes gouged out. They left him alive to suffer. My fiancee's step-dad is a paramedic and is regularly taken to these locations with a hood over his head where he's been forced to save the lives of torture victims for them to presumably be tortured more.
You see, when there is no overarching power, there is no one to limit the growth of powers. Sometimes, perhaps frequently, those powers are driven by psychopaths whose main goal is greed. Yes, governments are fallible and have created many atrocities, but anarchy also leads to oppression and evils just the same.
--------------------
Take a look at my journal
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 59 minutes, 20 seconds
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Even an entirely corrupt affinity group would not have any authority over other affinity groups.
My biggest problem is with this right here.
In the modern world, a small group of people, corrupt or not, is able to exert their will onto others using technological advantage.
Just going with a "real world" analogy. Let's look at international politics. You have affinity groups, in the sense of countries. Let's not even think of corruption, that's besides the point. There are many countries that openly exert their will unto others through military and economic force.
What do you do, when one of your "affinity groups" has nukes?
More importantly, what do you do when one of your "affinity groups" decides that climate change is bullshit, and slowly poisons the entire world?
In other words, I think your idea makes sense, as long as affinity groups are not able to significantly influence one another. However, that is not possible in the modern world.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 minutes, 29 seconds
|
|
From what I understand of your organization pics:
1. You seem to argue in horizontal organizing that the structure itself places mathematical limits on the abuse of power.
2. What of the power vacuum that would manifest, when one abuses it within the affinity group? Most voids are met with violence and/or when someone loses control of something ..... the desire to pounce on the opportunity, for more power!
A hierarchy can be a house of cards but I do see horizontal organizing not immune to backroom deals/cutthroat mentality to maintain the horizontial structure.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (07/22/20 08:02 PM)
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
I'm confused by one major thing.
How is a "horizontal system" not just another system of checks and balances?
The pyramid is too basic of a structure to resemble America's government. I would argue we're far more horizontal in the first place. Not just with the 3 branches of government, but with federal and state... in particular the latter where all 50 states get to play by their own custom set of rules within rules... and then COUNTY rules within states! (Like house rules for a board game to fit the needs of the group.)
I can't think of a third possibility... either you have one human in charge of a group, or *multiple* humans in charge of a group, ranging from two to infinity. In this second group of power structures, everything is checks and balances, is it not?
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (07/22/20 10:39 PM)
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,767
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 46 minutes
|
|
This is from the article linked in your post.
Quote:
You and your friends already constitute an affinity group, the essential building block of this model. An affinity group is a circle of friends who understand themselves as an autonomous political force. The idea is that people who already know and trust each other should work together to respond immediately, intelligently, and flexibly to emerging situations.
With all respect, that's just laughable.
Honestly, have you never come across any bad people? Dishonest people? Dumb greedy people? Friends that have lied to your face? People that you thought were your friend and then steal all your money and put it up their arm? That's a serious question as I've met plenty of them and this utopian peaceful anarchist idea just does not make any sense to me at all, sorry.
I'll gladly settle for a shithouse democracy or even a benevolent dictatorship over mob rule any day. Any day.
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
I'm inclined to agree. Most anarchists/far-leftists/antifa find the political right to be completely contemptible.
Unless you want to commit mass genocide on half the population, how do anarchists expect to get along with groups of different ideologies?
--------------------
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,767
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 46 minutes
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
#26840933 - 07/23/20 03:50 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Mmmm and until there's a massive brain shift in the way things are done hardly anyone in the general population could even understand how a peaceful anarchistic society is supposed to function. Like I'm willing to listen but I still don't get it??
It's one thing to point out the benefits of such an idea but how does society get to that place?
Would people like Enlil need to retrain? There'd be no need for lawyers in this utopian world, or police or security forces... like I just don't get it.
|
Rapjack
Oat Soakin' Toker


Registered: 05/15/17
Posts: 483
Loc: Elsewhere
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
I love horizontal power structures in small organizations of consenting individuals. But what of the people that are flat out too lazy or unwilling to participate? My theory is they'd align themselves with whoever the biggest warlord in the area is. It's much easier to take or force tribute from communities rather than build. His troops become stronger than the farmers. A good warlord then patrols the roads for highwaymen, the communities in his control thrive because no more threats to trade. Other communities join on their own accord to receive that protection and prosperity. Fast forward a couple hundred years and the land is divided into empires again.
Anarchy assumes everyone wants independence but I don't think that's really the case sadly. I think average people mainly want security and ease, they'd join whatever large group in the area promises the best protection.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Rapjack]
#26842142 - 07/24/20 07:44 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Antifa claims a horizontal power structure and I find them and their behavior contemptible.
Would you assert a new world with a horizontal power structure resembles Antifa or did you have another pool of humans I'm not aware of that are more mature and put together to draw from to create this new world?
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 minutes, 29 seconds
|
|
Horizontial organizing is inferior(powerwise) to a hierarchy. If it was the most efficient, all of tbe militaries of the world would ditch the typical chain of command paradigm.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: SirTripAlot] 1
#26842386 - 07/24/20 10:13 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I just wanted to let everyone know I've read your replies and I intend to respond to each in order. Enlil posed a doozy and I'm tackling that one first but I also think solidifying my argument for anarchy is a good place to start anyways, before turning to the more specific criticisms.
--------------------
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,499
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: Horizontial organizing is inferior(powerwise) to a hierarchy. If it was the most efficient, all of tbe militaries of the world would ditch the typical chain of command paradigm.
What is most efficient for a war effort isn't necessarily the same as what is most efficient/better for societal governance. After all, militaries are run as dictatorships. If that's the model for societies, then societies should all be dictatorships.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Rapjack
Oat Soakin' Toker


Registered: 05/15/17
Posts: 483
Loc: Elsewhere
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I just wanted to let everyone know I've read your replies and I intend to respond to each in order. Enlil posed a doozy and I'm tackling that one first but I also think solidifying my argument for anarchy is a good place to start anyways, before turning to the more specific criticisms.
Sweet, I look forward to my reply. That's always been a sticking point for me and I wonder what the solution is, if any. Informed responding allows you to flesh out your philosophy more too!
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 minutes, 29 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil]
#26842722 - 07/24/20 01:40 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Thats valid. Would you agree that horizontal organizing is more inferior(again, regarding power distribution and application)hierarchy..... due to its bilateral nature?
Agreement/acceptance/trust needs to be a two way street in horizontal organizing, whereas vertical organizing does not require as much.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (07/24/20 01:40 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,499
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: SirTripAlot] 1
#26842831 - 07/24/20 02:45 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Inferior or superior at what, specifically? There are many different core issues that any successful social structure must address. I'm certainly not the guy with a perfect solution. Our system isn't it. I doubt shivas is going to articulate a perfect solution either, but I'm open to exploring affirmatives.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 minutes, 29 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil]
#26843460 - 07/24/20 07:47 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Vertical organization is superior as it has less ambiguities within duties and a greater production ability. Decision making is more efficient; Less trust is needed.
Horizontal organizing by its very nature, is flat and must grow accordingly. There are multiple decision makers creating bottlenecks; there is less expeditious movement of the organization....everyone must trust themselves, and everyone else....
In short, trust and how it relates the human condition is very complex. You must see it all the time in contract law and torts. It could be spelled out verbatim in a contract; yet, you find the only way to enforce would be to litigate. Things that require more trust restrain (unfortunately) growth and efficiency due to our flawed human nature.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 7 hours, 20 minutes
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
#26844028 - 07/25/20 05:50 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said: Antifa claims a horizontal power structure and I find them and their behavior contemptible.
Would you assert a new world with a horizontal power structure resembles Antifa or did you have another pool of humans I'm not aware of that are more mature and put together to draw from to create this new world?
Is there anything that in any way resembles logic or rational thinking in this post?
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,499
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: Vertical organization is superior as it has less ambiguities within duties and a greater production ability. Decision making is more efficient; Less trust is needed.
Horizontal organizing by its very nature, is flat and must grow accordingly. There are multiple decision makers creating bottlenecks; there is less expeditious movement of the organization....everyone must trust themselves, and everyone else....
In short, trust and how it relates the human condition is very complex. You must see it all the time in contract law and torts. It could be spelled out verbatim in a contract; yet, you find the only way to enforce would be to litigate. Things that require more trust restrain (unfortunately) growth and efficiency due to our flawed human nature.
Efficient at getting a group of people to act with a common goal, yes. That isn't all a social structure needs to do, though. Ideally, government would serve two main goals:
1. Maximize freedom, and 2. Maximize human wellbeing.
A top-down approach can certainly be more efficient at 2, but it compromises 1 significantly. IMO, horizontal systems are better at 1 but not as efficient at 2.
These two larger groups can be thought of as addressing these issues:
1. How can we live together peacefully? 2. How can we work together to improve our lives?
The first is about giving up some autonomy for the greater good, while the second is about setting up systems that encourage innovation and progress. Those two are necessarily at odds to an extent. Our current system has done the second part very well, but the first has slowly eroded and is now in a very bad state of affairs.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421] 1
#26844664 - 07/25/20 01:33 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
I'm inclined to agree. Most anarchists/far-leftists/antifa find the political right to be completely contemptible.
Unless you want to commit mass genocide on half the population, how do anarchists expect to get along with groups of different ideologies?
When it comes to their passion for destruction, anarchists often don't discriminate. For example the Frederick Douglass Statue in Rochester, N.Y that was destroyed. He is a prominent Black abolitionist. And Jesus and Christian figures being attacked.
Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King thinks that any statues or general depictions that showcase Jesus Christ with European features should be torn down. He says depictions of Jesus Christ are a form of white supremacy.
I'm tired of people saying the mob doesn't understand history. Lets be clear. The mob doesn't care about history. They care about one thing - destruction.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil] 1
#26844692 - 07/25/20 01:59 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I don't see them as being fundamentally at odds with each other as goals. If anything living together peacefully should be conducive to working together to improve our lives. Currently, the model for successful innovation is adversarial, not collaborative, as a general rule.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,499
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#26844704 - 07/25/20 02:04 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Only at odds insofar as societal priorities can and will differ from individual priorities.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,767
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 46 minutes
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil]
#26844894 - 07/25/20 04:31 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
... so I did some reading, possibly to pre-empt shiva's response but to also see if I was responding to the question properly. To put it in a nut shell, I was left wondering if the main criticism of a democracy the tyranny of the majority has to necessarily lead to the oppression of minorities... which it has... but then I thought that it is through the same democracy that minority groups are allowed to organise, put forward initiatives, challenge laws and ultimately legitimise their position in society. An example of minorities organising and successfully gaining the support of the majority, in a successful democracy, would obviously be the LGBT minority and also the Aboriginal people's political gains, in Australia anyway, not everywhere.
I purposely did not use the term Republic as the pinnacle of a democracy as the idea of a president(king) being able to over rule a decision of the courts seems flawed to me.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 hour, 17 minutes
|
Re: A syllogism for analyzing [Re: RJ Tubs 202] 1
#26844918 - 07/25/20 04:47 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
I'm inclined to agree. Most anarchists/far-leftists/antifa find the political right to be completely contemptible.
Unless you want to commit mass genocide on half the population, how do anarchists expect to get along with groups of different ideologies?
When it comes to their passion for destruction, anarchists often don't discriminate. For example the Frederick Douglass Statue in Rochester, N.Y that was destroyed. He is a prominent Black abolitionist..
You have any evidence leftists removed that statue? Probably right wingers. The left makes a big deal about bringing statues down. The right does it silently in the middle of the night.
Anyways. Typical uninformed post by a right winger
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Pastywhyte
Say hello to my little friend



Registered: 09/15/12
Posts: 37,809
Loc: Canada
|
Re: A syllogism for analyzing [Re: koods] 4
#26845678 - 07/26/20 08:18 AM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I find many of the arguments against anarchy being made are actually arguments against chaos not anarchy. IIRC anarchy doesn’t mean the absence of order, it’s order without rulers or overlords. There are many issues surrounding achieving a horizontal society but we are getting to a point where some of those old obstacles are less formidable. Technology has the potential to limit or reduce the effects of social strain that are applied by resource scarcity. Labour scarcity is also becoming less of an issue. I believe we are reaching a point as a species where many of the old assumptions on social structures no longer apply.
Or course a major paradigm shift will be needed before people will be willing to accept things like abandoning consumer culture or keeping up with the Joneses. These are societal and cultural behaviours that are rooted in scarcity and oppression but that doesn’t mean people will easily abandon them despite having their needs and even their wants met. But the world is changing regardless, this pandemic and lockdowns etc, have made many people more aware of what actually makes the system run, who it really benefits from it, and who is truly essential to its ability to function as a system.
I don’t think people are ready to give up these old ways of organizing ourselves as they are very entrenched, but they are becoming less comfortable as of late. This is oddly beneficial to encouraging people to consider alternative mindsets.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil]
#26846233 - 07/26/20 02:34 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Assuming arguendo that your conclusion is logically sound, it still only addresses one problem with societal structure. It doesn't factor in the problems that society is intended to combat nor does it factor in other problems created by the existence and maintenance of a society. If corruption/abuse of authority is the only problem we care about, the solution is easy: No one has any authority. Problem solved.
But society is intended to address a host of problems that groups of humans encounter when trying to coexist. Scarcity, balancing of rights, utilitarian maximization of good, etc. are all very important issues that need to be addressed in some fashion. I've known you long enough to know that you have thought of all of these, but in your OP, they've all been ignored.
As a result, I'm inviting you to explain how your horizontal distribution of power theory addresses those issues, and if you're willing, contrast and compare the effectiveness of your theory vis a vis these issues with the effectiveness of perhaps the American republic or any other government, existing or historical.
Horizontal and anarchist organizing will still be human-led systems of organizing, and so it would be self-contradicting for me to claim that they will always be more effective than the more traditional hierarchical organizing of the nation-state; instead, I think it will be sufficient for me to show that horizontal and anarchist organizing can be as effective. Given the existence of the human-variable, I don't think it will ever be possible to directly contrast two (or more) competing political ideologies to the point we arrive at objective results - the best I can do is show people that you don't need to give up your autonomy in order to achieve a high quality of life. I saw this point brought up elsewhere so I'll just touch on it briefly here, but 'freedom' and 'responsibility' move in tandem, and it's entirely possible that many people dislike responsibility more than they like freedom - if that's the case I don't expect any argument for anarchism will ever be sufficiently convincing because, as a political philosophy, anarchism places (and requires) a high value on the critique of authority. But assuming the major stumbling block is that people just don't realize that an alternative exists, let's address some of these other problems.
Scarcity: I think a great example of the effectiveness of horizontal organizing when confronting scarcity can be seen in the practice of mutual aid applied to disaster response & relief. We've seen mutual aid networks develop in the USA in response to hurricane Katrina and Maria, as well as in response to the coronavirus pandemic. This article provides a good introduction to the practice. In its proper sense, mutual aid does not describe a program that provides unidirectional assistance for others the way a charity organization does. Rather, it is the decentralized practice of reciprocal care via which participants in a network make sure that everyone gets what they need, so that everyone has reason to be invested in everyone else’s well-being. The basic model still revolves around the affinity group as your first level of protection from scarcity: for example, you're too sick to go to the grocery store one week, you're friends bring over some food. If the problem goes beyond the resources of the affinity group, you connect with your community-wide network for help from other affinity groups: what happened organically in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina provides two excellent examples of this type of mutual aid network still enduring today; Common Ground Relief and Mutual Aid Disaster Relief. If the problem goes beyond the resources of the entire community, you can connect with multi-community networks for help from other community-wide networks: we saw an example of this when mutual aid networks, that formed in response to hurricane Katrina, traveled to Puerto Rico in the aftermath of hurricane Maria. This is not a matter of tit-for-tat exchange, but rather an interchange of care and resources that creates the sort of redundancy and resilience that can sustain a community through difficult times. Obviously mutual aid networks thrive best when it is possible to build up reciprocal trust with others over a long period of time, but due to the nature of this type of organizing nothing holds us back from starting. If you're interested, there's an entire book written on the concept from an evolutionary perspective: Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
Balancing of rights: Under the nation-state, the balance is generally achieved through court decisions on written legislation - under ideal conditions this results in something resembling public will tempered by impartial reason, but the same mechanism has allowed for totalitarian rulers to create legal codes for repression, including 'disappearance' and genocide. The human-variable. It would be the same with an anarchy: the basic mechanism would be that individuals decide for themselves where the balance lies - under ideal conditions this results in people tempering their decisions with reason and refusing to cooperate with those who would shift that balance, with layers of redundancy by repeating the process at both affinity group and community level; but of course the same mechanism has led to lynch mobs. I would still argue that, assuming more people are good than bad (a whole 'nother philosophical discussion), by limiting concentration of power horizontal organizing limits the potential effects of a 'worst case' scenario. It's pretty difficult to imagine individuals like Hitler and Stalin would have been able to have caused the same harm without the institution of the state to corrupt towards their purpose.
Maximization of good: This answer actually touches on the previous two. The assumption is that more humans are altruistic rather than selfish and that altruism leads to the greater good - the book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution directly address this assumption - and so a mechanism similar to the one used to in the balancing of rights can be used that will limit both the spread and effects of selfish behaviours while addressing this problem. I don't think an anarchist society will ever respond to this question as effectively as a benevolent dictator - it's easy to envision how a single unified vision would best achieve true maximization of good - but it will also never respond to it as ineffectively as a malicious or incompetent dictator. Unless, I guess, the concept of 'autonomy' is grouped in with your concept of 'good' - otherwise, it would seem like our social evolution would trend towards that of an ant colony.
I think there's an implicit comparison to the American republic in my answer, but I don't think a direct comparison is really necessary. It's an old republic, so I could probably find examples to both validate or invalidate my argument - just have to find the right human-variable. If you don't think I've at least established that anarchist organizing can be as effective though, let me know - but if I have, then in true anarchist fashion it's now up to you to make your own decision on how you feel the potential of anarchy stacks up against your current government and what your next step should be.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Darwin23]
#26846297 - 07/26/20 03:10 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Darwin23 said: I actually just wrote a post summarizing the evolution of political theory and the evolution of the state. You ought to read Hobbes.
My fiancee is Venezuelan. A perfect example of why you hate governments, no? The government has mostly abandoned the people and they're no longer the greatest threat, the gangs are. If you'd like to see anarchy in action, I invite you to watch this video from 45 minutes outside of my fiancee's hometown: (EXTREMELY GRAPHIC: anarchy). If you're having trouble watching, that's a man who is accused of being a snitch near a gold mine in north eastern Venezuela. First they cut his tongue off which they make him chew up to swallow. Then they cut his fingers off which they also make him chew on. At the end, there is a still frame of him with no fingers, his tongue cut off and both of his eyes gouged out. They left him alive to suffer. My fiancee's step-dad is a paramedic and is regularly taken to these locations with a hood over his head where he's been forced to save the lives of torture victims for them to presumably be tortured more.
You see, when there is no overarching power, there is no one to limit the growth of powers. Sometimes, perhaps frequently, those powers are driven by psychopaths whose main goal is greed. Yes, governments are fallible and have created many atrocities, but anarchy also leads to oppression and evils just the same.
I would be interested in reading that post if you care to link it. For sure I've read Hobbes but he's also over 300 years old and political theory hasn't remained stagnant. Let's grant for the moment that Hobbes' basic assumption regarding the state of nature is true (most modern anthropological studies would dispute this), he still never establishes why the Leviathan would serve the intended purpose - it’s important to note that in Hobbes’s theory the political authority is absolute and not party to the social agreement. It’s also not clear why we should think that the Leviathan will be effective in fulfilling the intended purpose; if human nature is as Hobbes describes it, then we should anticipate that whoever has political authority might abuse it - yet the theory does not build in protections against the possibility of that abuse. Which brings us back to my OP.
I'm also not sure how Venezuala or a gore video is an example of anarchy in action; nor how a single act of violence would invalidate an entire political theory. What happens if I link you to some documents about state-organized genocide?
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Kryptos]
#26846335 - 07/26/20 03:31 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Even an entirely corrupt affinity group would not have any authority over other affinity groups.
My biggest problem is with this right here.
In the modern world, a small group of people, corrupt or not, is able to exert their will onto others using technological advantage.
Just going with a "real world" analogy. Let's look at international politics. You have affinity groups, in the sense of countries. Let's not even think of corruption, that's besides the point. There are many countries that openly exert their will unto others through military and economic force.
What do you do, when one of your "affinity groups" has nukes?
More importantly, what do you do when one of your "affinity groups" decides that climate change is bullshit, and slowly poisons the entire world?
In other words, I think your idea makes sense, as long as affinity groups are not able to significantly influence one another. However, that is not possible in the modern world.
'You have affinity groups, in the sense of countries."
I'm going to have to stop you right there. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what an affinity group consists of - they are generally limited to a dozen or two people max. An affinity group consists of the immediate group of people you live, play, and/or work with - they aren't abstract membership organizations, they are predicated on real-life connections. An affinity group is autonomous, but multiple affinity groups can cooperate together(usually termed networks or federations) without compromising this autonomy, but the power-flow has to move from the ground up. There is not central authority.
With that in mind, I imagine it would be much more difficult to build and maintain nuclear weapons in an anarchist society. They don't really provide a direct benefit to just about anyone and so I don't think it would be easy to convince enough people to cooperate on this type of project without the benefit of authority. Still, assuming enough affinity groups cooperated together to build a nuclear weapon, I don't see why it wouldn't be the same choice we have now: negotiate towards disarmament or develop our own weapons for MAD.
An affinity group decides climate change is bullshit? Well, that's unfortunate but it's just a handful of people. It's conceivable that this group could go on to convince a greater and greater number of other people and affinity groups until they pose a significant obstacle but it's going to be a much more uphill battle compared to what we presently see with climate change deniers in positions of authority.
I agree that your criticism is valid - but can you explain why the same criticism doesn't hold true for our present system? My first two posts in this thread seem to have sufficiently established that anarchist organizing is better at limiting this risk.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: From what I understand of your organization pics:
1. You seem to argue in horizontal organizing that the structure itself places mathematical limits on the abuse of power.
2. What of the power vacuum that would manifest, when one abuses it within the affinity group? Most voids are met with violence and/or when someone loses control of something ..... the desire to pounce on the opportunity, for more power!
A hierarchy can be a house of cards but I do see horizontal organizing not immune to backroom deals/cutthroat mentality to maintain the horizontial structure.
1. Correct
2. I'm not sure if I understand the question - are you asking about the dynamics within an affinity group or between them? Either way, you are correct in pointing out that the potential for these dynamics exist. As I stated in my response to Enlil, anarchist organizing is still subject to my initial criticism for any human-led system of organization and will only ever be as perfect at the people participating. Still, given my initial argument, shouldn't we prefer a structure that inherently limits abuse of power?
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
#26846369 - 07/26/20 03:49 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said: I'm confused by one major thing.
How is a "horizontal system" not just another system of checks and balances?
The pyramid is too basic of a structure to resemble America's government. I would argue we're far more horizontal in the first place. Not just with the 3 branches of government, but with federal and state... in particular the latter where all 50 states get to play by their own custom set of rules within rules... and then COUNTY rules within states! (Like house rules for a board game to fit the needs of the group.)
I can't think of a third possibility... either you have one human in charge of a group, or *multiple* humans in charge of a group, ranging from two to infinity. In this second group of power structures, everything is checks and balances, is it not?
A horizontal system is just another system of checks-and-balances and similarly fallible - but all other things equal, its structure is such that it will inherently limit the potential abuse of authority more than a hierarchical system.
You're correct that the American republic has taken some steps to limit centralization of authority but the structure of government is still undeniable hierarchical in structure. I would also argue that the argument you make here is odd, given your vocal support for the federal government sending unmarked troops into Portland against the explicit requests of all levels of local government. Clearly the US government still has a strong element of centralized authority.
I'm not really sure what you mean by that second group of power structures, but here's a third possibility: no one's in charge of the group.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: This is from the article linked in your post.
Quote:
You and your friends already constitute an affinity group, the essential building block of this model. An affinity group is a circle of friends who understand themselves as an autonomous political force. The idea is that people who already know and trust each other should work together to respond immediately, intelligently, and flexibly to emerging situations.
With all respect, that's just laughable.
Honestly, have you never come across any bad people? Dishonest people? Dumb greedy people? Friends that have lied to your face? People that you thought were your friend and then steal all your money and put it up their arm? That's a serious question as I've met plenty of them and this utopian peaceful anarchist idea just does not make any sense to me at all, sorry.
I'll gladly settle for a shithouse democracy or even a benevolent dictatorship over mob rule any day. Any day. 
I'm not sure why you interpret that quote to imply that bad people don't exist or that interpersonal conflict won't exist between humans in an anarchist society. I'm familiar with dishonest people, but have you never come across people you can trust and respect? That's not laughable. That's sad...
I trust in my ability to problem solve and cooperate with others more than I trust that all those "bad people, dishonest people, dumb greedy people, friends that have lied to your face, people that you thought were your friend and then steal all your money and put it up their arm" you describe will somehow put good people into positions of authority over me. Can you explain why you feel differently?
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
#26846392 - 07/26/20 04:01 PM (3 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said: I'm inclined to agree. Most anarchists/far-leftists/antifa find the political right to be completely contemptible.
Unless you want to commit mass genocide on half the population, how do anarchists expect to get along with groups of different ideologies?
Anarchists are probably the one modern political ideology that hasn't even attempted genocide. Just sayin'
--------------------
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,767
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 46 minutes
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
I'm not sure why you interpret that quote to imply that bad people don't exist or that interpersonal conflict won't exist between humans in an anarchist society. I'm familiar with dishonest people, but have you never come across people you can trust and respect? That's not laughable. That's sad...
I guess I saw that quote as too simplistic and that it did not allow for the human factor. And for sure I've met more honest people than nefarious ones.
Not being a genius, at all, I had to google what syllogism meant. After thinking it over I felt the question was sort of like a mathematical approach to solving a problem that didn't allow for the human condition and that a varying, unknown amount was missing from the equation.
Quote:
I trust in my ability to problem solve and cooperate with others more than I trust that all those bad people you describe will somehow put good people into positions of authority over me. Can you explain why you feel differently?
Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand your suggestion of the 'bad people influencing good people to gain authority over you' idea?
How about this one.
You/me, consider ourselves to be co-operative drivers, courteous, safe etc. One of us(not me) may even be able to pass a drug test which is a requirement for the road we wish to travel along.
The police have authority over the road. When we got our license/s we agreed to the police having authority to enforce the road rules when we use the roads.
We separately get pulled over for a random drug test. Even though I'm confident I'll submit a positive sample I agree to the mouth swab. I'm not happy about it but I submit because, I think the rules are there for good reason. I may not agree with them but I'm willing to let the police do their job, and maybe I'll look at taking it up in court, which is how I think things should roll as I DO have respect for the wisdom of the courts/magistrates. Who's to say my positive reading wasn't from a forced meth injection( I was hot shotted your honour! and I can prove it!) at the hands of the 'bad people' and that my actions were not unlawful, as there is a defence allowable under the Criminal Act for authorisation, justification or excuse in this case.
You, just saying, decide that since you're confident you have no trace of any illicit drugs in your system, that you do not pose a risk to the community, that your cognisance is impeccable and that the police should absolutely take your word for it. You do not accept the police's authority over you to force you to submit to a drug test and feel you have every right to state your case in front of the same magistrate as me.
Regardless of the magistrate's decision, which one of us is doing the right thing for the benefit of our society?
|
Stable Genius
Durka durka


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 5,767
Loc: Durkadurkastan
Last seen: 46 minutes
|
|
My question is a bit jumbled but I did my best to answer yours.
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
|
Re: A syllogism for analyzing [Re: Pastywhyte]
#26852835 - 07/30/20 12:07 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Pastywhyte said:
I find many of the arguments against anarchy being made are actually arguments against chaos not anarchy. IIRC anarchy doesn’t mean the absence of order, it’s order without rulers or overlords.
I'm fascinated by the graffiti I'm reading! That the mob is throwing pig's feet is insightful.
Have you heard the protest song "Pig Feet"? The mob is a sorry frustrated group of people indeed.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: A soliloquy from a bootlicker [Re: RJ Tubs 202]
#26853207 - 07/30/20 09:43 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
lol.
"the mob"
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 59 minutes, 20 seconds
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Even an entirely corrupt affinity group would not have any authority over other affinity groups.
My biggest problem is with this right here.
In the modern world, a small group of people, corrupt or not, is able to exert their will onto others using technological advantage.
Just going with a "real world" analogy. Let's look at international politics. You have affinity groups, in the sense of countries. Let's not even think of corruption, that's besides the point. There are many countries that openly exert their will unto others through military and economic force.
What do you do, when one of your "affinity groups" has nukes?
More importantly, what do you do when one of your "affinity groups" decides that climate change is bullshit, and slowly poisons the entire world?
In other words, I think your idea makes sense, as long as affinity groups are not able to significantly influence one another. However, that is not possible in the modern world.
'You have affinity groups, in the sense of countries."
I'm going to have to stop you right there. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what an affinity group consists of - they are generally limited to a dozen or two people max. An affinity group consists of the immediate group of people you live, play, and/or work with - they aren't abstract membership organizations, they are predicated on real-life connections. An affinity group is autonomous, but multiple affinity groups can cooperate together(usually termed networks or federations) without compromising this autonomy, but the power-flow has to move from the ground up. There is not central authority.
With that in mind, I imagine it would be much more difficult to build and maintain nuclear weapons in an anarchist society. They don't really provide a direct benefit to just about anyone and so I don't think it would be easy to convince enough people to cooperate on this type of project without the benefit of authority. Still, assuming enough affinity groups cooperated together to build a nuclear weapon, I don't see why it wouldn't be the same choice we have now: negotiate towards disarmament or develop our own weapons for MAD.
An affinity group decides climate change is bullshit? Well, that's unfortunate but it's just a handful of people. It's conceivable that this group could go on to convince a greater and greater number of other people and affinity groups until they pose a significant obstacle but it's going to be a much more uphill battle compared to what we presently see with climate change deniers in positions of authority.
I agree that your criticism is valid - but can you explain why the same criticism doesn't hold true for our present system? My first two posts in this thread seem to have sufficiently established that anarchist organizing is better at limiting this risk.
I disagree that your first posts established that anarchist organizing is better at limiting this risk.
First off, an affinity group of a few dozen people is a pipe dream. Unless you're going for full luddite, because it takes a whole lot more than a few dozen people to put together the keyboard you're typing that post on. It takes literally thousands. All the way from raw material extraction to final product delivery, in front of you is the product of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people working together. That is quite literal. Maybe you've got a fraction of each person;s effort, but it takes a LOT of professionals who have dedicated their lives to little niches, and even more assembly line workers, to put that together.
So, unless we're technologically regressing to somewhere around the 17th century, your affinity groups will necessarily have to be bigger than the ~150 person limit that the human brain is designed for.
Next, you're basically creating a Snow Crash-esque anarcho-capitalist society if you do allow larger "equal" affinity groups to congregate. This is reminiscent of the current system, except without a central government regulating business. Which means that if Exxon decides to sink another Valdez off your little piece of beachfront property, you're swimming in oil, because nobody is there to make them clean it up.
The options for an anarchist society are limited to technological regression back to the enlightenment era, or a Randian dystopia controlled by a few powerful individuals that can do whatever the fuck they want.
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Kryptos]
#26854590 - 07/30/20 11:10 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
^ This reminds me of the Unibomber's Manifesto which is actually a very compelling read. He basically makes the case that technology makes humans slaves and the only way we can ever have true freedom is to go back to the way things were before technology. In a sense, he isn't wrong. We've all become quite dependent on technology in our socieities.
If people haven't read this manifesto I'd encourage you to check it out. It basically highlights the problems and conflicts we have between freedom and technology.
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 minutes, 29 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
#26855115 - 07/31/20 09:03 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
In that instance, humans would become dependent "on the way things were", instead of technology.How would that be better?
Kinda hypocritical for Theodore to condem tech, when he made so many sophisticated and tech savy bombs himself, that ended up killing people.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
Pastywhyte
Say hello to my little friend



Registered: 09/15/12
Posts: 37,809
Loc: Canada
|
|
I dunno, if I wanted to end the development of modern tech, I imagine using modern tech to end it would be poetic.
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: In that instance, humans would become dependent "on the way things were", instead of technology.How would that be better?
Kinda hypocritical for Theodore to condem tech, when he made so many sophisticated and tech savy bombs himself, that ended up killing people.
He explains his entire thought process by the end. It's very compelling. One could argue his outlook on life was anarchist as well, but with a different vision on structure.
--------------------
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 7 hours, 20 minutes
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Vahn421]
#26856746 - 08/01/20 07:10 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said: ^ This reminds me of the Unibomber's Manifesto which is actually a very compelling read. He basically makes the case that technology makes humans slaves and the only way we can ever have true freedom is to go back to the way things were before technology. In a sense, he isn't wrong. We've all become quite dependent on technology in our socieities.
If people haven't read this manifesto I'd encourage you to check it out. It basically highlights the problems and conflicts we have between freedom and technology.
I never knew anyone who actually read it. Most of us skimmed the first paragraph.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 hour, 17 minutes
|
|
I suspect it would be a tortured read for anyone who is mentally healthy
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: koods] 1
#26856885 - 08/01/20 09:04 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's enlightening. Very much so. (That doesn't mean I agree with a large portion of his take, but he's definitely got shit figured out. His observations are spot on, his so-called solutions to his observations are ... questionable. )
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: I'm confused by one major thing.
How is a "horizontal system" not just another system of checks and balances?
The pyramid is too basic of a structure to resemble America's government. I would argue we're far more horizontal in the first place. Not just with the 3 branches of government, but with federal and state... in particular the latter where all 50 states get to play by their own custom set of rules within rules... and then COUNTY rules within states! (Like house rules for a board game to fit the needs of the group.)
I can't think of a third possibility... either you have one human in charge of a group, or *multiple* humans in charge of a group, ranging from two to infinity. In this second group of power structures, everything is checks and balances, is it not?
A horizontal system is just another system of checks-and-balances and similarly fallible - but all other things equal, its structure is such that it will inherently limit the potential abuse of authority more than a hierarchical system.
You're correct that the American republic has taken some steps to limit centralization of authority but the structure of government is still undeniable hierarchical in structure. I would also argue that the argument you make here is odd, given your vocal support for the federal government sending unmarked troops into Portland against the explicit requests of all levels of local government. Clearly the US government still has a strong element of centralized authority.
I'm not really sure what you mean by that second group of power structures, but here's a third possibility: no one's in charge of the group.
Maybe I missed this in the thread, but what proof do you have that horizontal structures are less prone to corruption? My experience makes me inclined toward the position of, if you're intimate within a group, you can pull it off, but if you're strangers with others, it will backfire.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Rapjack]
#26859486 - 08/02/20 06:40 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rapjack said: I love horizontal power structures in small organizations of consenting individuals. But what of the people that are flat out too lazy or unwilling to participate? My theory is they'd align themselves with whoever the biggest warlord in the area is. It's much easier to take or force tribute from communities rather than build. His troops become stronger than the farmers. A good warlord then patrols the roads for highwaymen, the communities in his control thrive because no more threats to trade. Other communities join on their own accord to receive that protection and prosperity. Fast forward a couple hundred years and the land is divided into empires again.
Anarchy assumes everyone wants independence but I don't think that's really the case sadly. I think average people mainly want security and ease, they'd join whatever large group in the area promises the best protection.
You’re correct to point out that individual desire for independence is necessary – it would be completely antithetical to force someone to be an anarchist – but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that anarchy requires the assumption that everyone shares in this want. I don’t need anyone else to share this desire in order to live my life along anarchist principles – to neither rule nor be ruled isn’t dependent on the disposition of the masses, although what I can achieve through my anarchy will definitely be amplified the more like-minded individuals out there to cooperate with. The whole point of anarchy is that you don’t need to give orders or get permission to change the conditions of your life. You don’t need the numbers to topple international borders before starting to build autonomous food supplies or disaster relief networks.
I think early human history is fascinating, but I also think it would be wrong to ascribe any ‘certainties of human nature’ based off the past 10,000 years or so. Most of us take armies for granted, as though they have always existed, but they had to start sometime. Any starting point for the development of the ‘military system’ has to be arbitrary, and in fact it must have roots in several dozens or hundreds of primitive armies – especially since we know that civilization began independently multiple times. In real life there are likely to be several scenarios for the development of the village, the army, and just about everything else in human culture; and it’s quite likely that each of them was played out in several different parts of the world and probably several times in each part too.
An army is an extension of a raiding party, which is a development of a traditional hunting party, but it is distinct from either of them. Hunting and raiding parties are temporary and when the hunt or raid is over, the hunters or raiders split the take and go home. They may go out again, but the party breaks up after each hunt or raid and it must reform for the next one. Even if the same people join each time, the party itself does not continue from hunt to hunt or raid to raid. A militia is also a temporary group; when raiders attack, the locals fight – but when the raid is over, the defenders go back to hunting and gathering or making pots or whatever. Members of a militia have a life of their own and they fight only when attacked; but soldiers of an army live to fight, and they may have nowhere to go when the battle is done. If they are raiders, they make their living by war – and if they are defenders, they make their living by the threat of war. Either way, soldiers don't grow food.
It might be easier to take food from someone else than it is to make it yourself – but it certainly isn’t easier to grow food for your village and an occupying army. Considering this, I think it’s a safe assumption that the first army based in a village was the result of intimidation, if not outright physical violence. Once the first army was based in a village, and because traders will avoid routes and territory where they are robbed, robbery very likely quickly transitioned to tolls. If one route is plagued by robbers and another is held by a robber baron who takes only some of their goods, traders will travel the route held by the robber baron. A robber baron lives better than a highwayman because they can build a fortress and hold land – historically, many castles were built to enforce a local aristocrat's claim to a toll on goods passing through ‘their’ land – but history also tells us that early peasants, villagers, and common soldiers lived in poverty, especially when compared to the hunter-gather lifestyle that immediately preceded this transition.
The point of all this is to illustrate that all signs point to this relatively recent development of human society being the product of force and coercion, rather than some sort of inevitable by-product of human nature. There’s no historic records where a stateless society was able to successfully resist the spread of nations and empires, but should a modern-day anarchist society be compared to stone-age hunter gatherers? On a similar note, the cultures we see as great civilizations were all supported by slaves who were brutally repressed, and dominated by kings and priests with absolute authority. Is such a society still viable in the present-age? Maybe historical comparisons don’t hold as much water anymore.
The way I see it, the worst danger of anarchism is that we might end up replicating a society similar to the one we currently live in. Why not keep trying? Human society has significantly changed in the past – the divine right of kings is gone and technology has given us an unprecedented global communication network. It's true that we'll never be able to establish a successful long-term anarchist society if we cannot defend against armies, but the only reason to assume it won’t ever happen is if we don’t try. Even if true anarchy is impossible, like ancient mariners using the stars as guides, it can still lead us to a new world.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Enlil] 1
#26859558 - 08/02/20 07:09 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: Vertical organization is superior as it has less ambiguities within duties and a greater production ability. Decision making is more efficient; Less trust is needed.
Horizontal organizing by its very nature, is flat and must grow accordingly. There are multiple decision makers creating bottlenecks; there is less expeditious movement of the organization....everyone must trust themselves, and everyone else....
In short, trust and how it relates the human condition is very complex. You must see it all the time in contract law and torts. It could be spelled out verbatim in a contract; yet, you find the only way to enforce would be to litigate. Things that require more trust restrain (unfortunately) growth and efficiency due to our flawed human nature.
My response would be this: should efficiency or autonomy be held to a higher priority for human organization? The organization of an ant colony is incredibly efficient but it would also make for an incredibly dystopian human society.
Quote:
Enlil said: Efficient at getting a group of people to act with a common goal, yes. That isn't all a social structure needs to do, though. Ideally, government would serve two main goals:
1. Maximize freedom, and 2. Maximize human wellbeing.
A top-down approach can certainly be more efficient at 2, but it compromises 1 significantly. IMO, horizontal systems are better at 1 but not as efficient at 2.
These two larger groups can be thought of as addressing these issues:
1. How can we live together peacefully? 2. How can we work together to improve our lives?
The first is about giving up some autonomy for the greater good, while the second is about setting up systems that encourage innovation and progress. Those two are necessarily at odds to an extent. Our current system has done the second part very well, but the first has slowly eroded and is now in a very bad state of affairs.
Yeah, same point I'm making - where should we place our priorities. I would argue that the two aren't necessarily conversely related either. Maybe maximizing freedom will lead to the maximization of human well-being - perhaps human well-being is directly dependent on human freedom. Also 'Efficiency' does not necessarily equate to human well-being - I would say it relates more directly to the productive potential of a society, which doesn't sound nearly as important.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
I'm inclined to agree. Most anarchists/far-leftists/antifa find the political right to be completely contemptible.
Unless you want to commit mass genocide on half the population, how do anarchists expect to get along with groups of different ideologies?
When it comes to their passion for destruction, anarchists often don't discriminate. For example the Frederick Douglass Statue in Rochester, N.Y that was destroyed. He is a prominent Black abolitionist. And Jesus and Christian figures being attacked.
Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King thinks that any statues or general depictions that showcase Jesus Christ with European features should be torn down. He says depictions of Jesus Christ are a form of white supremacy.
I'm tired of people saying the mob doesn't understand history. Lets be clear. The mob doesn't care about history. They care about one thing - destruction.
Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!
Mikhail Bakunin, revolutionary anarchist born into a Russian noble family
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 minutes, 29 seconds
|
|
shivas.wisdom: .... the maximization of human well-being - perhaps human well-being is directly dependent on human freedom. Also 'Efficiency' does not necessarily equate to human well-being - I would say it relates more directly to the productive potential of a society, which doesn't sound nearly as important. ______________________________________________
Dude, the productive potential of a society is a fundamental bedrock of it's existence. Wars are fought for resources after all....it also is incorporated in the horizontial hierarchy theory.
Not that I dont see merit in what you purpose, however in order for it to work, the people that encompass the infinity groups would need to be void of becoming power hungry. How you could find like minded individuals would certainly be a significant obstacle.
In my 16 mins of research, I am unable find any significant historical example of horizontial organizing. Is that an example of the vertical hierarchy being superior....and dare I say what we are stuck with? Or is there an example?
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,263
Last seen: 59 minutes, 20 seconds
|
|
The Summer of Love in 1967 comes to mind.
Of course, it ended with people realizing they need a job. Whether that's due to social pressure or inherent failings of the movement (or both) is up for discussion.
|
Pastywhyte
Say hello to my little friend



Registered: 09/15/12
Posts: 37,809
Loc: Canada
|
Re: A syllogism for anarchy [Re: Kryptos] 1
#26859737 - 08/02/20 08:54 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Wasn’t Catalonia in much of the thirties considered anarchist or at least syndicalism?
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 52 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: A syllogism for analyzing [Re: Pastywhyte]
#26872011 - 08/09/20 05:43 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Pastywhyte said: I find many of the arguments against anarchy being made are actually arguments against chaos not anarchy. IIRC anarchy doesn’t mean the absence of order, it’s order without rulers or overlords. There are many issues surrounding achieving a horizontal society but we are getting to a point where some of those old obstacles are less formidable. Technology has the potential to limit or reduce the effects of social strain that are applied by resource scarcity. Labour scarcity is also becoming less of an issue. I believe we are reaching a point as a species where many of the old assumptions on social structures no longer apply.
Or course a major paradigm shift will be needed before people will be willing to accept things like abandoning consumer culture or keeping up with the Joneses. These are societal and cultural behaviours that are rooted in scarcity and oppression but that doesn’t mean people will easily abandon them despite having their needs and even their wants met. But the world is changing regardless, this pandemic and lockdowns etc, have made many people more aware of what actually makes the system run, who it really benefits from it, and who is truly essential to its ability to function as a system.
I don’t think people are ready to give up these old ways of organizing ourselves as they are very entrenched, but they are becoming less comfortable as of late. This is oddly beneficial to encouraging people to consider alternative mindsets.
Well said - a common refrain I hear is that 'anarchy means no rulers, not no rules'. If we wanted to get all etymological in here, the root of the word lies in the greek word arkhos, meaning ruler, and the prefix an, meaning without - literally without rulers. People may be more familiar with anarchist methods of resisting the state (probably because that's the only aspect consistently represented in corporate media) but if you ever get down to anarchy as an ideology, most of it revolves around alternative methods of human organization. That's it.
It's surprising how something so benevolent came to be depicted so harshly - until you realize that anarchy threatens the established elite in a way that not even state communism can. One of the most successful propaganda jobs of the 20th century was associating anarchy with chaos.

I agree that widespread adoption will require a society wide paradigm shift that won't happen easily - but we've known human society to have gone through paradigm shifts of similar immensity in our past (shifting to agriculture, shifting to urban living, shifting away from divine monarchies, shifting to a digital world) that I don't see any reason to assume another won't happen. If there is any trait we can ascribe to human nature, it's likely to be our ability to change and adapt. And the beautiful part about anarchy, horizontal organizing, decentralization, etc - you don't need an established overarching societal structure in order for you to begin establishing these concepts in your life.
And that, in it's own way is one of the best form of anarchist propaganda: living your life according to anarchist principles - because if there's any validity to this ideology, we need to be able to practice it at the community and individual level. That's been my approach for my entire adult life, and the amount of times I've spent talking with strangers who weren't even aware that alternatives exist before we met is truly mind-boggling. That brings us to truly the best form of anarchist propaganda: direct participation. It's obviously a little more difficult to achieve in an online forum, but anyone who spends enough time with me in person isn't going to be fed with my anarchist theory about my life - they'll be offered to directly participate. The experience of autonomy, even if it's just a slight one to start like the classic of growing your own food garden, is self-affirming.
I guess that's just a complicated way of saying 'lead by example' but it's true more than ever with anarchy - you can't force people to be anarchists. Even people willingly choosing to follow an 'anarchist leader' is completely antithetical to the entire philosophy because an anarchist doesn't want to rule just as much as they don't want to be ruled.
--------------------
|
|