As a general critique, I'm leery of anything combining minimal authoritative power structures and direct democracy if only because of the whole "lots of people don't understand lots of things" thing we have going on.
Everyone --including myself-- has knowledge limits that are far eclipsed by the complexity of a global society. And that's not great if you're trying to fix a problem that too many laypersons struggle to understand --both how to do it and why it's a problem.
Recently said regarding a very large anarchist group: “Anarchy doesn’t scale.”
This particular group has a faction that thinks drugs/alcohol are cool. Another faction that thinks giant spinning bladed machines are cool. Another faction that thinks fences and warnings are uncool. Each fine by themselves, but put ‘em together and you have a hasty medevac and awkward questions about “responsible party”.
It’s hard to draw lines before bad things happen… but after the fact, it’s too late.
as I understand it that’s where Anarchy is something you work towards rather than throw a switch and now we’re Doing An Anarchy. It requires a very high standard of general education so people do understand how to participate in self governance, something our current society (or at least those in power) has been dismantling for 60 years to avoid revolution.
Simply put, people aren’t supposed to be this overworked and stupid.
I lack better phrasing, but suffice it to say: "equity fallacy of education". People nobly want to believe you can fix dumb if you just get education right. But, speaking as a professional dumbass... no? "Stupid" is a spectrum. Some people are stupid because they weren't taught. But some are stupid because they genuinely struggle with fundamentals. Others yet are savant-like, brilliant in some fields, while being genuinely inept otherwise. That's just how life sometimes is, really. 1/2
When an end goal relies heavily on a uniformity of education, it reveals two vulnerabilities:
1) What do you do when somebody is genuinely Forrest Gump and struggles to grasp fundamental concepts?
2) What do you do when somebody can be your rocket scientist, your virologist, your neonatologist... but they simply cannot fathom the value of art or the validity of queer identity or even just the necessity of preserving coral reefs?
Right so, sorry for the delay first of all. Second you may have mistaken me for an authority on all things Anarchy (it's the t-shirt right?). It has good answers for all this stuff, I encourage you to look into it, as I am unfortunately not the guy. Spain pre civil war is a pretty fascinating place to start, they got pretty far with it before fascism came to ruin the party and europe’s more centrist imperial powers sort of shrugged and let them have at it. A decision they’d later regret.
How does a system that relies on every part being equally capable cope with the natural diversity of a people? Will it fail to attain its minimum requirements and never kick off? Or do the spearheads make the same fatal capitalist mistake in assuming a 4.0 GPA at a top tier college is a sufficient metric for suitability?
(Or is this where people start whispering unsavory ideas like eugenics and reproduction licenses?)
I think that's fair, but also calls into question how much of our lack of "humanism" is the result of more hierarchical structures? There's money to be made in vaccine "skepticism", and as much as most of the doctors and scientists who do the work in research and development of medications and vaccinations comes from a very humanist place, there is very real reason to question the motives of for-profit pharmaceutical companies...
Then there's the matter of people's irrational fears of vaccines coming from our intentionally devalued and sabotaged education systems, and the very real history of governments abusing people's trust in science and medicine to intentionally harm marginalized peoples, which happened well within living memory. It's a complicated problem that I, personally, don't know the solution to, but I know the solution isn't a fake-skepticism like that RFK types promote.
I think in even the best, most educated, richest societies, between 10 and 30% of people are not social or humane enough for Anarchy to work. It's also the reason why I dont think communism would work. An example: lets say we all live in a street and we're all nice to eachother and we decide we dont need to lock our doors anymore. We agree to not steal from eachother. Kids can leave their bicycles outside and nothing gets stolen. It only takes ONE anti-social family to come 1/2
live in the street for that system to collapse. ONE family who will just take someone elses stuff. ONE family who doesnt care. When that family comes tot he street all the other people have to organize, have to have a talk with those aso's, have to create a neighborhood watch incase they dont care and keep taking other people's stuff. There is always a billionaire who doesnt have enough money even if he has 100 billion. There is always a guy who doesnt care and turns his 2/3
music to volume 11. There is always someone with a motorcycle who drives 100mph through the streets even when kids are playing. We simply havent evolved yet mentally. There are too many narcissistis, too many scared people, too many people who do not have the IQ or EQ. Anarchy, Socialims, Communism are all very very 'weak' systems because they rely on the kindness of people. ONE asshole can destroy the system. We're not there yet. 3/3
VagueWaffles
Thoughtslime!
lunarobverse
Oh I missed them! I will go look for recent videos now
StarSumiaki
As a general critique, I'm leery of anything combining minimal authoritative power structures and direct democracy if only because of the whole "lots of people don't understand lots of things" thing we have going on.
Everyone --including myself-- has knowledge limits that are far eclipsed by the complexity of a global society. And that's not great if you're trying to fix a problem that too many laypersons struggle to understand --both how to do it and why it's a problem.
SarcasticComment
Also. There are many communities where the majority will vote for discrimination and i don't see an attempt to reform that being the public consensus
Tarmaccian
Recently said regarding a very large anarchist group: “Anarchy doesn’t scale.”
This particular group has a faction that thinks drugs/alcohol are cool. Another faction that thinks giant spinning bladed machines are cool. Another faction that thinks fences and warnings are uncool. Each fine by themselves, but put ‘em together and you have a hasty medevac and awkward questions about “responsible party”.
It’s hard to draw lines before bad things happen… but after the fact, it’s too late.
TheGhostofElizabethShue
as I understand it that’s where Anarchy is something you work towards rather than throw a switch and now we’re Doing An Anarchy. It requires a very high standard of general education so people do understand how to participate in self governance, something our current society (or at least those in power) has been dismantling for 60 years to avoid revolution.
Simply put, people aren’t supposed to be this overworked and stupid.
StarSumiaki
I lack better phrasing, but suffice it to say: "equity fallacy of education". People nobly want to believe you can fix dumb if you just get education right. But, speaking as a professional dumbass... no? "Stupid" is a spectrum. Some people are stupid because they weren't taught. But some are stupid because they genuinely struggle with fundamentals. Others yet are savant-like, brilliant in some fields, while being genuinely inept otherwise. That's just how life sometimes is, really. 1/2
StarSumiaki
When an end goal relies heavily on a uniformity of education, it reveals two vulnerabilities:
1) What do you do when somebody is genuinely Forrest Gump and struggles to grasp fundamental concepts?
2) What do you do when somebody can be your rocket scientist, your virologist, your neonatologist... but they simply cannot fathom the value of art or the validity of queer identity or even just the necessity of preserving coral reefs?
TheGhostofElizabethShue
Right so, sorry for the delay first of all. Second you may have mistaken me for an authority on all things Anarchy (it's the t-shirt right?). It has good answers for all this stuff, I encourage you to look into it, as I am unfortunately not the guy. Spain pre civil war is a pretty fascinating place to start, they got pretty far with it before fascism came to ruin the party and europe’s more centrist imperial powers sort of shrugged and let them have at it. A decision they’d later regret.
StarSumiaki
How does a system that relies on every part being equally capable cope with the natural diversity of a people? Will it fail to attain its minimum requirements and never kick off? Or do the spearheads make the same fatal capitalist mistake in assuming a 4.0 GPA at a top tier college is a sufficient metric for suitability?
(Or is this where people start whispering unsavory ideas like eugenics and reproduction licenses?)
GrandmasterSpank
I think Anarchy requires a certain level of humanism we havent reached yet. An example is: should society be vaccinated against dieseases like Polio?
Decitron
I think that's fair, but also calls into question how much of our lack of "humanism" is the result of more hierarchical structures? There's money to be made in vaccine "skepticism", and as much as most of the doctors and scientists who do the work in research and development of medications and vaccinations comes from a very humanist place, there is very real reason to question the motives of for-profit pharmaceutical companies...
Decitron
Then there's the matter of people's irrational fears of vaccines coming from our intentionally devalued and sabotaged education systems, and the very real history of governments abusing people's trust in science and medicine to intentionally harm marginalized peoples, which happened well within living memory. It's a complicated problem that I, personally, don't know the solution to, but I know the solution isn't a fake-skepticism like that RFK types promote.
GrandmasterSpank
I think in even the best, most educated, richest societies, between 10 and 30% of people are not social or humane enough for Anarchy to work. It's also the reason why I dont think communism would work. An example: lets say we all live in a street and we're all nice to eachother and we decide we dont need to lock our doors anymore. We agree to not steal from eachother. Kids can leave their bicycles outside and nothing gets stolen. It only takes ONE anti-social family to come 1/2
GrandmasterSpank
live in the street for that system to collapse. ONE family who will just take someone elses stuff. ONE family who doesnt care. When that family comes tot he street all the other people have to organize, have to have a talk with those aso's, have to create a neighborhood watch incase they dont care and keep taking other people's stuff. There is always a billionaire who doesnt have enough money even if he has 100 billion. There is always a guy who doesnt care and turns his 2/3
GrandmasterSpank
music to volume 11. There is always someone with a motorcycle who drives 100mph through the streets even when kids are playing. We simply havent evolved yet mentally. There are too many narcissistis, too many scared people, too many people who do not have the IQ or EQ. Anarchy, Socialims, Communism are all very very 'weak' systems because they rely on the kindness of people. ONE asshole can destroy the system. We're not there yet. 3/3