Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The key for any successful politically and economically equalized system... Is circular oversight. Committees arranged to observe and contribute to each others decision making. Shared and necessarily equal responsibilities.
It goes beyond oversight, it needs to be a flat structure, where no one person has authority over any other person. It's not enough to create three groups, give them all power, and have them all watch over each-other, for example, because that would also inevitably lead to corruption. The only thing that can guarantee freedom, peace, justice, and equality for all requires the abolition of all power structures. We need anarchism.
But I can assert power over you by threatening you with a baseball bat. If I get a group of buddies with bats, we become the power structure.
You can't eliminate power structures forever, they arise spontaneously in a population. You can't abolish power structures because abolition requires a power structure to enforce.
The best you can do is devise power structures with multiple layers of accountability. So long as some people are bigger, stronger, meaner than others, power imbalances will exist. If you don't have a structure to regulate those imbalances, warlords and mafiosos will make their own.
You're missing a few major pieces of the puzzle here - why would you threaten me with a bat in the first place? Most crime is a result of inequal power structures to begin with. If all of our needs are met, why would we choose to be violent? Some crimes of passion may occur, but that's not likely to create any hierarchies.
If we have an anarchist society, then we have already been successful at dismantling power structures. Any attempts to establish new power structures can be dealt with in the same way - in fact, in a much easier way, since they won't have anywhere near as much pre-established power.
Revolution is not a single, one-off event. Anarchism requires permenent revolution, a commitment by the society to collectively prevent the formation of new power structures. It requires serious social changes that are likely to take at least a single generation, but probably longer.
Some people are greedy, or jealous, or just want to be in power.
That seems like circular logic that hand-waves the intrinsic difficulty of the task as a trifling detail. You're assuming a solution exists, and then assuming that solution can deal with any new threats.
That just leaves the tricky transition period. What do we do in the meantime? I think a single generation is massively underselling the timescale, what you're describing is likely to take a century or more. You can't build a system off of humans suddenly having heretofore unobserved commitment to the collective good.
We're berry-picking primates advancing too fast for our nervous systems to keep up. Anarchism is a nice utopia to think of, but it isn't much comfort for people living today.
Seems like your mind is made up! I think this is just going to be one of those "agree to disagree" situations. The answers to your objections can be found in the Anarchist FAQ, I'd recommend learning more about it before dismissing it!
On the contrary, my mind is constantly open and I've read quite a bit. But what I've read generally falls into three categories:
Totally hand-wavey, concerned more with guiding principles than actionable models. No attempt is made to describe how to devise a non-hierarchical system that fulfills the needs of the people.
Delusional, based entirely on people suddenly being way more cooperative and efficient in group decisions than they've ever actually been observed to be en masse.
Inconsequential, "non-hierarchical" is abstracted so far that most modern democracies could be described as such after relatively minor reform. These seem the most practical to me, like the proponents actually considered the mechanics of how the system would work in the material world.
I'm not trying to dismiss it, but everything I've read either makes it sound like a fantasy, or a minor change.
Again, humans are incredibly co-operative, but we've all been subject to brainwashing from childhood against our better natures. We can act against that brainwashing. It absolutely requires a social revolution - we need to be honest about our society and culture. If you think co-operation is delusional, I'd recommend learning a bit about paleolithic and neolithic human societies.
Anyways, I'm sure you won't change your mind, the brainwashing is real, I get it, it's tough. As long as you're anti-capitalist, that's fine with me, you'll get there.
Paleolithic and neolithic societies didn't have millions of people. The small percentage of greedy people becomes a much greater problem at that scale.
I find it pretty offensive that you can't conceive of any disagreement that isn't the result of brainwashing. It's extremely counterproductive
There is no productive conversation to be had. I've stated my case and you've stated yours. I'm convinced I'm right, you're convinced that you're right. There's nothing I can do to change your mind. I'm not insulting you or whatever, it's just the reality of the situation. Your beliefs are built from your experiences and you believe that humans can't put aside greed to co-operate. It's sad that you believe that, but I'm unable to change it. Only you can do that, and I'm not seeing any interest, you just want what you currently believe to be correct, and to not have to change your world view. I understand that because I've been in the same place. I can only hope something I've said has taken root in your mind and will sprout some time in the future.
Right but you equally aren't interested in changing your worldview. I also used to believe the things you did. Why do you assume it's me that's brainwashed and not you? I changed my mind because of interacting with people in many contexts. I've witnessed them be selfish, lazy, combative, for no reason other than emotional response.
The fact that you're so stubborn proves my point. Here we are, you refusing to cooperate to find new ground, unwilling to believe that my perspective comes from experience and not propaganda. It's ironic. How do you expect an entire civilization to cooperate if you can't find common ground in a simple conversation?
Maybe this could work, but only if you divide the military across the committees. If it's just an advisory role, it's meaningless. That's the problem we're seeing with the Supreme Court and Congress in America.
Even with those safeguards in place, what's to stop the committees from working together to turn on the people? Maybe this doesn't happen immediately, but what about in 300 years across many changes of power?