Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

Bill White · 2003-07-07 08:32:44

This article articulates how human groups without heirarchies self destruct.

So these are human patterns that have shown up on the Internet, not because of the software, but because it's being used by humans. Bion has identified this possibility of groups sandbagging their sophisticated goals with these basic urges. And what he finally came to, in analyzing this tension, is that group structure is necessary. Robert's Rules of Order are necessary. Constitutions are necessary. Norms, rituals, laws, the whole list of ways that we say, out of the universe of possible behaviors, we're going to draw a relatively small circle around the acceptable ones.
He said the group structure is necessary to defend the group from itself. Group structure exists to keep a group on target, on track, on message, on charter, whatever. To keep a group focused on its own sophisticated goals and to keep a group from sliding into these basic patterns. Group structure defends the group from the action of its own members.

Some people will always rise to become leet - its a spontaneous group event in human society.

IMHO, the genuis of 1776 and 1789 was the Framers recognition and candid decision to establish formal checks and balances to the more basic human drives. Freedom through structure, as it were

clark · 2003-07-07 09:13:23

One need only dabble in the black market for goods to understand the fragility of 'anarchy'. Self forming groups based on personal self interest, with no outside means of maintaing compliance between it's members agreements is inherently ineffecient and destructive.

In anarchy, how do you build a basic foundation of 'trust'?

couple this with a world of semi-anonamous people, and you will see what I mean. As anonimity increases, personal accountabuility to others decreases. This leads to a break down in social norms, which we rely on to navigate and understand the world.

But hey, don't ask me, ask the Mob, they'll show you the world of anarchy.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-07 09:36:30

what is true archary anyways? Even the mob has its own heirarcy. .it is only at war with another heirarchy in any case. . .what would the elimation of all heirarchy create? Someone will allways look up to someone even if offically no heirarchy exsited.

ex. children to parents. maybe the son might rebel as a teen, but they will definatly be subsurient to them untill he can think for themselves, and would probably reconize them as a superior even in their teen age years.

ex. what about people with charisma? The only way to create true archacy is to elimate them. Who would do it, and then who would elimate the one who did the elimation? It is impossible, or would result only in an even stronger heirarchy then ever.

Free Spirit · 2003-07-07 09:55:16

99% of human history was spend in a state of relative anarchy. It was only with the invention of agriculture that massive division of labor made possible the type of political hierarchy and oppression we have today. Read anthropological studies of the few remaining hunter-gatherer groups that still exist. They tend to be very egalitarian and non-authoritarian. It's amazing it took so long for humankind to invent agriculture. Why is that? Perhaps, as happened with some Native American tribes, they found it more fulfilling to leave sedentary agriculture behind and return to the foraging way? Foragers had a superior society in my opinion. Nowadays we're just regimented, aliennated, and exploited by the power hungery and the ruthless. I'd love to throwaway the clocks, the technology, the governments, the corporations, and the elitists who think us lowbrows need their every breath and mandate. But alas, there's too many people to truly return to nature and become feral and wild human beings again. Civilization is a curse, not a blessing.

clark · 2003-07-07 10:04:09

Civilization is a curse, not a blessing.

He writes and communicates to the world! :laugh:

For those who hate the oppressive shawl of civilization, I suggest you take a step back and realize that most of humanity, yourself included, would be nice and dead without the world as it is now.

Eye glasses are but one modern miracle.
A calander is another.
A gun, as a weapon, has secured our domain on this planet.
Antibiotics, damn I hate living a long and healthy life!
The scientific method! Damn, I want to hide in a cave afraid of the shadows!

And to dream of touching the heavens... is that worth giving up too? ???

Palomar · 2003-07-07 10:17:32

I'd love to throwaway the clocks, the technology, the governments, the corporations, and the elitists who think us lowbrows need their every breath and mandate. But alas, there's too many people to truly return to nature and become feral and wild human beings again. Civilization is a curse, not a blessing.

*Well, your position begs a few questions, namely: If you are so anti-technology, why do you have a computer and the electricity to power it?

Do you really want to return to the days when there were no vaccines? No sterile surgical suites or modern hospitals? No eyeglasses (good one, Clark!); old people had to suffer from cataracts (no cataract extraction operations -- which are relatively painless besides); no hearing aids; no state-of-the art artificial prosthetics for amputees (enabling them to walk, grasp, lift again); no fresh, disease-free water?

I could go on and on.

Civilization and technology are like anything else: It's how it is used. Knives are good for cutting bread...they can also be used to kill another human being. Few things in life are inherently evil, including civilization and technology.

As for the Native Americans, their lives weren't all so wonderful and hunkey-dorey (my great-great grandmother was a Native American). The life expectancy was maybe 50 years old, many women died in childbirth or shortly after (like their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere), the infant mortality rate was high, food was often scarce; tribes waged war on one another -- in fact, a tribe in southern California took persons from other tribes as SLAVES. But nowadays all that is forgotten...Native Americans are portrayed as supremely saintly and all-wise, having lived in an earthly Nirvana.

Obviously many human ancestors didn't find "living off the land" in a near state of barbarity all that great and wonderful; they sought out better methods and ways of living, after all (technology).

--Cindy

Bill White · 2003-07-07 10:36:02

99% of human history was spend in a state of relative anarchy. It was only with the invention of agriculture that massive division of labor made possible the type of political hierarchy and oppression we have today. Read anthropological studies of the few remaining hunter-gatherer groups that still exist. They tend to be very egalitarian and non-authoritarian. It's amazing it took so long for humankind to invent agriculture. Why is that? Perhaps, as happened with some Native American tribes, they found it more fulfilling to leave sedentary agriculture behind and return to the foraging way? Foragers had a superior society in my opinion. Nowadays we're just regimented, aliennated, and exploited by the power hungery and the ruthless. I'd love to throwaway the clocks, the technology, the governments, the corporations, and the elitists who think us lowbrows need their every breath and mandate. But alas, there's too many people to truly return to nature and become feral and wild human beings again. Civilization is a curse, not a blessing.

Culture/Civilization. Heh! Can't live with it, can't live without it.

The individual self cannot exist without the group (try giving up language let alone eyeglasses) yet the group cannot exist without the individual self. Now what? Structure your civilization/culture to maximize personal freedom. Freedom through structure. Welcome to 1776/1789.

Shakespeare ==> Jefferson ==> Lincoln and we have the current pinnacle of political thought IMHO.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-07-09 15:52:26

Clark and ecrasez_l_infame;

You make good points... for us. But most of the stuff you cite is pretty recent. You're really talking about the superiority of industrial society over agricultural society. But why is agricultural society superior to primitive society? The switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture seems to have lowered life expectancy and overall health. So what in the world persuaded the hunter-gatherers to make the switch?

Apparently, for the Summerians at least, it was the invention of beer.

clark · 2003-07-09 17:33:38

careful with the hands, it might just slip the eye.

Why is industrial society better than primitive society, A.J.

Isn't that the question?

Simple answer is the improvement of quality of life for some.

A.J.Armitage · 2003-07-09 17:59:52

"Simple answer is the improvement of quality of life for some."

Just some?

Gennaro · 2003-07-09 18:47:28

I'd love to throwaway the clocks, the technology, the governments, the corporations, and the elitists who think us lowbrows need their every breath and mandate. But alas, there's too many people to truly return to nature and become feral and wild human beings again.

- You are right, there are too many people. It surprises me that no one in these discussions seem to argue Marxist/Hegelian. Every mode of production, every new level of technological development, demands and forces upon humanity a respective form of social and political organization. Societies unable to change from outdated political systems and ideological beliefs will eventually break apart and be replaced by those who do.
Small communities living as hunter gatherers can certainly do away with most that resembles hierarchy and state all together - what use is it to them - but such societies don't build rocket ships. Lacking the social organization to do so, they stay in Eden till the big asteroid hits and wipes them out.

Civilization is a curse, not a blessing.

- And what do you have when you have no civilization? You have nature and the basic social structure of nature is tyranny, like among so many primate communities. That is, a state wherein power is only there to serve the powerful.

clark · 2003-07-10 08:17:31

A.J., do you want to play semantics or discuss?

The basic 'primitive society' offers only a set number of opportunities for an individual.

An agrarian society offers indiviudals a few more opportunites beyond that which the 'primitive society' can ever offer.

The industiral based society offers yet more individuals a wider range of opportunites.

And on and on and on.

The rule of law has allowed us to provide these opportunites on a more equal footing so more individuals have the same chance at the same opportunity.

In a primitive society all you can ever hope to do is hunt and gather, more or less.

You don't get Einstein's, nor Bach's in this world.

Bill White · 2003-07-10 08:25:37

- You are right, there are too many people.

And I want us to go into space so there can be even more people.

I like people. People are good. More people is even better * IF * we design social structures that provide all people with a decent life and a reasonable measure of fairness. The greatest good for the greatest number.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-10 12:51:53

Primative life is pretty horrible. . .think of all the lung diaseses one would get by standing next to a fire 24/7. Not to mention I myself would almost certianly be near useless to a primative band without my eyeglasses and cochlear implant which allow me to partipate fully in a industrial society. In a primative society I would probably be killed if they couldn't control me (I'm 6-2, 250 pounds of heavyweight wrestler) due to inabilty to communitcate. In a primative society I would be a lot of dead meat, but in a industrial soceity I can participate in anything I really want, and share and communicate with the world. Not to mention there are people freed up enough form gathering food in industrial soceity to teach me to speak, so I can return to it. . . . . .

Why is industrial society better than primitive society

subjectivly speaking, I am more useful to industrail society, and industrial society is more useful to me. Objectively, the individual has more to gain in an industrial society than a primative society (support, techology)

Simple answer is the improvement of quality of life for some.

More like the majority. Those who would not be able to help in a primative society can assit in a industrial society. It is a spinoff of not having all the able bodied people gathering food. Instead, the able bodied people now help add more able bodied people. And, of course the very defination of able bodied changes. . .It becomes more exstensive and goes beyond physical capabilities.

Now, for the big question.

To what end is industrial soceity headed? But we must not forget to what end primative society is headed.

I resort to the social contract, which is (as most of you should know) when the people subject their own liberty to permit law and order. When there is a gross violation of that contract, what almost always ensures is a revolution with a replacement that may or may not be the law and order type.
When I say "gross violation" the specific defination is not based on reality, but the perception of the masses at large in relation to the held ideals of these masses. (explains why revolutions are typically so damn-fool idealistic.)
So the masses are either coming up with their own ideals or the establishment feeds them the ideal. But if the masses want their own ideal and have enshrined it, the establishment had better comply with it or risk being seen as immoral in the face of the people. The establishment cannot afford to be seen as immoral otherwise they have no power with the people. . . . .
morallity and ideals are closely related in that ideals are the highest that morals can aspire to.
Even if the establishment is feeding the people their ideals, they had better pay attention when the people feed the establishment their ideals. I believe the civil rights struggle was an example of the establishment trying to feed the people their own ideals when the people had other ideals. The people won, in the end (of course, I believe also in enternal vigilance, kept objective as possible) and the establishment was forced to concede to the overiding ideals of the people.
So, there you have it, the direction of a industrial soceity is directed by the masses at large (I am also considering rome to be an industrial society.)

I do not know where a primative society is headed. . .perhaps only toward a industrial one. Show me otherwise.

Nate W.

Josh Cryer · 2003-07-26 08:07:53

His conclusion is wrong.

He missed a basic point of anarchism which is free association. All of the systems he points out are not anarchistic in that they force certain groups to co-exist within one another culturally, when anarchism would only dictate that the lowest levels of co-existance exist on the economic level and no higher.

If you don't like a group on an IRC server, you make another IRC server. Much like what groups did to Open Projects when they disagreed with some of the tactics there. The groups split up, but the overall internet (ie, the economic level) didn't change, and continued to exist as a common entity. This is called disassociation. And it works. And that guys premises' are incorrect.

And no, I didn't read the whole thing, I got a headache after the IRC and MUD parts and skipped to the conclusion.

But I know with much certainity that he didn't touch upon free association from the conclusion.

As to the primitive arguments. I find them silly. We won't and will never know how the majority of primitive socities functioned.

I suspect that the ?stronger? in primitive socities took ?control? just like they do in many (see, almost all current) animal associations. The arguments for specialization and argiculture are relatively simple, tasks were ?comparatively easier or more desirable? and those with the power decided to do them. Pretty much common sense.

I have never argued against the concept that the more powerful will generally reign. I have only argued in all the time that I've been coming here and posting on political forums, that humans are far more capable than all the other animals limited by Darwinistic behaviors (I'm generalizing here, of course, because I'm sure the argument can be made that even highly intelligent species are still bound by Darwinism on some vague natural selection level).

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-27 19:10:14

I was only defending idustrial society compared to primative society. My arguement was not agianst anarchism nor for it. read it carefully to see what it is about. If you are not refering to what I wrote, I'll remove foot from my mouth.

I was protesting against reactionary ideas.

I believe that America is already anarchist to a degree, for the better of the country.

clark · 2003-07-28 10:53:04

All of the systems he points out are not anarchistic in that they force certain groups to co-exist within one another culturally, when anarchism would only dictate that the lowest levels of co-existance exist on the economic level and no higher.

Okay, now couple this idea with a reality where you find yourself in a specific geographic location which you cannot easily move from.

If you don't like a group on an IRC server, you make another IRC server.

The real world analogy to this is if you don't like your neighborhood, then build/move to another neighborhood.

Ah, a vision of the future: Vast caravans of RV trailers, going to and fro, as people get fed up and try to freely associate with other RV caravans.

So much for finding a place with a really great view, and raising a family, eh?

We won't and will never know how the majority of primitive socities functioned.

Wow, hope the anthropolgisits don't see that statement! Perhaps we can never know, but I think we can make educated estimates, no?

Josh Cryer · 2003-07-28 12:01:55

Okay, now couple this idea with a reality where you find yourself in a specific geographic location which you cannot easily move from.

Or rather, look at the situation and create a qualitative test as to whether or not certiain cultural behaviors are effectual or not. In other words, talk to your neighbors, and try to come to a compromise about behaviors they may or may not be exhibiting.

The real world analogy to this is if you don't like your neighborhood, then build/move to another neighborhood.
Ah, a vision of the future: Vast caravans of RV trailers, going to and fro, as people get fed up and try to freely associate with other RV caravans.
So much for finding a place with a really great view, and raising a family, eh?

Granted, if you find that your views and beliefs are so in opposition to those around you, you would want to move. The most likely situation is that you wouldn't, because you'd hopefully understand that people are, you know, different. Even if you did find that their view was too much in opposition to your own, you could move because the assumption is that at our current level of society, anarchy cannot exist without some level of abundantly available resources.

That is, in the case of the internet, disassociation is readily available because the internet is held in common and there ya go, the protocols facilitate decentralization and people can do what they want. It would necessarily have to be the same.

I find it hard to believe that people would be inherently unable to find their own niche in society. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this would be the case. Indeed, the only evidence exists in situations where people are forced to create a niche with people they have questionable relationships with. And also, where some sort of economic attachment somehow makes things more difficult (if I can't actually afford to build my own IRC server, it's going to be rather difficult for me to disassociation in that respect, right?).

And, who says that people who for some reason consider themselves constant movers can't raise a family and have great views? I, for one, can see, for example, people living on rivers, or in the ocean, on ships. So... I don't quite see your point.

Wow, hope the anthropolgisits don't see that statement! Perhaps we can never know, but I think we can make educated estimates, no?

I doubt it. Primitive societies aren't guaranteed to be exact among one another just like current societies aren't. If sometime in the future we found evidence of the Nazis, wouldn't we be somewhat foolish to assume that all industrial humans were blood-thirsty weak-minded bastards?

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-08 15:04:57

I doubt it. Primitive societies aren't guaranteed to be exact among one another just like current societies aren't. If sometime in the future we found evidence of the Nazis, wouldn't we be somewhat foolish to assume that all industrial humans were blood-thirsty weak-minded bastards?

Good point. Since ww1 Communism has killed 50 million people in democide, the killing of their own populations. This sum is incredibly greater if you consider chinas "birth control" methoods which involve killing the baby as it emerges from the mother. The state now has control over the lives of its populations. I believe in democratic nations such as america and to a large degree, britain and her commonweals, citizens have a larger say in what happens to themselves. But the fallancy is that if we removed all inhabitions to human freedom then the question is what to do? And since there is no true answer to that, the only thing I can say is nothing. In absence of a state, no man has any control over even himself. With nothing to aspire to (notice that the state tends to be idealistic) what does man aspire to be or do? Only himself, and in doing so negates his own freedom.

Without structure, there is no niche to join.

With one structure, there is only one thing to join.

With many, man can find his little niche.

"Men are not perfect angels"
Jefferson, directly prior to the consitution.

Nate W.

space_psibrain · 2003-08-15 18:36:05

If you removed the inhibition to human freedom, humanity just might prosper, for what is in the interest of many, may be indeed what is in the interest of the one.

If you continue the strictures that bind humanity to illogical and infuriating rules, you will merely encourage people to flout these rules.

And America is by no means truly democratic...we are controlled by the presence of the mass media, and we elect "representatives" who change their viewpoint every week for the sake of approval ratings. Furthermore, what is a political campaign but a pack of lies force-fed to the populace, and what is the government as it is now (for the most part), but an instrument for the wealthy in-group to maintain its control?

And why must a state be the one to determine what a person aspires to? Cannot a person aspire to great heights on his or her own? Even in the absence of a so-called "state", there will always be society, which will continue to regulate itself so that the privilleged will continue to rule in fact if not in name

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-16 10:30:28

If you continue the strictures that bind humanity to illogical and infuriating rules, you will merely encourage people to flout these rules.

Are they truely illogical? Time erases meaning to things like nothing else.

The power gird that failed in my area did so under a organization that was quasi government and quasi business. Some would beg the question why we don't deregulate everything that concerns the ultilitys. The truth is, we can't truly do so; govenernment and business are fused as one. There is no clear line where business and government begins.

Even in the absence of a so-called "state", there will always be society, which will continue to regulate itself so that the privilleged will continue to rule in fact if not in name

Many times the state and society are one, but not always. society often adheres to the social contract, where withen themselves they agree to give up some of their freedoms to insure other freedoms and their own survival. Ultimately, there is no counter-culture, as when they rise to power, they become the state, simply by definition of the social contract. The privillaged are those who have charisma, respect, and to some degree a following for that person(s). Linage helps in gathering experience and education, but in the end it is the ideals and cohension of that following that determine what power the privillaged have. It only takes an incredibly small number of "true believers" to move mountains, heaven and earth in a society given that most people just couldn't care less about ideals. But there are always enough that do.

Even today, with all the information, less than 50% of the electorate in the USA voted during the presidental election. out of that 50%, very few really had a sense of importance as to the value of their vote. Senatorial elections are decided on extremly small porportions of the population, and that is where the more idealistic "crusaders" appear. The senators that reapeatedly get in office have an highly idealistic organization behind them, ready to do allmost anything for their "cause". They do care, and they do get their "hero" elected. The general population, by and large, cannot even recall who their senator or rep is. They just don't care enough, but these organizations are more than enough to keep these senators in power.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-08-20 19:23:50

prome is right regarding the people in our society. It is basically governed, in the final sense, by a small "core" of individuals. When only 50% of the electorate even votes, much less has a deep committment to some kind of political ideal, there is something definitely wrong with the society. What would a really democratic society look like? Well, the most democratic modern forms that I've ever heard of are the Israeli kibbutzim. In most of those, you had about half of the relevant electorate show up for voting on every issue. That's very interesting, and I think this kind of real democracy is something we should strive towards.

You're also right to say that there isn't a clear line between government and business. That's because the more wealth a person accumulates, the more they inevitably tend to infringe on the liberty of other people. That's just inherent to the concept of having a small few make the decisions about wealth that affects a much greater many. Those few by definition have the power in the society. Mussolini actually said "Fascism may as well be called corporatism because it represents the merger of state and corporate power". He was right.

Anyway, regarding anarchism, as far as I understand it, anarchism is the idea that you can reach a state in society where there isn't a need for an organization which keeps people from hurting eachother, because people have no impluse to do that. It's definitely true that, at least in some places, a society like that is attainable. We know this because it has been attained ; there have been small communities where people lived communally and there was essentially no crime. Everybody knew eachother and everybody was basically friendly and human toward eachother. Whether this can be attained without grouping people into small communities is unknown ; I don't know if it has ever been done before. There are basic structures that we assume would have to put in place to allow that to occur, and there are some instances that I know of where such structures were put into place, like in some parts of Spain in 1936, in the big cities even. They were basically egalitarian arrangements. However, given that this experiment in egalitarianism was destroyed with help from all the major world powers (USSR, Nazi Germany, USA) it isn't really possible to say, as far as I can see, with too much certainty what the "final" outcome would have been had the experiment been given a decade or so to mature. There are others, too, though that's probably the best one.

Whatever the outcome, I think it is pretty much certain to make a better world if we get rid of totalitarian arrangements in society, like the ones that exist inside corporations, and replace them with free, democratic ones.

Surferosad · 2003-08-28 17:22:39

Whatever the outcome, I think it is pretty much certain to make a better world if we get rid of totalitarian arrangements in society, like the ones that exist inside corporations, and replace them with free, democratic ones.

I second that! I mean, what's the point of going to all the trouble of getting to Mars if we get there and repeat the same mistakes we have made here on Earth? I want humanity to go to Mars to change and be changed, not to recreate the Earth!

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-30 13:54:58

I want humanity to go to Mars to change and be changed, not to recreate the Earth!

Quite so! Quite so indeed! This is what interests me so much about ?Free Market Frontieer? people. That once they get out there, they're still practicing many of the relations they had before they left (hypothetically speaking). They would have there be a huge interplanetary trade organization maintained by a military of sorts where practically everything relies on Earth interaction to work.

An independent Mars is a much more interesting prospect, I think. Much more.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-07-07 08:32:44

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#2 2003-07-07 09:13:23

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#3 2003-07-07 09:36:30

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#4 2003-07-07 09:55:16

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#5 2003-07-07 10:04:09

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#6 2003-07-07 10:17:32

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#7 2003-07-07 10:36:02

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#8 2003-07-09 15:52:26

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#9 2003-07-09 17:33:38

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#10 2003-07-09 17:59:52

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#11 2003-07-09 18:47:28

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#12 2003-07-10 08:17:31

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#13 2003-07-10 08:25:37

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#14 2003-07-10 12:51:53

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#15 2003-07-26 08:07:53

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#16 2003-07-27 19:10:14

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#17 2003-07-28 10:53:04

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#18 2003-07-28 12:01:55

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#19 2003-08-08 15:04:57

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#20 2003-08-15 18:36:05

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#21 2003-08-16 10:30:28

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#22 2003-08-20 19:23:50

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#23 2003-08-28 17:22:39

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

#24 2003-08-30 13:54:58

Re: Why anarchy must fail - There will alway be leet

Board footer