It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

Bill White · 2002-10-22 10:46:48

It all boils down to human nature doesn't it:

I use what I need, and no more.

Hitler really did believe the German people needed the "living space" found in Russia and Eastern Europe. Was he evil and insane. Well, yeah, but he and his followers did sincerely believe "lebensraum" was a legitimate German "need." Hitler's reign was premised on the idea that the Jews and Slavs had denied the Aryans what the Aryans "needed."

How do we know what we truly "need"? That is a deep and perhaps unanswerable question.

-and-

To quote the Anarchist FAQ: It is a strange fallacy to suppose that two people who meet on terms of equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just, or that a third party with power backed up by violence will be the incarnation of justice itself.

*IF* ALL people could be genuinely relied upon to be reasonable *THEN* everyone would naturally and readily agree that little or no government is actually best and anarchy would blossom of is own accord.

But, might two strangers act reasonably and justly upon meeting? Of course they might. Will they? Depends on the character of each stranger. Thus, I cannot know if a stranger can be relied upon to act justly until after I am able to truly assess his/her character. And while I might risk my own life or interests and *assume* such a stranger will be reasonable, how could I prudently risk my family's interests or my clan's interests or my species survival at such a meeting? First Contact with sentient aliens will be tricky precisely because we CANNOT know these answers.

Also, concerning the desire of larger social groups to stamp out smaller ones - recall the Roman Empire's determination to stamp out the Jewish defenders at Masada. How could a small handful of Jews threaten Rome? Yet Masada's mere existence sufficiently annoyed the Roman governor.

So, how do you create a true and just anarchy without coercion - except by persuading everyone to unanimously and voluntarily join? I will join a true anarchic society, but only after I am assured everyone else will join as well.

In the meantime - checks and balances on governmental power.

Bill White · 2002-10-22 10:52:49

Now, do I believe that we could have a system that could uphold such laws without requiring social hierarchy? I think we can; as Eric Fromm points out, it would require a radical change in how we think psychologically. But it's not totally against something those who have weak arguments call, ?human nature.? The more decentralized a system is, the more it is free from social hierarchy.

Where did these original heirarchies come from in the first place? Didn't someone at some time think the creation of such heirarchies was a good idea?

What mechanism would prevent people from forming new heirarchies in order to dominate others?

Suppose you do create a society utterly free from social heirarchies and a few generations pass and then some charismatic young teenager reads ancient history and decides to create a social heirarchy, maybe out of boredom. What does your "society" do with that person? How do they deal with that person?

Eric Fromm points out, it would require a radical change in how we think psychologically.

I agree with this 100% - but since we cannot use coercion to accomplish this goal (recall Animal Farm) - - I don't plan on holding my breath.

clark · 2002-10-22 11:36:48

Dosen't the need for a third party, and therfore social hierearchy of some sort, in resolution of disputes neccessary for a functioning society?

The true dilema in my mind occurs at the point of self-defense. An individual must have a right to protect self from outwrd harm. Now, this isn't a problem if we are dealing with lions and tigers, since, the danger is inherent and apparent for all to see. Yet, the problem occurs when I invoke my right to self defense and direct towards another PERSON whom I perceive to be threatening. The use of my inherent right is at odds witht the inherent rigts of my advesary.

How do we legitmately determine who is abusing their inherent right, and who is using it justly? How is the decision legitmately enforced, or respected if it is at odds with the victor of the conflict?

Rationale people can come to mutually beneficial agreements and understanding, but invariably, there is a point where rationale people behave irrationaly for entirely rationale reasons, based on their own perspective. How exactly is this avoided or dealt with in what you are suggesting Josh?

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-01 03:44:02

Hmm, I can't believe I let this drop to the second page. I've been reluctant to respond to you guys, because I honestly don't support an anarchistic position completely. I'm still, after all these years, contemplating the psychology of anarchism, and you cannot believe how many times I have defended this position. It's exhausting.

Let me ask you a question. We have a room without windows or lights, and a door with a handle that exists only and is openable from only the outside. In one corner of this room exists a nipple, capable of dispersing whatever nutrients we wish. In another corner, we have a soft mat. And in still yet another, a very cold floor. The last corner is very hot. The temperature is moderated by ducts high above, pushing the hot and cold air from each corner together, creating a comfort zone in the center. Nowhere can light be found in this room. A spray occurs once every few days, as to clean the room.

Now, we're going to conduct a rather inhumane experiment; we're going to put a newborn baby in the room, next to the nipple, and observe it with infrared cameras. Obviously at first it will need to be taken care of, to some extent, as newborns are rather fragile, but we'll ween it away from such support, and our impact will be minimal.

What behavior will the person exhibit after ten years? Twenty? Thirty? What is human nature?

To this child, is not ?human nature? the suckling of a nipple, staying in the corner with the mat, and avoiding the cold and hot corners? Perhaps, maybe, contemplating the crack where the door is that you found one day while moving and feeling about? Maybe even worshiping it, second to the Nipple-God-Food-Giver, of course.

This person would most likely find light to be painful, if not be completely blind. This child would know nothing other than the mat, hot, cold, and the nipple, and perhaps the smell of its own excriment, though I'm sure such smell would cease to exist very much after awhile.

Is it so hard to concieve of a society where consumer propoganda does not exist? Is it, equally so, impossible to think that peolpe are capable of being completely equal from a social standpoint (they would obviously have levels of rational authority from a practical standpoint)?

If not, why? Is it so hard to believe that human nature is truely undefined and just a term invented by people who think that if they associate their culture with all of humanity, they can push it upon everyone else as some factual representation of how society ?should? be? Surely capitalism is the only society which purport to ?fullfill human nature?? Even anarchism, the most utopian of all theoretical societies, doesn't purport to do that! (Though one could accurately argue that consumerism is a relatively recent trend on the whole of humanity.)

Now that I'm done with my ?human nature? rant (which I will probably link to people from now on, if they want to hear my views), lemme try to answer you guys...

Bill, I don't think you can compare Nazism to usufruct. Nazism is actually a great example of how insecurity can form a society. If Nazis didn't desire to be the perfect race, and instead had a more nobal goal, like, uh, equality, they'd still be around today. At least then, the ?Socialist? in their party name would be accurate (which in fact, it wasn't- Nazism has its roots in the right wing of politics- no where in it does leftist philosophy exist).

When I say I use what I need, I mean that I use what I'm capable of using! Food being grown by groups, and other technologies being used by whoever wants and is capable of using them. For instance, I need a portable music player (I must note that need does not mean survival necessities here, it means what you need from a resource perspective for whatever goal), that portable music player has been designed by myself and others who understand technology which is capable of storing and playing back sound. I wouldn't need any more plastics and metals than it would take to make the portable music player. In capitalism, there is a lower return, since capitalism revolves around profit. However, with usufruct, I get out exactly what I put in.

I agree with you that it would take a radical change, but I disagree that it would require all people to change for such a system to work; it would just need a good majority. Eric Fromm points out that consumers control society more than we think. All it would take, is a huge effort by millions of consumers to change their modes of consumption to coerce corporations to do their bidding, everyone else would follow hopelessly. For instance (I actually take this example from his book), if consumers decided one day that they didn't want to rely on oil and wanted cleaner more efficient vehicles with localized decentralized fueling stations, it wouldn't take much for them to simply stop buying all vehicles, and stop using oil-based products. Boom. Corporations would surely do the consumers bidding. I know such a scenerio is totally unrealistic; consumers would never stop consuming, especially for such noble goals like cleaner air and more efficient vehicles! It's just an idea to think about. We needn't coerce people to consume more sanely, they would simply have to start functioning more efficiently because the popular technology requires that they do.

But you do propose a good question. What about people who want to create heirarchies? I just find this a silly question, since I don't understand why people, once having fully realized what true freedom is, would submit to a social heirarchy. I know I've discussed this before on these forums, but it just seems so obvious. But we shouldn't conflate social heirarchy with rational authority. Obviously some people will be ?in charge.? Skills would still be required for many things. But since access to the resources required to have those skills yourself would be freely available, you wouldn't have to submit to that authority if you didn't want to (this is why we call it rational authority- it is quite irrational for a person in a free society to submit to an authority unconditionally); you could, concievably, go off and acquire the resources to build your own portable music player.

Why would anyone, in such a free society, submit to someone who disallows access to the information and resources required to create a portable music player? ?Choices?? ?Hey there, my portable music player is different from what the anarchists have created. Firstly, I build them here using my slave monkeys, you don't have to do a dang thing. Secondly, I keep all the information to myself, so that I can change the media on you in the future, so that you'll have to come back and pay me again to keep listening to music. Enjoy your choices and freedom!?

?Capitalism gives me choices.? Perhaps the most famous argument for capitalism I've ever heard. People who think consumer propoganda is good for them, who think that having many dozen types of cell phones, and all sorts of shiny things, have unfortunate problems. At least, that's how I feel about consumerism. You really ought to read To Have Or To Be.

But anyway, I honestly think it comes down to a simple fact, that human nature is undefined, and that the real posiblities are endless. The real question, which I have unfortunately been unable to really answer here, is how we go from capitalism to a better form of society. Eric Fromm's idea of a consumer outlash is not going to happen.

clark, I think a middleman can still exist to settle disputes in anarchy. Anarchy doesn't require that everyone get along with each other on a personal level. Some people would have to make difficult choices. Say, for example, we had to plow through your back yard, because we need to build a water channel. Hundreds of anarchists need this in a city nearby. Obviously you won't want to talk to a city-slicker about the idea, because you're not very happy with it. But you'd probably consult with someone in your town who goes between.

This isn't social heirarchy, though... or at least, I don't see it as such. We could pick anyone to be the go between. Sure, there could be people who specialize at that, but we could chose anyone we wanted, fundamentally speaking.

I'm still not convinced justice systems would have to be fundamentally different from how they work now. People could have judges, but these judges could be elected on a weekly basis if we wanted (I'm not saying that's ideal, of course), or even certain people would be judges on certain days of the week, same goes for any civil position that doesn't require much specialization. I think the solution to abolishing social heirarchy, is to create a slightly politically polarized society. I don't see a problem with that.

Wow, I just rambled my ass off.

Byron · 2002-11-01 08:00:20

Good post, Josh!

Has anyone ever seen the PBS program called "Affluenza"? That show talks about the state of consumer society in America in this modern age, and how people seek happiness (and fail to achieve it, of course) by 'keeping up with the Joneses" so to speak. It seems the more people buy, the more that people want, and the cycle is perpetuated by the endless barrage of commercial advertising. New cars. New electronics. New clothes. If you don't have these, you're a nobody...at least that is what "they" (the corporations, the government, even our friends and family) want us to think...in effect, the modern "religion" today in the U.S. is materialism.

Christmas is the best example of this...at one time, it was meant to be a holy day celebrating the birth of Christ, but look at where it has gone now...it is often said that if the U.S. failed to celebrate Christmas for one year in the modern traditional manner (we all know what that is), we would go into a severe depression. It is nothing but a huge consumer-fest...a time in which Americans gorge themselves on the material produce of society.

Josh, in answer to your questions why people submit to authority, such as propriatary knowledge, working for a boss, etc...is SECURITY..just as the Germans sought security during the rise of the Nazi era. It is just plain easier for the majority of people to just accept things the way they are and seek what's best for themselves within that system, such as working one's butt off in the corporate world to acheive "success"...such as the corner office and a decent salary, etc. The way the corporate employment system is set up in the U.S. today only perputuates this cycle of dependency, as as people working 'outside the system' do not typically enjoy the comprehensive benefits that a full-time employed person does, namely things such as pensions and health insurance, not to mention a constant, uninterrupted paycheck.

Why would anyone, in such a free society, submit to someone who disallows access to the information and resources required to create a portable music player? ?Choices?? ?Hey there, my portable music player is different from what the anarchists have created. Firstly, I build them here using my slave monkeys, you don't have to do a dang thing. Secondly, I keep all the information to myself, so that I can change the media on you in the future, so that you'll have to come back and pay me again to keep listening to music. Enjoy your choices and freedom!?

The answer to this is simple...because things such as mp3 players are complicated devices and rather beyond the reach of the 'average' person...it is far easier (and people much prefer 'easy' over 'hard', believe me) for the average Joe Blow to just go down to the store and buy whatever "new" gadget they have at the moment...money is made to be spent, right? The small percentage of "hobbyists" out there notwithstanding, people just do not find it practical to provide their own needs with the work of their own hands, so to speak.

Can society change? Can human nature change over time? I think so...if it's done for them. Things change usually because of events taking place beyond our personal control. I think the one thing that will provide a cure for America's bout with 'affluenza' is the economic upheaval that is almost certain to take place sometime in the next 15-30 years when the huge demographic bulge of the Baby Boomer generation take themselves out of the workforce and begin drawing down on the collective resources of society...except that there are no "collective resources" there for them in the first place...just a bunch of I.O.U's that the U.S. Treasury will be struggling, perhaps even unable to fulfill. Furthermore, the ever-increasing numbers of people in retirement will mean that people will consume less, slowing the economy down even further, perpetuating a cycle of deflating prices and lowering of the GDP similar to what is happening in Japan today.

Also, I think at some point in the near future, there will be a rise of an anti-consumer movement in which people just refuse to buy things they don't really need...imagine if the majority of people stopped buying new cars, new houses, etc...it doesn't take a strong imagination to visualize what might happen to the economy. While the resulting depression would create a great deal of hardship, I think this could be the catalyst to a postive shift in human nature...and perhaps we would move towards a kinder, more caring society in which people value things such as family, friendship, pride in their own work, etc, over the material things we value today.

Capitalism, like any other "social' system humankind has devised over the millennia...is fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure at some point or another, to be replaced by yet another(and likely flawed as well...lol) comprehensive social system. The thing about change, however...people will not change just for the sake of change...it will have to come of exterior circumstances beyond the control of individuals and institutions.

I do not think humanity is anywhere close to creating a 'workable' system of anarchistic socialism anytime in the near future...people do need structure in their lives, not to mention security...but perhaps the human race could at least move in the direction of decentralized and looser social control...especially if we started over someplace new, like Mars.

Guess it was my turn to ramble on this morning...

B

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-01 19:50:57

At least it's rambling of a high standard!

Interesting stuff.

Palomar · 2002-11-01 20:54:07

I think the Aussies call it the "tall poppy" syndrome - don't be the tall poppy, mate, or you will get your head chopped off.
Lay low, live you life, raise your kids and stay far away from men with heavy weaponry.
Life isn't going to be fair, so don't go looking for conflict.

*Bill, are you advocating mediocrity and complacency? Just wondering. I'm not looking for a debate, I'm just curious. Thanks.

--Cindy

P.S.: Sometimes conflict throws itself at one's door, uninvited.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-03 00:16:40

Thanks for the kind words Byron, as I certainly don't deserve it. I do agree with what you said, especially the stuff about security. Also, happy birthday.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-10-22 10:46:48

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#27 2002-10-22 10:52:49

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#28 2002-10-22 11:36:48

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#29 2002-11-01 03:44:02

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#30 2002-11-01 08:00:20

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#31 2002-11-01 19:50:57

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#32 2002-11-01 20:54:07

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

#33 2002-11-03 00:16:40

Re: It says "Free Chat" -- okay! - 21st Century Online Resources

Board footer