3 ms·
Like anything that reaches popular adoption, the ideologues are always an extreme minority. The majority are always people who are in it for themselves, not ou
by michaelchisari 9y ago
Like anything that reaches popular adoption, the ideologues are always an extreme minority. The majority are always people who are in it for themselves, not out of some philosophical purpose. So when it hits the fan, the HODL types are not going to be able to hodl back the inevitable.
It's something I've considered in terms of all economic and political movements. If your movement requires ideological cohesiveness to survive, that's not going to be enough. There has to be an advantage to participation that goes beyond philosophical agreements and extends deeply into the material world. If that material benefit fails to (ahem) materialize, then ideology gives way to practicality.
- jondubois 9y agoI would argue that the current western capitalist system is ideological. An anarchist system controlled by a minority of violent mafia gangs would be simpler and more economically efficient... The reason why the world is not like this is simply because most people are willing to make personal sacrifices to prevent it. A society made up of people who only act for their own self-interest will inevitably be an anarchist society. If idealism has held together innefficient systems like capitalism, socialism and organised religion for so long, surely it can hold together other systems like cryptocurrencies.
- michaelchisari 9y agoI disagree, in the sense that western capitalism requires participation even by those who adamantly oppose it. There is no (realistic) way to opt out.
- jondubois 9y agoIf everyone was purely self-interested, corruption would be much more common because there would be no moral voice at the back of people's minds to hold them back. The only hurdle would be the fear of getting caught. It's difficult for individuals to uphold laws in a system where everyone knows that everyone else is cheating.
- michaelchisari 9y agoI don't think everybody is every purely anything. Self-interest is one of our motivators. Altruism another. Fear of getting caught a whole other. Fear of alienating our peers another. We're extremely complex animals. But self-interest is why modern capitalism survives despite, on the face of it, seeming like a terrible system. It would be very hard to convince people who had never heard of it to adopt it by description alone. But if you take away their source of food and clothing, and then offer them a wage by which they can purchase them instead, then you have yourself a participant.
- fallingfrog 9y agoI think you're misusing the term "anarchist". Anarchy is to hierarchy what atheism is to theism. It means nobody uses coercive force on anybody else, it doesn't mean people don't work together. There are a few anarchist communes in the US; the people living there carry out construction projects and so forth, so they do work together on things that are mutually beneficial, it's just that they do it without any specific person being in charge.
- jondubois 9y agoMembers of a mafia also work together. In a society without any absolute centralised power, mafia groups are free to dominate because they'll have the means of enforcing their views whenever disagreements come up. In a society without any centralised power, violence becomes a very effective tool to gain leverage over your adversaries.
- fallingfrog 9y agoViolence is coercive power. So not anarchist by definition.