3 ms·

>Power manifests itself in many forms, whether it be through money or persuasion or charm or tactical prowess. The point remains, decisions are made by the few

by antt 8y ago

>Power manifests itself in many forms, whether it be through money or persuasion or charm or tactical prowess. The point remains, decisions are made by the few for the many. And simply being good as something, does not make you a benevolent force. Tautology is tautological. Those with power in France in 1798, 1808 and 1818 were using completely different systems of merit. You could not have predicted Napoleon using the old system of power, nor could you have predicted the Bourbon Restoration using the revolutionary system of power. That hierarchy is used by and large in all organizations is due to the fact we're limited by technology, not an inherit law of nature. The original Soviets (not the USSR) and Catalonian anarchists, had they survived, would have been examples of the many deciding for the many. Depending on how much you believe the literary canon classical Athens was a successful example of that for close to a century.

RealityVoid 8y ago
> Tautology is tautological. I believe you had a point with this, but it eluded me. Can you explain (at the risk of destroying the joke?) > The original Soviets (not the USSR) and Catalonian anarchists, had they survived, would have been examples of the many deciding for the many. But they didn't, and the fact that they did not pushes the balance towards the possibility that this might not be such a practical idea. I think that hierarchy is not necessarily a law of nature, but is so common one might be excused for thinking it so. If there is some alternative, I can not conceive it in my mind - not at least in a realistic form - and I would be very pleased to have it explained to me. I think there is some sort of a circular reasoning regarding this, in my mind. I think that in order to have a more egalitarian and self-directed society you need self-directed individuals. And yet,(according to my mental model) these individuals are the result of the society that produces them.
- antt 8y ago
  The point your making is that those with power have power. Which is a tautology. The point I'm making is that the qualifications for having power change constantly and unpredictably. I do not think power being concentrated has anything to do with human nature, just the difficulty in taking action as a group. If you've even been in a meeting with a dozen people roughly of the same standing it takes a long while to decide anything. If this was a revolutionary situation you'd have the authoritarians already taking over the tv and radio stations before you've read the minutes from the last collectivist group meeting. Even Athens and Rome realized this and would elect or appoint people with extraordinary power in a crisis. When direct brain communication is invented I doubt we will see single individuals rise to power again.

by antt 8y ago

RealityVoid 8y ago

> Tautology is tautological. I believe you had a point with this, but it eluded me. Can you explain (at the risk of destroying the joke?) > The original Soviets (not the USSR) and Catalonian anarchists, had they survived, would have been examples of the many deciding for the many. But they didn't, and the fact that they did not pushes the balance towards the possibility that this might not be such a practical idea. I think that hierarchy is not necessarily a law of nature, but is so common one might be excused for thinking it so. If there is some alternative, I can not conceive it in my mind - not at least in a realistic form - and I would be very pleased to have it explained to me. I think there is some sort of a circular reasoning regarding this, in my mind. I think that in order to have a more egalitarian and self-directed society you need self-directed individuals. And yet,(according to my mental model) these individuals are the result of the society that produces them.

antt 8y ago
The point your making is that those with power have power. Which is a tautology. The point I'm making is that the qualifications for having power change constantly and unpredictably. I do not think power being concentrated has anything to do with human nature, just the difficulty in taking action as a group. If you've even been in a meeting with a dozen people roughly of the same standing it takes a long while to decide anything. If this was a revolutionary situation you'd have the authoritarians already taking over the tv and radio stations before you've read the minutes from the last collectivist group meeting. Even Athens and Rome realized this and would elect or appoint people with extraordinary power in a crisis. When direct brain communication is invented I doubt we will see single individuals rise to power again.