5 ms·
Unfortunately authority doesn't behave better in the presence of itself
by __s 6y ago
Unfortunately authority doesn't behave better in the presence of itself
- oblio 6y agoTrue, but the real world is about compromises and lesser evils. Formal authority is quite often better than arbitrary, informal authority. And make no mistake, humans are social, their natural congregations are hierarchical.
- sudosysgen 6y agoI'm not sure this is true. Not only were humans very loosely hierarchical essentially until the invention of agriculture, but anarchism doesn't advocate for arbitrary and informal authority, but for limited in any authority at all unless absolutely necessary, in which case it must be directly kept in check.
- oblio 6y agoRegarding humans being organized very loosely until agriculture personally I wouldn't consider that as a plus. We're on HN, just think about the pace of human development before agriculture and after. We were pretty much doing the same thing for half a million years and then in 10000 years: rockets in space! ;-)
- sudosysgen 6y agoSure, but that still directly goes against the argument that humans are naturally hierarchical, because they aren't. And there are ways to have agriculture and industry and compounding scientific advancements without having rigid hierarchies, are there not?
- oblio 6y agoThey are hierarchical. All primates are. Agriculture just revealed the need for a level of social structure no other species on Earth could achieve before. Regarding your follow-up question, maybe there are ways to achieve the same thing with a radically different social structure. The problem with social changes on this scale is that they are extremely disruptive. I'd rather reform and improve iteratively than rewrite the whole code base ;-)
- sudosysgen 6y agoYou should consider the issues of iteratively improving the same code base, pushing to prod for hundreds of years! Primate dominance hierarchies are weak, accountable, and constantly challenged, and not even necessary in humans which exhibit other behaviors depending on nature. As a consequences, hierarchy is not necessary in humans and not inherent. That being said, there are ways to move into anarchism that aren't that disruptive as long as the dominant power structure doesn't decide to violently repress it. Syndicalism into market socialism into anarchism is a common one.
- oblio 6y agoI'd be curious where anarchism was applied on a large scale for more than a generation and the result was good. Regarding the code analogy, I'd rather have a million pushes to prod than one huge force push that rewrites history;-)
- sudosysgen 6y agoBut as I said, it's possible to transition to anarchy. You don't need to do it in one bit push. The issue is when the underlying code base is so bad that there is nothing else, but we can certainly try incrementalism. In theory, there's no reason you couldn't go towards and anarchic society via a million small reforms, but in practice you get executed for using your already existing rights if you state that your goal is to do such reforms.
- djur 6y agoIs it possible to transition to anarchy in a geopolitical environment of competing nation-states? How would an anarchizing state in the process of gradual self-dismantlement outcompete more centralized states in economic and military terms?
- the_other 6y agoThe same ways any small country survives more than a few years.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> And there are ways to have agriculture and industry and compounding scientific advancements without having rigid hierarchies, are there not? Sure, the absence of rigid heirarchies with strictly top-down authority in favor of fairly fluid ones with something like circular authority where the top of heirarchy is selected and changeable by the people subject to it is a hallmark of liberal society, realized to varying degrees throughout much of the world. But that's not what anarchism is about.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThere are still ways to run agricultural and otherwise technological societies with minimal authority if any at all.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Not only were humans very loosely hierarchical essentially until the invention of agricultur Even if they were both this and peaceful then, this would only imply that we merely need to dismantle agriculture and the civilization dependent on it to return to that state, which I submit is an unacceptable trade-off to most people. And even if it was acceptable to most people, it would take only a small minority opting out to retain the power to subjugate everyone opting-in and ruin the whole effort.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThat doesn't follow from the principle. We don't need to dismantle agriculture or anything else, you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist. What it means is that hierarchies are not necessary for human organization.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> you can also have technological anarchic societies and indeed they exist. Where?
- sudosysgen 6y agoThe Zapatistas are an example.
- dragonwriter 6y agoThe Zapatista-governed area is at best parasitically technological (it uses imported technology, but neither creates nor maintains much of a technical base). It certainly might be legitimately viewed as a step up for the most systemically disenfranchised, exploited, impoverished communities, but it's not a demonstration of a way that a technological society can be maintained.
- GrantSolar 6y agoThat hierarchical structures became dominant after the invention of agriculture does not imply that agriculture necessitates hierarchical structures. > And even if it was acceptable to most people, it would take only a small minority opting out to retain the power to subjugate everyone opting-in and ruin the whole effort. Could you expand on this?
- andi999 6y agoActually it does, just better training required. I believe the police in Germany is pretty good, but you need at least 3 years (not month) of training.