7 ms·

What hasn't been tried tho? All major ideologies have had their run. Some failed faster than others

eyelidlessness 6y ago
To be fair, two of the major ideologies (capital M Marxism..., yes things called communism have existed, but very few people outside those systems has claimed they were even close; anarchism, in the historical sense that shares its historical roots with Marxism) have not had their run. (Full disclosure I’m a former anarchist, not a capital M Marxist but sympathetic and hope that his spirit of philosophical analysis might find a new home in the modern left, which has gotten very good at footing but hasn’t gotten very good at developing an analytical framework.)
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  Of course. Real communism™ has never been tried. And it never will.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Yes, how absurd it is to compare ideas written in detail and history written in detail. My goodness, what a mistake I’ve made falling into the classic trap of actually understanding the subject matter and not regurgitating mantras about it. You’re right though, it probably never will be tried.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      I know, right? I watched this the other day: Michael Malice: Anarchy, Democracy, Libertarianism, Love, and Trolling | Lex Fridman Podcast #128 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIk1zUy8ehU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIk1zUy8ehU He's apparently a self-professed anarchist, and it really doesn't sound at all like the totally crazy ideology it's made out to be in the press. I disagree with plenty of what he said here and there, but he's not some total lunatic, he's actually very intelligent. I'd say a lot of things he talked about actually deserve a seat at the "adults table" for a change, it's starting to seem like the "adults" have had a bit too much to drink and are acting irresponsibly.
mistermann 6y ago
Personally, I vote for the ideology of maximizing global happiness, but I would think part of a proper political process would be gathering various ideas together, and then discuss those ideas, and everyone has a voice. This has never been tried before, so why not try it?
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms? Is it more than "removing unnecessary suffering" (which is more like raising a floor than maximising a ceiling)? Stuff doesn't seem to make people happy long term. And the things which seem they might - purpose, family, connections, community - are things you can't easily push upon others. What form might it take, what might it look like?
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms? Is it more than "removing unnecessary suffering" (which is more like raising a floor than maximising a ceiling)? Stuff doesn't seem to make people happy long term. How about this: >> Here's a bold vision for a better world: maybe the ship should set as its target the goal of feeding, sheltering, and clothing the significant numbers of human beings on the planet that aren't doing so well in those categories. It's rather interesting how in the year 2020, where a big chunk of the planet carries a handheld supercomputer around with them that can half-answer nearly any question you throw at it, we can deliver a package half way around the world overnight, where one individual is spearheading a legitimate initiative at putting humans on Mars, and so forth and so on...and yet, the abstract notion of feeding, clothing, and sheltering [1] the most vulnerable of our species is cognitively conceptualized/processed in a manner such that it doesn't even seem to be noticed by the conscious mind (see: "What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms?"). Even more interesting (for the super-curious among us) is, if one is to point out this curiosity, and its pervasiveness in our society, those who seem to be (or outright declare to be) ideologically most concerned about such problems (rationalists, progressives, humanists, etc) not only do not have their curiosity piqued, but very often seem to take some kind of offense to it - typically in a passive form, such as a silent downvote, refusal to discuss (at least that specific aspect, ignoring it in any reply)...but rarely explicit disagreement, as if there is something ~evolutionarily "taboo" about the subject (ie: "The first rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club.” “The second rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club."). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Meta-edit: how much activity will this particular comment get in a 4 day old thread? :)

To be fair, two of the major ideologies (capital M Marxism..., yes things called communism have existed, but very few people outside those systems has claimed they were even close; anarchism, in the historical sense that shares its historical roots with Marxism) have not had their run. (Full disclosure I’m a former anarchist, not a capital M Marxist but sympathetic and hope that his spirit of philosophical analysis might find a new home in the modern left, which has gotten very good at footing but hasn’t gotten very good at developing an analytical framework.)

fennecfoxen 6y ago
Of course. Real communism™ has never been tried. And it never will.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Yes, how absurd it is to compare ideas written in detail and history written in detail. My goodness, what a mistake I’ve made falling into the classic trap of actually understanding the subject matter and not regurgitating mantras about it. You’re right though, it probably never will be tried.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I know, right? I watched this the other day: Michael Malice: Anarchy, Democracy, Libertarianism, Love, and Trolling | Lex Fridman Podcast #128 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIk1zUy8ehU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIk1zUy8ehU He's apparently a self-professed anarchist, and it really doesn't sound at all like the totally crazy ideology it's made out to be in the press. I disagree with plenty of what he said here and there, but he's not some total lunatic, he's actually very intelligent. I'd say a lot of things he talked about actually deserve a seat at the "adults table" for a change, it's starting to seem like the "adults" have had a bit too much to drink and are acting irresponsibly.

mistermann 6y ago

Personally, I vote for the ideology of maximizing global happiness, but I would think part of a proper political process would be gathering various ideas together, and then discuss those ideas, and everyone has a voice. This has never been tried before, so why not try it?

jodrellblank 6y ago
What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms? Is it more than "removing unnecessary suffering" (which is more like raising a floor than maximising a ceiling)? Stuff doesn't seem to make people happy long term. And the things which seem they might - purpose, family, connections, community - are things you can't easily push upon others. What form might it take, what might it look like?
- mistermann 6y ago
  > What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms? Is it more than "removing unnecessary suffering" (which is more like raising a floor than maximising a ceiling)? Stuff doesn't seem to make people happy long term. How about this: >> Here's a bold vision for a better world: maybe the ship should set as its target the goal of feeding, sheltering, and clothing the significant numbers of human beings on the planet that aren't doing so well in those categories. It's rather interesting how in the year 2020, where a big chunk of the planet carries a handheld supercomputer around with them that can half-answer nearly any question you throw at it, we can deliver a package half way around the world overnight, where one individual is spearheading a legitimate initiative at putting humans on Mars, and so forth and so on...and yet, the abstract notion of feeding, clothing, and sheltering [1] the most vulnerable of our species is cognitively conceptualized/processed in a manner such that it doesn't even seem to be noticed by the conscious mind (see: "What does "maximizing global happiness" look like in practical terms?"). Even more interesting (for the super-curious among us) is, if one is to point out this curiosity, and its pervasiveness in our society, those who seem to be (or outright declare to be) ideologically most concerned about such problems (rationalists, progressives, humanists, etc) not only do not have their curiosity piqued, but very often seem to take some kind of offense to it - typically in a passive form, such as a silent downvote, refusal to discuss (at least that specific aspect, ignoring it in any reply)...but rarely explicit disagreement, as if there is something ~evolutionarily "taboo" about the subject (ie: "The first rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club.” “The second rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club."). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs Meta-edit: how much activity will this particular comment get in a 4 day old thread? :)