7 ms·

> As for why people would choose to live in more egalitarian forms The question is not why would people choose to live under supposed egalitarianism, but why w

> As for why people would choose to live in more egalitarian forms The question is not why would people choose to live under supposed egalitarianism, but why would that be the default system. It relies on non-betrayal behavior across multiple actors in whom power is vested, which depends on many non-intuitive cultural innovations in thinking about your peers and social responsibility. Feudalism is at least straightforwardly plausible as the point towards which high entropy systems descend. Conversely, it's very hard to see how democratic communalism would just spontaneously emerge and maintain itself without consistent effort and cooperation, both fragile dependencies.

zozbot234 4y ago
Democratic communalism can sustain itself perfectly fine at the scale of a small village, or a neighborhood in a small town, or a single condo/HOA in a big city or suburban area. The whole question is what to do beyond that scale.
- kqr 4y ago
  We have evidence that communalism (or at least something similar to it) has worked at large scales in the past. In fact, it ought to be one of the easiest things to get to work, because you don't have to coerce anyone of anything.
  - lobocinza 4y ago
    Like if trust wasn't an issue.
    - kqr 4y ago
      Trust is one of the most important issues! I trust my two-year old to carry his glass to the table because I've given him the opportunity to show me he can be trusted with that. I don't trust my two-year old to not fall down stairs because I've given him the opportunity to show me he can be trusted with that and he has failed to show it. That's how it works in an egalitarian society too. You give people a chance to show they can be trusted. If they fail to show that, you stop trusting them.
      - lobocinza 4y ago
        Based on personal experience I don't see communal societies scaling. When you have a small homogeneous group of individuals trust isn't a issue because people are bound by blood, culture, ethnicity and everyone knows each other intimately but for larger groups instead of a big family you have multiple groups fighting for power and resources. So unless the society have mechanisms to deal with it it's fated to fail. Our present societies have many in place: private property, courts arbitration, elected representatives, etc.
  - paisawalla 4y ago
    Your contributions to this thread have the tone of a wishful, rosey, cherry-picking trip through history motivated by the desire to arrive at a predestined conclusion: that we all should be living in a Communist utopia today, because it's logically the easiest and most available organizing system for humans. Therefore, we don't live in that world today only because intense energy and effort is directed into maintaining a non-optimal status quo. At least please provide some specific and tangible reasons why you believe this is so obviously true, instead of repeatedly alluding to these numerous, incontrovertible, imminently applicable examples. Your statements are, I imagine for most readers, directly opposed to what history has shown about human nature and the nature of power.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > that we all should be living in a Communist utopia today, because it's logically the easiest and most available organizing system for humans Socialism is what bootstrapped many ancient human communities, even if they didn't know the name It is known (and sustained by scholars) that many societies of the past were socalist in nature, hell, even Jesus teachings are considered socialist. It is by far more popular and spontaneous than feudalism, because it worked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism
      - lobocinza 4y ago
        Socialism as in euphemism for cultural authoritarianism?
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        note to self: don't ever talk about socialism in US centric forums. they won't understand.
      - paisawalla 4y ago
        Let's assume that there's a consistent and coherent definition of socialism which could be applied to all of these civilizations, which there isn't. Rank these historical civilizations by technological progress, quality of life, territory held, and population. You won't find historical proto-socialism at the top end of that list. Why is that?
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
More egaletarian societies usual win wars against more tyrannical societies, provided similar size/ conditions Two reasons: 1 - More egalitarian societies are more efficiient - they produce more because exploited peasants are not peoductive 2 - Who wans to die to protect their tyrant?
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > More egalitarian societies are more efficiient This is true of some key areas, such as farming. But industry and at least some service sectors tend to benefit a lot from scaling up. Walmart is incredibly efficient, and Amazon only more so.
  - nooorofe 4y ago
    People like [Sam Walton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton) born in poor farmer family or [Jeff Bezos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos) son of 17 year old high school student mother and 19 years old father would have very low chances to succeed in not egalitarian societies. More talented people get opportunity to use their abilities, more Walmart's will be created.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      You are confusing apparent wealth of a plantation with efficiency - all the people that are forced to work there could have been doctors, blacksmiths, etc. and contributing much more to the economy. Just because they are exploited profitably, does not mean thats their best contribution to the economy. Its just that their more efficiebt aopkication camkot be easilly privatised
      - anamax 4y ago
        Who is forced to work at Walmart or Amazon instead of becoming a doctor? How does that work? Did Walmart shut a medical school? You may not like Amazon or Walmart, but people work at Walmart because it's better than their alternatives at the time. Walmart/Amazon didn't make their alternatives bad.

zozbot234 4y ago

Democratic communalism can sustain itself perfectly fine at the scale of a small village, or a neighborhood in a small town, or a single condo/HOA in a big city or suburban area. The whole question is what to do beyond that scale.

kqr 4y ago
We have evidence that communalism (or at least something similar to it) has worked at large scales in the past. In fact, it ought to be one of the easiest things to get to work, because you don't have to coerce anyone of anything.
- lobocinza 4y ago
  Like if trust wasn't an issue.
  - kqr 4y ago
    Trust is one of the most important issues! I trust my two-year old to carry his glass to the table because I've given him the opportunity to show me he can be trusted with that. I don't trust my two-year old to not fall down stairs because I've given him the opportunity to show me he can be trusted with that and he has failed to show it. That's how it works in an egalitarian society too. You give people a chance to show they can be trusted. If they fail to show that, you stop trusting them.
    - lobocinza 4y ago
      Based on personal experience I don't see communal societies scaling. When you have a small homogeneous group of individuals trust isn't a issue because people are bound by blood, culture, ethnicity and everyone knows each other intimately but for larger groups instead of a big family you have multiple groups fighting for power and resources. So unless the society have mechanisms to deal with it it's fated to fail. Our present societies have many in place: private property, courts arbitration, elected representatives, etc.
- paisawalla 4y ago
  Your contributions to this thread have the tone of a wishful, rosey, cherry-picking trip through history motivated by the desire to arrive at a predestined conclusion: that we all should be living in a Communist utopia today, because it's logically the easiest and most available organizing system for humans. Therefore, we don't live in that world today only because intense energy and effort is directed into maintaining a non-optimal status quo. At least please provide some specific and tangible reasons why you believe this is so obviously true, instead of repeatedly alluding to these numerous, incontrovertible, imminently applicable examples. Your statements are, I imagine for most readers, directly opposed to what history has shown about human nature and the nature of power.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > that we all should be living in a Communist utopia today, because it's logically the easiest and most available organizing system for humans Socialism is what bootstrapped many ancient human communities, even if they didn't know the name It is known (and sustained by scholars) that many societies of the past were socalist in nature, hell, even Jesus teachings are considered socialist. It is by far more popular and spontaneous than feudalism, because it worked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Early_socialism
    - lobocinza 4y ago
      Socialism as in euphemism for cultural authoritarianism?
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        note to self: don't ever talk about socialism in US centric forums. they won't understand.
    - paisawalla 4y ago
      Let's assume that there's a consistent and coherent definition of socialism which could be applied to all of these civilizations, which there isn't. Rank these historical civilizations by technological progress, quality of life, territory held, and population. You won't find historical proto-socialism at the top end of that list. Why is that?

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

More egaletarian societies usual win wars against more tyrannical societies, provided similar size/ conditions Two reasons: 1 - More egalitarian societies are more efficiient - they produce more because exploited peasants are not peoductive 2 - Who wans to die to protect their tyrant?

zozbot234 4y ago
> More egalitarian societies are more efficiient This is true of some key areas, such as farming. But industry and at least some service sectors tend to benefit a lot from scaling up. Walmart is incredibly efficient, and Amazon only more so.
- nooorofe 4y ago
  People like [Sam Walton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton) born in poor farmer family or [Jeff Bezos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos) son of 17 year old high school student mother and 19 years old father would have very low chances to succeed in not egalitarian societies. More talented people get opportunity to use their abilities, more Walmart's will be created.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    You are confusing apparent wealth of a plantation with efficiency - all the people that are forced to work there could have been doctors, blacksmiths, etc. and contributing much more to the economy. Just because they are exploited profitably, does not mean thats their best contribution to the economy. Its just that their more efficiebt aopkication camkot be easilly privatised
    - anamax 4y ago
      Who is forced to work at Walmart or Amazon instead of becoming a doctor? How does that work? Did Walmart shut a medical school? You may not like Amazon or Walmart, but people work at Walmart because it's better than their alternatives at the time. Walmart/Amazon didn't make their alternatives bad.