4 ms·

>(owning, managing and sharing the produce and profit of their labour). The issue is that leaders and factions always emerge. Even if everyone could 'keep thei

>(owning, managing and sharing the produce and profit of their labour). The issue is that leaders and factions always emerge. Even if everyone could 'keep their excess labor', you get groups of people that position themselves to get higher value jobs or easier jobs. As much as people claim this is not inevitable, I've yet to see this happen IRL or in history.

yourmatenate 4y ago
This is veering into a different topic, but I'd encourage you to read "The Dawn Of Everything" (2021) & "The Art of Not Being Governed" (2009) for long term examples of non-hierarchal societies. It may be inevitable that people may rise up to seek power over others, but the question is what is the best way to respond to this? Do we leave them to rule over others without restrictions, or do we limit the damage they can do? Do we reward this impulse of control of the few over the many to their general detriment, or do we treat it as a mental health issue (like sociopathy or hoarding)?
- hospitalJail 4y ago
  >for long term examples of non-hierarchal societies. Just mention them. There is no need for citing a book that will take me a few months to read before I respond. I have a feeling I know about the ones you are about to mention. They had leaders or factions that controlled the resources(not classless) or they only lasted for a few months or years before getting conquered.
  - yourmatenate 4y ago
    The first of these books is fascinating and worth a read (I enjoyed the second one too, but it is a little more scholarly in its language). The first primarily deals with hunter/gatherer peoples and early city-based civilisations. The second is focused on Zomia - an area covering large parts of China and India that was non-hierarchal and contained a large and diverse population. As for scarcity: It seems to me from my research that it is most often the leaders and factions that create artificial scarcity in order to enforce their power, rather than there being a lack of resources in the first place.
int_19h 4y ago
Leaders and factions are not a problem in a system that does not allow them to easily hoard power. Which authoritarian socialism isn't, of course, but that's not the only kind. If you're wondering why we don't see the other kind much - well, the socialist movements that won back in early 20th century were generally the most ruthless ones, whereas the more democratically minded movements (e.g. Luxembourgism or various anarchist groups) were crushed. So you had a kind of artificial selection for brutality to begin with - but then countries controlled by those winners would also subsidize similar movements elsewhere, and of course they demanded ideological conformance in return. This is largely why stuff like Marxism-Leninism and Maoism is still so pervasive on the left.

yourmatenate 4y ago

This is veering into a different topic, but I'd encourage you to read "The Dawn Of Everything" (2021) & "The Art of Not Being Governed" (2009) for long term examples of non-hierarchal societies. It may be inevitable that people may rise up to seek power over others, but the question is what is the best way to respond to this? Do we leave them to rule over others without restrictions, or do we limit the damage they can do? Do we reward this impulse of control of the few over the many to their general detriment, or do we treat it as a mental health issue (like sociopathy or hoarding)?

hospitalJail 4y ago
>for long term examples of non-hierarchal societies. Just mention them. There is no need for citing a book that will take me a few months to read before I respond. I have a feeling I know about the ones you are about to mention. They had leaders or factions that controlled the resources(not classless) or they only lasted for a few months or years before getting conquered.
- yourmatenate 4y ago
  The first of these books is fascinating and worth a read (I enjoyed the second one too, but it is a little more scholarly in its language). The first primarily deals with hunter/gatherer peoples and early city-based civilisations. The second is focused on Zomia - an area covering large parts of China and India that was non-hierarchal and contained a large and diverse population. As for scarcity: It seems to me from my research that it is most often the leaders and factions that create artificial scarcity in order to enforce their power, rather than there being a lack of resources in the first place.

int_19h 4y ago

Leaders and factions are not a problem in a system that does not allow them to easily hoard power. Which authoritarian socialism isn't, of course, but that's not the only kind. If you're wondering why we don't see the other kind much - well, the socialist movements that won back in early 20th century were generally the most ruthless ones, whereas the more democratically minded movements (e.g. Luxembourgism or various anarchist groups) were crushed. So you had a kind of artificial selection for brutality to begin with - but then countries controlled by those winners would also subsidize similar movements elsewhere, and of course they demanded ideological conformance in return. This is largely why stuff like Marxism-Leninism and Maoism is still so pervasive on the left.