4 ms·

So when I say - point at any organization even supposedly egalitarian ones and you'll see oligarchy. There are rulers and the ruled, rulers are abnormally compe

So when I say - point at any organization even supposedly egalitarian ones and you'll see oligarchy. There are rulers and the ruled, rulers are abnormally competitive and willing to use deception and other underhanded tactics that normal people will not. Therefore in any organization of considerable power, rulers establish themselves, this has always happened in communism too. Unions devolve into the same power structure they seek to fight. Have any evidence of an exception?

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
You made the claim. Evidence is the job of the one making the claim. But, consider a good sports team. The coach is not chosen because he used underhanded tactics to triumph over other coaching candidates, but because he has a track record of being able to coach. The players are chosen, not because they win political contests, but because they're better at playing the game. The starters are chosen, not because they used deception, but because they're actually better players than the ones who are not starters. And yes, I know you can find teams that are power structures rather than meritocracies. They tend to be the worst teams, though.
- lurking15 2y ago
  A sports team isn't a political body like a government or union. It's entertainment and performance can't be faked.
carapace 2y ago
The Quakers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
- lurking15 2y ago
  I think it's really naive to think that Quakers were somehow immune to basic power structures found in every society. Even emphasizing consensus as an ideal or practice doesn't mean there aren't the same oligarchic structures and power brokers you find everywhere else.
  - carapace 2y ago
    Clearly you've never hung out with Quakers. You asked for a counter-example, I provided one, you dismiss it with no evidence. Truly has it been said, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
    - AndrewKemendo 2y ago
      I’ve found in this debate - and most - that almost nobody holds a position from first principles but rather an experience they had. Not possible to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason into
      - lurking15 2y ago
        There’s a certain sort of left leaning person who’d be triggered by reading about elite theory and oligarchy and I suspect that’s what I’m up against but sure impugn me as unprincipled.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

You made the claim. Evidence is the job of the one making the claim. But, consider a good sports team. The coach is not chosen because he used underhanded tactics to triumph over other coaching candidates, but because he has a track record of being able to coach. The players are chosen, not because they win political contests, but because they're better at playing the game. The starters are chosen, not because they used deception, but because they're actually better players than the ones who are not starters. And yes, I know you can find teams that are power structures rather than meritocracies. They tend to be the worst teams, though.

lurking15 2y ago
A sports team isn't a political body like a government or union. It's entertainment and performance can't be faked.

carapace 2y ago

The Quakers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

lurking15 2y ago
I think it's really naive to think that Quakers were somehow immune to basic power structures found in every society. Even emphasizing consensus as an ideal or practice doesn't mean there aren't the same oligarchic structures and power brokers you find everywhere else.
- carapace 2y ago
  Clearly you've never hung out with Quakers. You asked for a counter-example, I provided one, you dismiss it with no evidence. Truly has it been said, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
  - AndrewKemendo 2y ago
    I’ve found in this debate - and most - that almost nobody holds a position from first principles but rather an experience they had. Not possible to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason into
    - lurking15 2y ago
      There’s a certain sort of left leaning person who’d be triggered by reading about elite theory and oligarchy and I suspect that’s what I’m up against but sure impugn me as unprincipled.