3 ms·

I've been a fan of the emergent structure hypothesis for quite a long time, but I do feel that you are pushing it too far. There have been, historically and pr

by mrow84 13y ago

I've been a fan of the emergent structure hypothesis for quite a long time, but I do feel that you are pushing it too far. There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. To some extent this was easier historically, partly because there were fewer laws, but even now, with the legacy of hundreds of years of social and political reform, and a lot of it intended to liberate common people, there are still large distortions in our political systems that significantly mis-allocate power to the already powerful. I would also take some umbrage with your statement that we "haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies" and your defence of the "least worst system" meme. Whilst there are aspects of the Western socio-political setup that are designed around the (reasonably) fair distribution of wealth, there remains constant pressure against legislation designed to develop the rights of common people in society. Indeed, those interested in reducing those rights are often able to gain popular support for their cause by positioning themselves as defenders of the wealth and power of those people whose wealth has recently increased - i.e. the middle classes, which now form a very significant political power base. We do know of ways of more fairly distributing the rewards of labour (cooperatives come to mind, as a single example), but they are unpopular in a lot of the West, and if you look back to history you will see that that mentality was actively created to counter threats to vested interests. Ironically the system of laissez-faire capitalism that was adopted to counter these more de-centralised power structures ended up diluting the power base of the "old money" (and was eventually massively scaled back), though it persisted the fundamental inequality in wealth distribution. I would, however, fully agree with your assertion that these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group. I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word. N.B. This is obviously a pretty broad sweep based on my interpretation of history - if anyone has any corrections or comments I'd appreciate hearing them.

vidarh 13y ago
> There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. Sure. But that does not conflict with "emergent structure": There's no need for a cabal at the top consciously arranging the structure of society. Just a bunch of people who are often trying to manipulate things in specific directions, and where a lot of them will have overlapping motivations. From the outside, that can look very much the same. A lot of the time people are not necessarily even trying to steer things a certain way, but merely looking after their own interests. E.g. a central idea in marxism is that the capitalist is not really at fault: He's "caught up" in the system just as much as the worker. He is exploiting people working for him, but he does not necessarily intentionally want to oppress. He is merely playing his role, protecting what he sees as his own interests, just like the workers. And so you get "nice" capitalists, who try to do better, but they can still largely only act within the confines of their role: The only way the capitalist can top oppressing, is by ceasing to be a capitalist. But that is not in his interest, and it is unreasonable to expect the capitalist to willingly do so - he will find every excuse for not giving up his privilege (and many might be good; e.g. it is perfectly possible an individual capitalist might be doing more net good with his profit than it would have if he shared everything equally with his workers). Ultimately, marxism is cynical about human nature: We are all looking out for our own interests; to the extent we do not, it is because we lack awareness of our real interests or position.
- mrow84 13y ago
  That's right; as I said "these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group." Further: "I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word." I will also reiterate that just because there isn't a genuine conspiracy does not mean, as some (not you, here) conclude, that "the system" is as good as uncorrupted and can't be improved. I'm not enough of a scholar of Marxism to disagree with your reading of it, but for my own part I would say that people are (obviously in my view) capable of acting in more than their own self interest, unless one insists on almost ridiculous contortions of their motives. This capability for action in the wider good can and should be harnessed by society, and my preference would be for this to take place in step with a broader decentralisation of power (and wealth). Finally, I think a tiresome strand to this debate (not brought by you) is the idea that any kind of social improvement inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism. I know this view is a little passé, but I really see this as part of a set of propaganda disseminated by the powerful intended to counter challenges to their power. This certainly has historical precedent, and it is pretty clear that similar things happen today, often through support to favourable political parties, which comes with an influence over those parties' message. Of course, lots of other people buy into the propaganda, because it also serves their own (much smaller) interests.

by mrow84 13y ago

vidarh 13y ago

> There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. Sure. But that does not conflict with "emergent structure": There's no need for a cabal at the top consciously arranging the structure of society. Just a bunch of people who are often trying to manipulate things in specific directions, and where a lot of them will have overlapping motivations. From the outside, that can look very much the same. A lot of the time people are not necessarily even trying to steer things a certain way, but merely looking after their own interests. E.g. a central idea in marxism is that the capitalist is not really at fault: He's "caught up" in the system just as much as the worker. He is exploiting people working for him, but he does not necessarily intentionally want to oppress. He is merely playing his role, protecting what he sees as his own interests, just like the workers. And so you get "nice" capitalists, who try to do better, but they can still largely only act within the confines of their role: The only way the capitalist can top oppressing, is by ceasing to be a capitalist. But that is not in his interest, and it is unreasonable to expect the capitalist to willingly do so - he will find every excuse for not giving up his privilege (and many might be good; e.g. it is perfectly possible an individual capitalist might be doing more net good with his profit than it would have if he shared everything equally with his workers). Ultimately, marxism is cynical about human nature: We are all looking out for our own interests; to the extent we do not, it is because we lack awareness of our real interests or position.

mrow84 13y ago
That's right; as I said "these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group." Further: "I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word." I will also reiterate that just because there isn't a genuine conspiracy does not mean, as some (not you, here) conclude, that "the system" is as good as uncorrupted and can't be improved. I'm not enough of a scholar of Marxism to disagree with your reading of it, but for my own part I would say that people are (obviously in my view) capable of acting in more than their own self interest, unless one insists on almost ridiculous contortions of their motives. This capability for action in the wider good can and should be harnessed by society, and my preference would be for this to take place in step with a broader decentralisation of power (and wealth). Finally, I think a tiresome strand to this debate (not brought by you) is the idea that any kind of social improvement inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism. I know this view is a little passé, but I really see this as part of a set of propaganda disseminated by the powerful intended to counter challenges to their power. This certainly has historical precedent, and it is pretty clear that similar things happen today, often through support to favourable political parties, which comes with an influence over those parties' message. Of course, lots of other people buy into the propaganda, because it also serves their own (much smaller) interests.