I’ve tried explaining to so many different people that giving ultimate power to a group of people that were raised in an environment that thinks “greed is good” is fucking dumb.
I think the point is that giving them full economic power would not make the situation better and once the politicians are solved, we wouldn’t need the economic change anyways.
Bosnia, Rwanda, and multiple acts carried out by the Janjaweed to name some of the more recent ones. Most of the other more recent ones were perpetrated by states against stateless peoples which also shouldn’t speak too kindly to your narrative.
Yes, they were trying to build a state. Building systems is a natural progression within human nature. You can try to decentralize it all you want but it just enables optimism. Anything that counts that would require centralized education, aka requiring a state to function and enforce.
When I’m talking about states, I’m especially referring to nation states, hence my focus on nationalists. Sure, you can use a very broad definition, but than “state” barely means anything.
Centralization is a core aspect of states, true. I don’t see how “centralized education” is so inevitable for you? Why not a decentralized education system that focuses more on voluntariness and empowering that on enforcement?
Last but not least: Building systems in not the same as sates building. And human nature isn’t as straight forward as it seems to be. You haven’t seen any other system in your life I assume, and neither have I. So it’s easy to think that’s just how it is. The great David Graeber once said in an interview that anthropologists have an affinity to anarchism since they know it works.
Your first step is to educate literally everyone on how a stateless society works for it to work. Next you have to convince them it will work. I’ve known a lot more anarchists than you think. If you cannot convince literally everyone to play along, anarchy fails. You’ve already failed because you cannot convince me and likely will always fail for roughly 30% of the population about any topic. Counter culture will always exist. If your system does not allow for it, you have set yourself up for failure. You have set us all up for failure.
The USSR attempted to decentralize initially and it failed miserably by their own metrics. The CCP looked at what they became and said they didn’t do it right because they centralized. They starved and then centralized planning. Now you are telling me that there’s never been an attempt. I’m good thanks.
You are actively hurting people by sabotaging liberal systems that do work in favor of radical change towards a system that has absolutely literally been tried at scale. It fails and then becomes oppressive against minorities and inefficient due to not allowing dissent.
I’m perfectly happy in a liberal mixed system where capital is owned privately and profits are shared amongst those who buy in. If you want to start an organization that shares value equally, start a co-op. Unlike anarchist systems, liberal ones allow for you to do that. Just don’t expect to use the power of the state to force it on everyone else.
Today, the whole world is divided into states but state abolismists want concepts like transformative justice that tries to undo the root of a problem, not just the symptoms.
Also: stateless doesn’t mean no order at all, but it’s about hierarchy free systems
There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won’t protect you.
Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.
Surprise: as soon as you form a community, the most dependable members become a governing core. What the fuck do you think a “village elder” is?
Also, what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land? There’s no governing body to mediate, so village A simply attacks B.
the most dependable members become a governing core.
Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.
This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what’s best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.
what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?
The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.
Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.
Decentralization in true left states results in starvation every single time. Centralization results in oppression. The USSR and the CCP went through each of these phases but almost every smaller example does too. The negative relations between the USSR and the CCP even started out as a disagreement around the USSR not following true decentralization until the starvation started.
I don’t know what to tell you other than the fact that it has been tried. It is not a matter of states failing to follow Karl Marx’ best guidance around decentralization. It fails that quickly.
Just a reminder, abolishing the state is cool.
I am sure that will protect minorities! That’s definitely never resulted in genocide. It’ll be fine this time around.
I’ve tried explaining to so many different people that giving ultimate power to a group of people that were raised in an environment that thinks “greed is good” is fucking dumb.
Maybe I just don’t explain myself very well.
And yet thats the system we live in, giving a handful of boomer politicians the reigns while we beg for rights and basic amenities to live.
I think the point is that giving them full economic power would not make the situation better and once the politicians are solved, we wouldn’t need the economic change anyways.
When did a stateless society commit genocide?
Bosnia, Rwanda, and multiple acts carried out by the Janjaweed to name some of the more recent ones. Most of the other more recent ones were perpetrated by states against stateless peoples which also shouldn’t speak too kindly to your narrative.
Well, it speaks to my narrative that states are evil.
Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t these nationalist movements on their way to build a state? Not the kind of stateless society Kropotkin imagined
Yes, they were trying to build a state. Building systems is a natural progression within human nature. You can try to decentralize it all you want but it just enables optimism. Anything that counts that would require centralized education, aka requiring a state to function and enforce.
When I’m talking about states, I’m especially referring to nation states, hence my focus on nationalists. Sure, you can use a very broad definition, but than “state” barely means anything.
Centralization is a core aspect of states, true. I don’t see how “centralized education” is so inevitable for you? Why not a decentralized education system that focuses more on voluntariness and empowering that on enforcement?
Last but not least: Building systems in not the same as sates building. And human nature isn’t as straight forward as it seems to be. You haven’t seen any other system in your life I assume, and neither have I. So it’s easy to think that’s just how it is. The great David Graeber once said in an interview that anthropologists have an affinity to anarchism since they know it works.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
interview
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Your first step is to educate literally everyone on how a stateless society works for it to work. Next you have to convince them it will work. I’ve known a lot more anarchists than you think. If you cannot convince literally everyone to play along, anarchy fails. You’ve already failed because you cannot convince me and likely will always fail for roughly 30% of the population about any topic. Counter culture will always exist. If your system does not allow for it, you have set yourself up for failure. You have set us all up for failure.
The USSR attempted to decentralize initially and it failed miserably by their own metrics. The CCP looked at what they became and said they didn’t do it right because they centralized. They starved and then centralized planning. Now you are telling me that there’s never been an attempt. I’m good thanks.
You are actively hurting people by sabotaging liberal systems that do work in favor of radical change towards a system that has absolutely literally been tried at scale. It fails and then becomes oppressive against minorities and inefficient due to not allowing dissent.
I’m perfectly happy in a liberal mixed system where capital is owned privately and profits are shared amongst those who buy in. If you want to start an organization that shares value equally, start a co-op. Unlike anarchist systems, liberal ones allow for you to do that. Just don’t expect to use the power of the state to force it on everyone else.
How does a stateless society protect anyone?
Today, the whole world is divided into states but state abolismists want concepts like transformative justice that tries to undo the root of a problem, not just the symptoms.
Also: stateless doesn’t mean no order at all, but it’s about hierarchy free systems
Good luck keeping order without an entity for keeping order.
There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won’t protect you.
Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.
Surprise: as soon as you form a community, the most dependable members become a governing core. What the fuck do you think a “village elder” is?
Also, what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land? There’s no governing body to mediate, so village A simply attacks B.
Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.
This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what’s best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.
The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.
Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.
Ah yes unlike the lack of genocide from authoritarian states!
Local people need to be empowered, not politicians.
Decentralization in true left states results in starvation every single time. Centralization results in oppression. The USSR and the CCP went through each of these phases but almost every smaller example does too. The negative relations between the USSR and the CCP even started out as a disagreement around the USSR not following true decentralization until the starvation started.
I don’t know what to tell you other than the fact that it has been tried. It is not a matter of states failing to follow Karl Marx’ best guidance around decentralization. It fails that quickly.