Your one step away from reinventing communism and 2 from discovering decentralised anarchism as the real answer.
Controlling a nation is power. The people who control the nation have more power than other citizens, they form a political class.
Communism seeks to create a classless society but its main flaw (which is actually a reasonable perspective in historical context and the technology of then) is that it still held on to the idea of having a state, a centralised leadership.
But technology has evolved, anyone can interact with any group through digital means. Anyone can share knowledge or document and publish problematic events in their local area.
Building a network of decentralised neighbourhoods where all citizens are welcome to join the local political debates (and multi local joined sittings) is possible.
There is no need why a few chosen people have to have all the power.
Your one step away from reinventing communism and 2 from discovering decentralised anarchism as the real answer.
Please learn to be less condescending. Stop assuming that people who have different opinions from your own are necessarily ignorant.
With that out of the way, isn’t “decentralized anarchism” redundant? what would centralized anarchism even be, other than a contradiction?
But technology has evolved, anyone can interact with any group through digital means. Anyone can share knowledge or document and publish problematic events in their local area.
OK, for the sake of argument let’s assume that this works the way you believe, in a technical sense. Reality is more complicated than that, but we’ll overlook that for the moment.
Just because a person can share/publish doesn’t mean that anyone else will bother giving them any attention. It’s good that more voices are heard in the present, but there is also a lot more background noise. How much time do you spend reading comments on Facebook? Nextdoor? DeviantArt? Usenet? Webrings? There are 8 billion people on the planet, and ~8 billion active mobile phones. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
More importantly, you can’t solve social problems with technical means.
Building a network of decentralised neighbourhoods where all citizens are welcome to join the local political debates (and multi local joined sittings) is possible.
I would like to ask you to watch the Adam Curtis documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace. Curtis is highly opinionated and his documentaries are built to drive specific conclusions. What he presents is true, but not necessarily the whole truth, so please keep that in mind. Even so this is particularly relevant, especially episode 2, which describes various attempts to analyze and manage biology, ecology and society with computer systems.
People have been trying such things since the 60s. They are misguided.
There is no need why a few chosen people have to have all the power.
All the power, no. However, it is also not possible to spread power out amongst every individual equally. For instance, where do you draw the age line of inclusion? Will 6-month-old infants be part of the discourse? 12-year-olds? What about 90-year-old dementia patients?
Even if we can make some practical exclusions, it is still not effective to get everyone’s opinion on everything. Task specialization and division of labor are more efficient in every context. In practice, if everyone is responsible for completing a particular task then no one is.
Please learn to be less condescending. Stop assuming that people who have different opinions from your own are necessarily ignorant.
I wasn’t trying to be condescending, i ment that quite literally. Ironically, i feel like you’re being a little condescending here by quoting and dissecting my input like this. Sorry if i made you feel like i was attacking your input on the meme.
I mean it more informational, not just for you but also for context to other people who are reading these comments. I am not trying to have an actual debate which for this topic is quite impossible in forum like thread format. Wed need a much bigger debate with many more people if we want to take this matter seriously, that’s kinda what i hope to inspire. Not a solution but a direction to have people work on a solution long term rather then idling in the status quo.
In the same vein you are correct that if you understand that anarchism is not simply “lawless chaos” that “Decentralized” is redundant, but many people still don’t know this so i add it as emphasis. Makes people who don’t know think twice about what is meant.
I am not going to overlook that reality is more complicated than what a 5 minute comment can express. I am not solving this alone, neither is anyone. But you do seem to think about this topic in a level headed/intelligent way and i do appreciate your input and documentary recommendation. If we ever have these bigger debates irl i wish for you to be involved.
A few people will always end up with all of the power, it’s how its always been because that’s how our species works. Having mechanisms for choosing these people peacefully is better than a free for all power grab.
I approve of the optimism that we can do better, with effort. However, that optimism cannot be blind if it is to be successful. The historical record demonstrates an overwhelming tendency for power to concentrate in the hands of individuals and small groups. Even with the best of intentions, people in positions of authority inevitably work to protect their authority, at everyone else’s expense if necessary. They will convince themselves that they are right to do so, because no one else understands their work.
We only need to look at human history, and animals in general. The power of an individual is very limited, so those with shared interests group together for protection. The bigger and more powerful groups dominate the smaller and weaker ones and power naturally concentrates into the modern nation state, political party, corporation, etc. And whoever controls those groups holds the most power.
Your perspective requires that all humans be willing and able to come to mutually acceptable compromises for any disagreement. But that’s obviously not possible, there are many disagreements where humans can’t just split the difference or are simply unwilling to make any compromise for whatever reason. And so power becomes the deciding factor.
Your one step away from reinventing communism and 2 from discovering decentralised anarchism as the real answer.
Controlling a nation is power. The people who control the nation have more power than other citizens, they form a political class.
Communism seeks to create a classless society but its main flaw (which is actually a reasonable perspective in historical context and the technology of then) is that it still held on to the idea of having a state, a centralised leadership.
But technology has evolved, anyone can interact with any group through digital means. Anyone can share knowledge or document and publish problematic events in their local area.
Building a network of decentralised neighbourhoods where all citizens are welcome to join the local political debates (and multi local joined sittings) is possible.
There is no need why a few chosen people have to have all the power.
Please learn to be less condescending. Stop assuming that people who have different opinions from your own are necessarily ignorant.
With that out of the way, isn’t “decentralized anarchism” redundant? what would centralized anarchism even be, other than a contradiction?
OK, for the sake of argument let’s assume that this works the way you believe, in a technical sense. Reality is more complicated than that, but we’ll overlook that for the moment.
I would like to ask you to watch the Adam Curtis documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace. Curtis is highly opinionated and his documentaries are built to drive specific conclusions. What he presents is true, but not necessarily the whole truth, so please keep that in mind. Even so this is particularly relevant, especially episode 2, which describes various attempts to analyze and manage biology, ecology and society with computer systems.
People have been trying such things since the 60s. They are misguided.
All the power, no. However, it is also not possible to spread power out amongst every individual equally. For instance, where do you draw the age line of inclusion? Will 6-month-old infants be part of the discourse? 12-year-olds? What about 90-year-old dementia patients?
Even if we can make some practical exclusions, it is still not effective to get everyone’s opinion on everything. Task specialization and division of labor are more efficient in every context. In practice, if everyone is responsible for completing a particular task then no one is.
I wasn’t trying to be condescending, i ment that quite literally. Ironically, i feel like you’re being a little condescending here by quoting and dissecting my input like this. Sorry if i made you feel like i was attacking your input on the meme.
I mean it more informational, not just for you but also for context to other people who are reading these comments. I am not trying to have an actual debate which for this topic is quite impossible in forum like thread format. Wed need a much bigger debate with many more people if we want to take this matter seriously, that’s kinda what i hope to inspire. Not a solution but a direction to have people work on a solution long term rather then idling in the status quo.
In the same vein you are correct that if you understand that anarchism is not simply “lawless chaos” that “Decentralized” is redundant, but many people still don’t know this so i add it as emphasis. Makes people who don’t know think twice about what is meant.
I am not going to overlook that reality is more complicated than what a 5 minute comment can express. I am not solving this alone, neither is anyone. But you do seem to think about this topic in a level headed/intelligent way and i do appreciate your input and documentary recommendation. If we ever have these bigger debates irl i wish for you to be involved.
A few people will always end up with all of the power, it’s how its always been because that’s how our species works. Having mechanisms for choosing these people peacefully is better than a free for all power grab.
Saying concentrated power is human nature is weird. Humans are creative and social enough to do better.
I approve of the optimism that we can do better, with effort. However, that optimism cannot be blind if it is to be successful. The historical record demonstrates an overwhelming tendency for power to concentrate in the hands of individuals and small groups. Even with the best of intentions, people in positions of authority inevitably work to protect their authority, at everyone else’s expense if necessary. They will convince themselves that they are right to do so, because no one else understands their work.
We only need to look at human history, and animals in general. The power of an individual is very limited, so those with shared interests group together for protection. The bigger and more powerful groups dominate the smaller and weaker ones and power naturally concentrates into the modern nation state, political party, corporation, etc. And whoever controls those groups holds the most power.
Your perspective requires that all humans be willing and able to come to mutually acceptable compromises for any disagreement. But that’s obviously not possible, there are many disagreements where humans can’t just split the difference or are simply unwilling to make any compromise for whatever reason. And so power becomes the deciding factor.
But bears roaming the streets…
That wasn’t a community coming together to share the burden of governance. It was a group of selfish assholes who didn’t want to be told what to do.
Then I think they just reinvented democracy. It would be nice to start over with a clean slate though.