I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I’ve been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understands a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is… Not good.
The problem is, I don’t know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It’s easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I’m also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. …And once you start going down that path, it’s really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.
I also don’t know how to handle the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.
I help with a social group. We jokingly refer to it as anarchism under a lazy iron fist.
Day to day decisions are made in a fairly ad-hoc manner, by those involved. If there is a disagreement that can’t be resolved, or if it will have large repercussions (e.g. changing the fabric of the building) it gets raised to the committee and chairman.
The chairman is the sort who is only there because no one better wanted the role. He has no interest in micromanaging, but will resolve issues to get them to go away.
It’s a remarkably effective system. Unfortunately it’s a bit unstable in large groups. Those who want the role are also those you REALLY don’t want with that power. No one has yet solved the issue however. How the f@#£ do you keep the troublemakers out, when they are also the ones most willing to work towards getting the role?
The other problem with anarchism is that the natural self policing systems break down by the Dunbar limit. Parasitical or cancerous behaviours tend to become crippling, forcing people to adopt other unofficial power structures.
I def. agree with the issues in re: Dunbar’s number. Anarchism can, and does, work pretty well in small groups and communes. But scaling it to the size of a country… Well, that’s the hard part. But if you don’t, then authoritarian countries will eat you alive.
Those who want the role are also those you REALLY don’t want with that power.
That unfortunately seems to be the case with most cops as well; the ones that want to do it out of a sense of civic responsibility seem to get pushed out pretty quickly by the ones that should never have been cops in the first place. And–looping back around to anarchism–cops are a necessary evil because otherwise you quickly end up with vigilante groups that enforce a capricious set of morality and ethics.
You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I’m not an Anarchist, though.
My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).
Can you explain what you mean about tragedy of the commons not being a thing? It seems inherently obvious. Like do you think it’s not applicable politically, or even in thought experiments like cows in a meadow it still doesn’t apply? In my mind, tragedy of the commons perfectly explains why large corporations pollute instead of respect the environment.
More often than not it’s a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn’t a “tragedy of the commons” issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
“Totalitarianism” is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of “Totalitarianism” from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.
Okay fine fine. I’m more of a self-described authoritarian really.
That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
Well for instance, if there was only one singular mega-corporation with no competition, I don’t think it would destroy the environment, at least not in a way that would reduce its future profits. My observation is that corporations tend to be more forward-thinking about their own profits than I tend to expect from the way they’re structured. But you can get an advantage over other corporations in the short-term if throw environmentalism to the wayside. In other words, the shortest path to profit and the tragedy of the commons are exactly linked.
I don’t know what a “self-described authoritarian” is, either. That isn’t a political stance.
If there was one singular megacorp, governing all of industry, there would be no competition as you said, and therefore Capitalism would die. The death of Capitalism is inevitable, but reaching such a point would see revolution immediately.
It sounds like you’re basically saying competition is the problem. But competition has benefits and downsides; one of the downsides is tragedy of the commons, which I think is bad enough it warrants eliminating capitalism all by itself. You haven’t really provided a good argument that tragedy of the commons isn’t a real concern.
I don’t believe the death of capitalism is inevitable – that’s why we need to work hard to end it. (Edit: I guess we essentially agree, the difference is fatalism?)
I think the biggest issue here is that we aren’t really speaking on common ground. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, and can offer theory to show what that means but will put that aside for now.
The “tragedy of the commons” is not what you are using it to mean. You are referring to a lack of regulation as “tragedy of the commons,” which is not the correct usage of it.
Secondly, Capitalism erases its own foundations, it naturally centralizes and erases profit and competition, ergo it inevitably produces crisis and its own erasure.
I’m mostly an anarchist. But.
I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I’ve been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understands a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is… Not good.
The problem is, I don’t know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It’s easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I’m also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. …And once you start going down that path, it’s really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.
I also don’t know how to handle the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.
I help with a social group. We jokingly refer to it as anarchism under a lazy iron fist.
Day to day decisions are made in a fairly ad-hoc manner, by those involved. If there is a disagreement that can’t be resolved, or if it will have large repercussions (e.g. changing the fabric of the building) it gets raised to the committee and chairman.
The chairman is the sort who is only there because no one better wanted the role. He has no interest in micromanaging, but will resolve issues to get them to go away.
It’s a remarkably effective system. Unfortunately it’s a bit unstable in large groups. Those who want the role are also those you REALLY don’t want with that power. No one has yet solved the issue however. How the f@#£ do you keep the troublemakers out, when they are also the ones most willing to work towards getting the role?
The other problem with anarchism is that the natural self policing systems break down by the Dunbar limit. Parasitical or cancerous behaviours tend to become crippling, forcing people to adopt other unofficial power structures.
I def. agree with the issues in re: Dunbar’s number. Anarchism can, and does, work pretty well in small groups and communes. But scaling it to the size of a country… Well, that’s the hard part. But if you don’t, then authoritarian countries will eat you alive.
That unfortunately seems to be the case with most cops as well; the ones that want to do it out of a sense of civic responsibility seem to get pushed out pretty quickly by the ones that should never have been cops in the first place. And–looping back around to anarchism–cops are a necessary evil because otherwise you quickly end up with vigilante groups that enforce a capricious set of morality and ethics.
You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I’m not an Anarchist, though.
I’ll give it a read.
My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a self-identifying “totalitarian,” plus the “tragedy of the commons” isn’t really a thing.
Can you explain what you mean about tragedy of the commons not being a thing? It seems inherently obvious. Like do you think it’s not applicable politically, or even in thought experiments like cows in a meadow it still doesn’t apply? In my mind, tragedy of the commons perfectly explains why large corporations pollute instead of respect the environment.
More often than not it’s a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn’t a “tragedy of the commons” issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.
“Totalitarianism” is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of “Totalitarianism” from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.
Okay fine fine. I’m more of a self-described authoritarian really.
Well for instance, if there was only one singular mega-corporation with no competition, I don’t think it would destroy the environment, at least not in a way that would reduce its future profits. My observation is that corporations tend to be more forward-thinking about their own profits than I tend to expect from the way they’re structured. But you can get an advantage over other corporations in the short-term if throw environmentalism to the wayside. In other words, the shortest path to profit and the tragedy of the commons are exactly linked.
I don’t know what a “self-described authoritarian” is, either. That isn’t a political stance.
If there was one singular megacorp, governing all of industry, there would be no competition as you said, and therefore Capitalism would die. The death of Capitalism is inevitable, but reaching such a point would see revolution immediately.
It sounds like you’re basically saying competition is the problem. But competition has benefits and downsides; one of the downsides is tragedy of the commons, which I think is bad enough it warrants eliminating capitalism all by itself. You haven’t really provided a good argument that tragedy of the commons isn’t a real concern.
I don’t believe the death of capitalism is inevitable – that’s why we need to work hard to end it. (Edit: I guess we essentially agree, the difference is fatalism?)
I think the biggest issue here is that we aren’t really speaking on common ground. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, and can offer theory to show what that means but will put that aside for now.
The “tragedy of the commons” is not what you are using it to mean. You are referring to a lack of regulation as “tragedy of the commons,” which is not the correct usage of it.
Secondly, Capitalism erases its own foundations, it naturally centralizes and erases profit and competition, ergo it inevitably produces crisis and its own erasure.