That’s kind of my point. Anarchy is more an idealistic aspiration than a practical system. We’ll get to anarcho-communism eventually, it’s practically a certainty, but that’s probably a century or two in the future. We need a lot of fundamental cultural and material shifts before the average individual will embrace the concepts, and there aren’t any shortcuts in geopolitics.
Have you ever actually implemented a system that replaces an existing one?
A government? No.
I didn’t say a government, that was not the question I asked: a club function, a group project, a large event, a project team; any coordination of people for the purpose of performing some task or making some decision. The basic principles are similar to a government, though difficulties multiply with scale. But the difficulties intrinsic to organizing humans are present in some form at every scale. If you’ve ever organized humans, you’ll understand the difficulties I’m referring to. If you haven’t, this topic might be beyond your expertise.
So very frequently, the replacement is ambitious and idealistic, but it’s not until implementation that the flaws become apparent.
Which is why you need to build it.
Again, the hand-waving. “The answer is to just give it a shot!” That completely ignores the fact that politics is inherently social and emotional. A poorly implemented experiment will sour the public on the concept, and ultimately do more harm than good.
Any political strategy without an eye for optics and effective persuasion is useless. Action for action’s sake is literally one of Eco’s features of fascism. We didn’t need to fall for that trap. We are an experiment, we need a carefully constructed, detailed, tested plan to generate buy-in. Politics without buy-in is nothing but theory.
A new charter, a new direction for the system, a new iteration of the system with revised mandates. I don’t think he would have anticipated total rejection of the basic model.
The implementation is probably the thing that’s debated most. The thing about the left is they mostly all agree on what they want, but they don’t agree on how. Some want a revolution, because they think that’ll create a better foundation. Some want gradual change to existing systems. Etc. You have an idea in your head that you want to be true, and you assume it must be true, but you don’t actually want to find any knowledge to (dis)prove it.
I agree that this is the general condition of the left, and a tad ironic for you to say. I’ve explored most of the clades of political theory, particularly on the left. I’ve read a lot, and agreed with a lot, but I have too much experience organizing people to accept the rose-colored glasses endemic to anarchist theory. Again, maybe in a century or two, but there’s too much intermediate growth as a species necessary to actually operate that way.
It just doesn’t offer much of substance which isn’t addressed more thoroughly elsewhere. Even the central concept of “hierarchy” is difficult to pin down. I’ve heard definitions so liberal that modern western democracies technically count as anarchic since representatives are voted in, and definitions so conservative that they couldn’t even convene a public works task force.
And that’s really the central point. With every logistical difficulty, anarchism either hand-waves “The people will agree cooperatively”, or introduces a provisional acceptable hierarchy that looks an awful lot like existing structures at scale. It’s just not a strong foundation at this stage of human civilization.
I didn’t say a government, that was not the question I asked: a club function, a group project, a large event, a project team; any coordination of people for the purpose of performing some task or making some decision.
Ah, then yes I’m an eagle scout, so I did a lot of that then. I was also an officer in a game development club in college with about 100 members. Yes, organizing is challenging. That’s what rules are for. Robert’s rules of order is a good point of reference for it for meetings, and does not require hierarchy.
I’m finished with this conversation I think. You don’t want to discuss in good faith. You just want to say “it can’t work” and then ignore anything else. “You shouldn’t implement it, because if it goes wrong people will be upset, but you can’t improve it because it hasn’t been done before, and you can’t use existing ideas because then it isn’t totally revolutionary.” Very productive.
That’s what rules are for. Robert’s rules of order is a good point of reference for it for meetings, and does not require hierarchy.
That’s what I mean when I say “hierarchy” is a slippery term. Robert’s rules don’t function without a president authorized to adjudicate.
You just want to say “it can’t work” and then ignore anything else.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say “it can work” and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.
And even what you do address, is obtusely vague. “Have rules”, not what those rules are or how you enforce them. “Cooperate and make decisions by consensus”, not how that cooperative structure is organized, how it obstructs exploitation, or how such a functional structure differs substantially from existing “hierarchical” structures.
Again, you need councils and stuff, but those can be done without hierarchy. Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That’s all been considered and there are solutions. It’s nothing complicated.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say “it can work” and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.
Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn’t an argument against anything other than humanity. I’d argue that anarchism makes it harder for them to establish power, not easier. Trump can just walk in and take power, because we already set it up for him, for example.
And even what you do address, is obtusely vague.
No shit it’s obtuse and vague. I’m not writing a constitution here. What do you expect. Hell, even constitutions are obtuse and vague. That’s why the Supreme Court ended up with the power to interpret laws, and why they sometimes disagree. You can never address everything, even when you’re trying to, which I’m not.
You’re arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren’t trying to figure anything out for yourself. There are dozens of competing anarchist views, each with different solutions to different problems. You aren’t so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven’t considered.
That’s kind of my point. Anarchy is more an idealistic aspiration than a practical system. We’ll get to anarcho-communism eventually, it’s practically a certainty, but that’s probably a century or two in the future. We need a lot of fundamental cultural and material shifts before the average individual will embrace the concepts, and there aren’t any shortcuts in geopolitics.
I didn’t say a government, that was not the question I asked: a club function, a group project, a large event, a project team; any coordination of people for the purpose of performing some task or making some decision. The basic principles are similar to a government, though difficulties multiply with scale. But the difficulties intrinsic to organizing humans are present in some form at every scale. If you’ve ever organized humans, you’ll understand the difficulties I’m referring to. If you haven’t, this topic might be beyond your expertise.
Again, the hand-waving. “The answer is to just give it a shot!” That completely ignores the fact that politics is inherently social and emotional. A poorly implemented experiment will sour the public on the concept, and ultimately do more harm than good.
Any political strategy without an eye for optics and effective persuasion is useless. Action for action’s sake is literally one of Eco’s features of fascism. We didn’t need to fall for that trap. We are an experiment, we need a carefully constructed, detailed, tested plan to generate buy-in. Politics without buy-in is nothing but theory.
A new charter, a new direction for the system, a new iteration of the system with revised mandates. I don’t think he would have anticipated total rejection of the basic model.
I agree that this is the general condition of the left, and a tad ironic for you to say. I’ve explored most of the clades of political theory, particularly on the left. I’ve read a lot, and agreed with a lot, but I have too much experience organizing people to accept the rose-colored glasses endemic to anarchist theory. Again, maybe in a century or two, but there’s too much intermediate growth as a species necessary to actually operate that way.
It just doesn’t offer much of substance which isn’t addressed more thoroughly elsewhere. Even the central concept of “hierarchy” is difficult to pin down. I’ve heard definitions so liberal that modern western democracies technically count as anarchic since representatives are voted in, and definitions so conservative that they couldn’t even convene a public works task force.
And that’s really the central point. With every logistical difficulty, anarchism either hand-waves “The people will agree cooperatively”, or introduces a provisional acceptable hierarchy that looks an awful lot like existing structures at scale. It’s just not a strong foundation at this stage of human civilization.
Ah, then yes I’m an eagle scout, so I did a lot of that then. I was also an officer in a game development club in college with about 100 members. Yes, organizing is challenging. That’s what rules are for. Robert’s rules of order is a good point of reference for it for meetings, and does not require hierarchy.
I’m finished with this conversation I think. You don’t want to discuss in good faith. You just want to say “it can’t work” and then ignore anything else. “You shouldn’t implement it, because if it goes wrong people will be upset, but you can’t improve it because it hasn’t been done before, and you can’t use existing ideas because then it isn’t totally revolutionary.” Very productive.
That’s what I mean when I say “hierarchy” is a slippery term. Robert’s rules don’t function without a president authorized to adjudicate.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say “it can work” and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.
And even what you do address, is obtusely vague. “Have rules”, not what those rules are or how you enforce them. “Cooperate and make decisions by consensus”, not how that cooperative structure is organized, how it obstructs exploitation, or how such a functional structure differs substantially from existing “hierarchical” structures.
Again, you need councils and stuff, but those can be done without hierarchy. Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That’s all been considered and there are solutions. It’s nothing complicated.
Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn’t an argument against anything other than humanity. I’d argue that anarchism makes it harder for them to establish power, not easier. Trump can just walk in and take power, because we already set it up for him, for example.
No shit it’s obtuse and vague. I’m not writing a constitution here. What do you expect. Hell, even constitutions are obtuse and vague. That’s why the Supreme Court ended up with the power to interpret laws, and why they sometimes disagree. You can never address everything, even when you’re trying to, which I’m not.
You’re arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren’t trying to figure anything out for yourself. There are dozens of competing anarchist views, each with different solutions to different problems. You aren’t so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven’t considered.