Are you a moral person?

[untermensche]

Show me this research that shows children are not malleable.

You know that none of them are born knowing a language or any rules of behavior?

Both are wrong. There's a strong language instinct.

Specialists call it a "language capacity" and it is the capacity to acquire a language through partial and fragmented exposure to one.

But since every single person has a different exposure the end results are all different.

There is no "language". There are only individual expressions of something that is similar enough to something another person has such that crude but many times confused communication can take place.

Behaviour is strongly innate.

Some of it is.

But power structures are entirely man-made.

And the Stanford study shows beautifully what happens to ordinary people when all you do is put them into a dictatorial power position over others.

What happens to all these people in dictatorial power structures called corporations?

One aspect of Anarchism is that if you remove illegitimate power structures, like illegitimate dictatorial power structures, that in itself will change the way people think and behave.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But power structures are entirely man-made.

And you believe this because why?

And the Stanford study shows beautifully what happens to ordinary people when all you do is put them into a dictatorial power position over others.

Crazy little me. All the time I thought that experiment proved the exact opposite. Thank you for teaching me how the world works.

What happens to all these people in dictatorial power structures called corporations?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's a well known psychological effect. Nobody is arguing with you about that capitalism corrupts and creates evil. We're all onboard with you there. It's the rest where you lose me.

One aspect of Anarchism is that if you remove illegitimate power structures, like illegitimate dictatorial power structures, that in itself will change the way people think and behave.

I don't think it will. I think people will stay the same. The main problem with holding anarchism as an ideal is that anarchism keeps the door wide open for fascism to exploit.

My parents were hippies. I grew up in hippie communes. They all believed that the world just needs more love. If everybody holds hands and only thinks pure positive thoughts we can create peace on Earth. It's a similar logic. If we create power structures (within the communes) that will breed a new kind of human, who is more pure and less selfish.

All my friends who grew up there reached the same conclusion. Hippie communes are a magnet for psychopaths. Because their attitude to life makes them super easy to exploit. And more importantly, none of the kids who grew up there wanted anything to do with it. We all fucking hate hippies.

Anarchism has the same problem. Since an anarchist society will remove the very power-institutions that protects us against exploitation by the powerful, the predictable result of an anarchist society is dictatorship.

Power isn't an inherent quality. It's context dependent. If a player in the "market" has an opportunity to take control and make themselves a dictator, that opportunity will corrupt them. In an anarchistic society you'll give a lot more opportunities to grab control. So the result would be predictable.

I think the dream of an anarchistic society is inherently flawed.

 

[untermensche]

And the Stanford study shows beautifully what happens to ordinary people when all you do is put them into a dictatorial power position over others.

Crazy little me. All the time I thought that experiment proved the exact opposite. Thank you for teaching me how the world works.

You won't get an argument from me about this.

The study showed how ordinary people became brutal without empathy when placed into a very petty power position.

According to Zimbardo's interpretation of the SPE, it demonstrated that the simulated-prison situation , rather than individual personality traits, caused the participants' behavior.

The structure of power is what led to the behavior, not the traits of the individuals.

The individuals are malleable. Very malleable, very quickly, depending only on situation.

Power structures create the people that live within them.

People will behave one way when indoctrinated to exist within top down dictatorships and they will behave a different way if they were only exposed to democratic structures with horizontal control.

I don't think it will.

The evidence is against you.

The Stanford study shows how situation and circumstance creates behavior.

Not individual traits.

The trait is malleability, adaptability to circumstance.

Quickly.

The dictators learn how to dictate quickly or they are gone. It is not an option.

 

[bilby]

And you believe this because why?



Crazy little me. All the time I thought that experiment proved the exact opposite. Thank you for teaching me how the world works.

What happens to all these people in dictatorial power structures called corporations?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's a well known psychological effect. Nobody is arguing with you about that capitalism corrupts and creates evil. We're all onboard with you there. It's the rest where you lose me.

One aspect of Anarchism is that if you remove illegitimate power structures, like illegitimate dictatorial power structures, that in itself will change the way people think and behave.

I don't think it will. I think people will stay the same. The main problem with holding anarchism as an ideal is that anarchism keeps the door wide open for fascism to exploit.

My parents were hippies. I grew up in hippie communes. They all believed that the world just needs more love. If everybody holds hands and only thinks pure positive thoughts we can create peace on Earth. It's a similar logic. If we create power structures (within the communes) that will breed a new kind of human, who is more pure and less selfish.

All my friends who grew up there reached the same conclusion. Hippie communes are a magnet for psychopaths. Because their attitude to life makes them super easy to exploit. And more importantly, none of the kids who grew up there wanted anything to do with it. We all fucking hate hippies.

Anarchism has the same problem. Since an anarchist society will remove the very power-institutions that protects us against exploitation by the powerful, the predictable result of an anarchist society is dictatorship.

Power isn't an inherent quality. It's context dependent. If a player in the "market" has an opportunity to take control and make themselves a dictator, that opportunity will corrupt them. In an anarchistic society you'll give a lot more opportunities to grab control. So the result would be predictable.

I think the dream of an anarchistic society is inherently flawed.

The problem with hippy comines is that you can't have a cup of tea.

In the real world, if you want a cup of tea, you make a cup of tea.

In a hippy commune, if you want a cup of tea, you have to make everyone a cup of tea. Except that some people don't drink tea, so you also need to make three coffees; Six herbal tissanes (all different); Five Barleycups; Two Chicory drinks; And a glass of tepid water with a slice of lemon. Nobody wants a cup of tea that badly, so nobody gets a cup of tea.

Multiply that by fucking everything, and nothing gets done - because if you volunteer to do anything, you volunteer to do it for a couple of dozen people. That which can be done by anyone gets done by no one.

 

[untermensche]

The Anarchists were not hippies in communes.

It was a modern technological society.

The primary difference for most in terms of a normal day was a lack of a top-down dictatorial power structure at work.

There were no decisions that effected workers made by dictators in secret.

Other than that it was just families and people living their lives with greater autonomy.

 

[fromderinside]

If you are talking about 1930s Spain it was not a modern technological society. It was primarily a third world country with connections. The only significant scientist I know about was neurophysiologist  Ramon y Cajal.

Here is a reference that discusses the idea that Spain produced few game changing scientists. BTW: this article does list a few Nobels among them Ramon y Cajal.

https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Spain...rs-and-philosophers-over-the-last-5-centuries

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Anarchists were not hippies in communes.

It was a modern technological society.

The primary difference for most in terms of a normal day was a lack of a top-down dictatorial power structure at work.

There were no decisions that effected workers made by dictators in secret.

Other than that it was just families and people living their lives with greater autonomy.

That wasn't my point. My point is that an anarchistic society would be easy to destabalize and make into a dictatorship. It's a bad defence against exploitation.

 

[untermensche]

The Anarchists were not hippies in communes.

It was a modern technological society.

The primary difference for most in terms of a normal day was a lack of a top-down dictatorial power structure at work.

There were no decisions that effected workers made by dictators in secret.

Other than that it was just families and people living their lives with greater autonomy.

That wasn't my point. My point is that an anarchistic society would be easy to destabalize and make into a dictatorship. It's a bad defence against exploitation.

People opposed to dictatorship and indoctrinated to oppose dictatorship are much less likely to fall under the spell of some dictator.

It is those like you that sing the praises of dictatorship that are ripe for the picking of some dictator.

Pre-WWII capitalist Germany, capitalist Italy. Donald Trump.

 

[untermensche]

If you are talking about 1930s Spain it was not a modern technological society. It was primarily a third world country with connections. The only significant scientist I know about was neurophysiologist  Ramon y Cajal.

Here is a reference that discusses the idea that Spain produced few game changing scientists. BTW: this article does list a few Nobels among them Ramon y Cajal.

https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Spain...rs-and-philosophers-over-the-last-5-centuries

Resources were scarce but the Spanish had modern factories and lived a modern life with modern amenities for the time.

It was not a primitive society.

Once the Anarchists were attacked and a condition of war existed then of course things went downhill.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Anarchists were not hippies in communes.

It was a modern technological society.

The primary difference for most in terms of a normal day was a lack of a top-down dictatorial power structure at work.

There were no decisions that effected workers made by dictators in secret.

Other than that it was just families and people living their lives with greater autonomy.

That wasn't my point. My point is that an anarchistic society would be easy to destabalize and make into a dictatorship. It's a bad defence against exploitation.

People opposed to dictatorship and indoctrinated to oppose dictatorship are much less likely to fall under the spell of some dictator.

It is those like you that sing the praises of dictatorship that are ripe for the picking of some dictator.

Pre-WWII capitalist Germany, capitalist Italy. Donald Trump.

I think you're presupposing a mythical human. Speculating on how those would behave if shielded from the corrupting claws of capitalism. I don't think you have a clue how people would behave in such a situation. Modern research into psychology contradicts your theories. We're finding that more and more of human behaviour is hard-wired.

We also have an "unhappiness function". We're genetically programmed to not be happy, but hoping that one day, if only... this...that and the other... we'll finally be happy. When that day comes, we're back to square one. We're pre-programmed to constantly search for this. That's why humans have built pyramids, the ISS, the Eiffel Tower... but also why we keep fighting eachother and covet eachother's women and stuff. I think your idea of the anarchist society is fundamentally at odds with human psychology.

 

[untermensche]

People opposed to dictatorship and indoctrinated to oppose dictatorship are much less likely to fall under the spell of some dictator.

It is those like you that sing the praises of dictatorship that are ripe for the picking of some dictator.

Pre-WWII capitalist Germany, capitalist Italy. Donald Trump.

I think you're presupposing a mythical human.

I am not mythical.

Just someone who believes one thing I believe, dictatorship has to prove it is needed to claim it is moral. It is not a human relationship that is a priori moral.

Speculating on how those would behave if shielded from the corrupting claws of capitalism.

Not kept from capitalism. Kept from dictatorship.

I don't think you have a clue how people would behave in such a situation.

We have the Spanish Anarchists and a great modern writer who came upon them.

 

[fromderinside]

We have the Spanish Anarchists and a great modern writer who came upon them.

You mean the guy who blew off his head in Idaho? Now that is a great writer who had a mythical handle on reality.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think you have a clue how people would behave in such a situation.

We have the Spanish Anarchists and a great modern writer who came upon them.

1) I've read the same book, and drew the exact opposite conclusion. It might as well have showed an oppressed Spanish population going through the motions of cheering for anarchists while hoping Franco would "liberate" them. Which I think is correct.
2) It's just one book and one event in history. So even if true, hardly significant.
3) It failed. The anarchists were politically outmaneuvered by the more organised communists and then fascists. Suggesting that anarchistic syndicalism (which is the correct name for their form of government) isn't flexible enough to meet threats = will always be fucked.

 

[untermensche]

We have the Spanish Anarchists and a great modern writer who came upon them.

You mean the guy who blew off his head in Idaho? Now that is a great writer who had a mythical handle on reality.

Orwell is considered one of the great minds of the 20th Century.

Maybe if the rest of the world was as nice as what he saw with the Anarchists he would not have killed himself.

 

[untermensche]

I don't think you have a clue how people would behave in such a situation.

We have the Spanish Anarchists and a great modern writer who came upon them.

1) I've read the same book, and drew the exact opposite conclusion. It might as well have showed an oppressed Spanish population going through the motions of cheering for anarchists while hoping Franco would "liberate" them. Which I think is correct.
2) It's just one book and one event in history. So even if true, hardly significant.
3) It failed. The anarchists were politically outmaneuvered by the more organised communists and then fascists. Suggesting that anarchistic syndicalism (which is the correct name for their form of government) isn't flexible enough to meet threats = will always be fucked.

You are totally wrong.

Orwell on Anarchism

"As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 116

"Thirdly-though this was not generally known at the time-the Anarchist leaders feared that if things went beyond a certain point and the workers took possession of the town, as they were perhaps in a position to do on 5 May, there would be foreign intervention. A British cruiser and two British destroyers had closed in upon the harbour, and no doubt there were other warships not far away. The English newspapers gave it out that these ships were proceeding to Barcelona 'to protect British interests,' but in fact they made no move to do so; that is, they did not land any men or take off any refugees. There can be no certainty about this, but it was at least inherently likely that the British Government, which had not raised a finger to save the Spanish Government from Franco, would intervene quickly enough to save it from its own working class." ibid pages 153-154

re; Mairin Mitchell's book Storm over Spain:

"Her book is valuable for a number of reasons, but especially because, unlike almost all English writers on Spain, she gives a fair deal to Spanish Anarchist. The Anarchists and Syndicalists have been persistently misrepresented in England, and the average English person still retains his eightneen-ninetyish notion that Anarchism is the same thing as anarchy. Anyone who wants to know what Spanish Anarchism stands for, and the remarkable things it achieved, especially in Catalonia, during the first two months of the revolution, should read chapter VII of Miss Mitchell's book." ibid pages 290-1

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1q7duh/orwell_on_anarchism/

The ideas of the Anarchists did not fail. They worked well.

Anarchism represents an advancement in human culture. It represents a movement away from rich dictators controlling people resources and governments to the people controlling their lives.

It is a greater advancement than has been made yet in human cultural. We have only partially rid ourselves of powerful dictators.

Once we are rid of powerful dictators then real freedom begins.

 

[DrZoidberg]

1) I've read the same book, and drew the exact opposite conclusion. It might as well have showed an oppressed Spanish population going through the motions of cheering for anarchists while hoping Franco would "liberate" them. Which I think is correct.
2) It's just one book and one event in history. So even if true, hardly significant.
3) It failed. The anarchists were politically outmaneuvered by the more organised communists and then fascists. Suggesting that anarchistic syndicalism (which is the correct name for their form of government) isn't flexible enough to meet threats = will always be fucked.

You are totally wrong.

Orwell on Anarchism

"As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 116

"Thirdly-though this was not generally known at the time-the Anarchist leaders feared that if things went beyond a certain point and the workers took possession of the town, as they were perhaps in a position to do on 5 May, there would be foreign intervention. A British cruiser and two British destroyers had closed in upon the harbour, and no doubt there were other warships not far away. The English newspapers gave it out that these ships were proceeding to Barcelona 'to protect British interests,' but in fact they made no move to do so; that is, they did not land any men or take off any refugees. There can be no certainty about this, but it was at least inherently likely that the British Government, which had not raised a finger to save the Spanish Government from Franco, would intervene quickly enough to save it from its own working class." ibid pages 153-154

re; Mairin Mitchell's book Storm over Spain:

"Her book is valuable for a number of reasons, but especially because, unlike almost all English writers on Spain, she gives a fair deal to Spanish Anarchist. The Anarchists and Syndicalists have been persistently misrepresented in England, and the average English person still retains his eightneen-ninetyish notion that Anarchism is the same thing as anarchy. Anyone who wants to know what Spanish Anarchism stands for, and the remarkable things it achieved, especially in Catalonia, during the first two months of the revolution, should read chapter VII of Miss Mitchell's book." ibid pages 290-1

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1q7duh/orwell_on_anarchism/

The ideas of the Anarchists did not fail. They worked well.

Anarchism represents an advancement in human culture. It represents a movement away from rich dictators controlling people resources and governments to the people controlling their lives.

It is a greater advancement than has been made yet in human cultural. We have only partially rid ourselves of powerful dictators.

Once we are rid of powerful dictators then real freedom begins.

Now we're just repeating ourselves. I've read the same things as you and drawn different conclusions. It's that simple. I think direct democracy, or rule by committee is a terrible idea, because it demands that everybody learn everything regarding the running of a country, ie macro- and micro-economics. Which they won't. Resulting is what is basically, rule by amateurs. Good luck with that. It'll be a populistic nightmare. If you think Donald Trump is bad, wait for this type of government. Or they will learn all that... which is worse... because an economy needs a specialized workforce to be efficient. It'll be a horrendous waste of human resources.

I actually think that representative democracy, ie what we have in the west, is as close to utopia as it's possible to get. I'm really happy about this system.

 

[untermensche]

Impossible to draw different conclusions.

Your conclusions are total nonsense. They are a bad reading.

Orwell sang the praises of the Anarchists and was very critical of capitalism.

I am critical of unneeded dictatorial power structures.

They are immoral and cause all kinds of other problems.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Impossible to draw different conclusions.

Your conclusions are total nonsense. They are a bad reading.

Orwell sang the praises of the Anarchists and was very critical of capitalism.

I'm not disputing that. I think he was wrong. I think he too drew the wrong conclusions. Just like anybody with a strong ideological conviction, he will see things, and fail to draw the correct conclusion about what he is seeing. He points out that the people cheered for the anarchists/socialists and then cheered for the fascists. When I was reading the book

The nice thing about the book is that it's so good at giving us straight facts, without first filtering it. He gives it to us warts and all.

I am critical of unneeded dictatorial power structures.

They are immoral and cause all kinds of other problems.

What a pointless thing to say. Obviously everybody oposes unnecessary dictatorial power. People just disagree what is necessary. And I think most people on the planet disagree with your definition of what is dictatorial.

 

[untermensche]

Dictators in the workplace are not needed. You cannot prove they are needed.

The Spanish proved they are not and that is why all the dictators attacked them.

Including the capitalist dictators.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dictators in the workplace are not needed. You cannot prove they are needed.

The Spanish proved they are not and that is why all the dictators attacked them.

Including the capitalist dictators.

A dictator only rules a whole country. We might lovingly call the boss of our company a dictator, but he isn't one. Since he's not above the law.