Are you a moral person?

[DrZoidberg]

Capitalism is a more primitive form of human interaction than Anarchism.

Anarchism is a step forward in freedom and morality.

Capitalism is immoral. A dictatorship unless proven to be needed is immoral.

But the power of capitalists may destroy everything before any progress from it can take place.

Ok, fine but anarchism is a utopian pipe dream. It's based on Rosseau's noble savage theory, which was wrong. Also, it's part of an utopian movement 1840 - 1940 which is pretty much dead today. Every anarchist experiment all went badly.

I think you're in a headspace where you can only be bitter about the world. Anarchism is never going to happen again.

The word anarchism today is commonly used for a state of affairs where everybody is raping and robbing each other left and right. It's a "might makes right" society. It's the inevitable result of trying to put anarchism into practice. Since it seems to happen each time, how about stopping with trying to put it into practice?

Saying that anarchists all failed because of a conspiracy of capitalists, monarchists and fascists, just won't cut it. Whatever system you have has to be strong enough to fight off any other system. And anarchism isn't. It's an inherrently extremely unstable system. That will most likely implode all by itself if left to it's own devices. Because humans are morons. It requires very little opposing force to fold like a house of cards.

The systems we have in place today exist because they are robust. That's why they still exist. Monarchy is a horrendous system. Yet, still popular around the world. Because it's robust as fuck. Robustness matters.

So Untermensch, how about getting real for a moment?

 

[untermensche]

Capitalism is a more primitive form of human interaction than Anarchism.

Anarchism is a step forward in freedom and morality.

Capitalism is immoral. A dictatorship unless proven to be needed is immoral.

But the power of capitalists may destroy everything before any progress from it can take place.

Ok, fine but anarchism is a utopian pipe dream....

No more of a dream than replacing Kings with elected representatives.

The problem is, capitalist dictators are more powerful than any King.

And they indoctrinate the young to not care about dictatorial power structures.

People come out accepting them without question.

A learned helplessness.

 

[fromderinside]

Everything written by untermenche is in contrast to human nature. First two statements in your last post are meaningless.

I explain.

Utopianism and anarchism are opposites. One is based on some notion of natural order being held more powerful group while by the other is based on individual selfishness. Neither are supported by other than just so 'evidence'.

Power is subject to the occurrence of more power which changes the structure of natural order to that of the ore powerful which in turn ...... While selfishness results in being alone which for a social being, one that needs sex and stability to continue, results in social failure.

Grand statements like your the problem is statement is that it flies in the face of any empirical test. There is no difference in one who has control of arms than there is in the one who has control of resources so there is no justification for your claim of any form of dictator versus king.

Indoctrination is a process fraught with risk. Those who one attempts to control can only be controlled if one has the resources to exercise such control. Since it all comes down to who has power there is always the likelihood that another has greater power defeating the premise of control by the one attempting to indoctrinate. All of thee things are time and place dependent suggesting that all these things are likely to change.

Fear can only go so far until need overcomes it. That is to say one exercising power by controlling access to necessary resources has no way of knowing when he oversteps his control producing a counter reaction caused by need for survival becoming a group imperative that overrides laziness aided by fear.

So every one of your glittering generalities has a counter which suggests to the reader you haven't done your homework.

 

[untermensche]

Everything written by untermenche is in contrast to human nature. First two statements in your last post are meaningless.

No they are the essence of the problem.

Replacing kings, just a kind of dictatorship, dressed up so people don't notice, with elected representatives was a sea change in human cultural advancement.

Doing it in the US immediately led to it being done in France.

France unfortunately went in to a stage of despotism.

An emperor arose. Just a different name for a dictator using the king as a model.

In the US a rare man arose. George Washington. A few others like Adams.

A man not wanting to be be a king. At least not over a nation. He had his slaves and was satisfied with that.

Therefore the US avoided a despotic result. So far.

Human power structures are not something that fall from the heavens. They are not created in our genes.

They arise from human minds. From human desires.

And dictatorial power structures serve the dictators greatly.

At the expense of the majority.

Those that sing the praises of human dictatorships are not wise to the world. They are sell outs.

They are preaching immorality and actual harm.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Capitalism is a more primitive form of human interaction than Anarchism.

Anarchism is a step forward in freedom and morality.

Capitalism is immoral. A dictatorship unless proven to be needed is immoral.

But the power of capitalists may destroy everything before any progress from it can take place.

Ok, fine but anarchism is a utopian pipe dream....

No more of a dream than replacing Kings with elected representatives.

The problem is, capitalist dictators are more powerful than any King.

And they indoctrinate the young to not care about dictatorial power structures.

People come out accepting them without question.

A learned helplessness.

Yes, they're more powerful than kings, which is why kings who resisted got swept away by history, and why royal families who bowed to the capitalists survive. That's how power works. Whatever is the most powerful will win. Our opinions on what should win is beside the point. Unless it really is the most powerful, it'll lose.

That was Marx's point all the time. Over time capitalists will get more and more power, taking more and more power away from the working class. At some point the working class will have nothing to lose by rise up. The capitalists solved this by throwing a bone to workers, with social welfare and such. By sharing power (actual power, not faux power) capitalists took the steam out of the communists and anarchists.

The transition to representative democracy would not have been possible without the support from powerful industrialists/capitalists. It happened, because it was in their best interest. This is why we have representative democracy and not direct democracy. It's to keep power in educated elites. Because the working class know fuck all about how to run a country. It's self interest.

But capitalists also might support a military dictator, if they feel they're easier to control than the people. Like what happened in Chile with Pinochet. Salvador Allende was a bit like Hugo Chavez. Popular, but a complete disaster for the country.

BTW, you can see what group is the most powerful in any given era by the clothes kings/the most powerful wear. In the 18'th century everybody wanted to look like and emulate kings. They were the trendsetters. After gunpowder and modern steel entered the world, kings started to emulate the dress of generals. Guns was power. In the industrial age kings started to dress like businessmen. Because industrial capacity beat military technology.

My whole point is that power matters. If you don't have the powerful on board with your great plan to reform society... your plan is fucked.

Remember that the reason the capitalists are powerful, is primarily because they can cater to the needs of consumers better than any other group. They are actually useful for society. It's not an insidious conspiracy of evil. It's simply a result of the capitalist free market paradigm. It's popular because it works. And nobody else has figured out a more productive system.

And in the free market capitalist paradigm, there is nothing practical preventing whoever to set up their own little utopian experiment to figure out a better system. We still have places where it's possible to opt out of modern civilisation, and do your own thing. That's actually a good thing about the free market capitalist paradigm. The power applied is soft power. You can take your toys and leave if you want. You're only playing ball, because it's in your own best interest.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Everything written by untermenche is in contrast to human nature. First two statements in your last post are meaningless.

I explain.

Utopianism and anarchism are opposites. One is based on some notion of natural order being held more powerful group while by the other is based on individual selfishness. Neither are supported by other than just so 'evidence'.

Power is subject to the occurrence of more power which changes the structure of natural order to that of the ore powerful which in turn ...... While selfishness results in being alone which for a social being, one that needs sex and stability to continue, results in social failure.

Grand statements like your the problem is statement is that it flies in the face of any empirical test. There is no difference in one who has control of arms than there is in the one who has control of resources so there is no justification for your claim of any form of dictator versus king.

Indoctrination is a process fraught with risk. Those who one attempts to control can only be controlled if one has the resources to exercise such control. Since it all comes down to who has power there is always the likelihood that another has greater power defeating the premise of control by the one attempting to indoctrinate. All of thee things are time and place dependent suggesting that all these things are likely to change.

Fear can only go so far until need overcomes it. That is to say one exercising power by controlling access to necessary resources has no way of knowing when he oversteps his control producing a counter reaction caused by need for survival becoming a group imperative that overrides laziness aided by fear.

So every one of your glittering generalities has a counter which suggests to the reader you haven't done your homework.

I think you're equating libertarian anarchism, with just anarchism. It's not the same thing. Anarchism assumes that people aren't inherently unselfish. Which I actually agree with. We're a social species. Our natural order is to cooperate and be altruistic towards our in-group. The problem arises when in-groups collide. And that's the point where anarchism fails.

Libertarian anarchism is what Ayn Rand was all about.

I also don't think utopianism means that a group is in power. Utopianism just means that the perfect society is attainable. Which might be an anarchistic society

 

[fromderinside]

It really doesn't make a difference whether individuals are assumed to be unselfish or not. If they are anarchistic on a organizational social scale they reject systems and group authority in favor of individual demands eg they are selfishly organized which must fail since order cannot find a utilitarian motive.

It also doesn't matter if anarchist humans are a social species because individual agreements take priority over organizational priorities "the we get along demand" required for any social order.

What is required is that one accepts that anarchism provides an impulse for change in order. What achieves this new order is an agreed compact or social construct which cannot, cannot, be anarchistic.

Finally utopianism is just as flawed as anarchism. If the next generation's demands are unknown and the next generation's genetic structure is unknown perfect society is, by definition, without assuming a guide like a God which is also unattainable.

What you call Any Rand libertarian anarchism is actually a motive dominated system where those who take power are given a pass to exercise power because they have shown they are good at doing it now which ultimately fails for the same reasons as any other form of anarchistic instinct which I outlined above.

Anarchist organization are words contradicting each other.

 

[Bronzeage]

Capitalism is a more primitive form of human interaction than Anarchism.

Anarchism is a step forward in freedom and morality.

Capitalism is immoral. A dictatorship unless proven to be needed is immoral.

But the power of capitalists may destroy everything before any progress from it can take place.

Since you brought it up, what is the full scale of economic thought, starting with most primitive and going to whatever is least primitive?

I'm a capitalist. What about me do you find immoral?

What can be known for certain is democracy is an advancement over dictatorship.

The capitalist system is immoral. A bunch of dictatorships with very powerful dictators are not only dangerous but immoral.

Those trapped within the system must survive and are forced many times to behave immorally.

Like when they send jobs overseas and put people out of work merely to enrich themselves and others at the top.

This makes them institutional actors within an immoral system, not personally immoral.

With a system of dictators we are all forced into the directions they choose for us.

We are driving towards an ecological catastrophe as fast as possible because that is very good for the dictators.

This age will be remembered as the age shaped by the decisions of economic dictators.

If the history is written by the dictators they will be called something else, like leaders.

Who licked the red off your candy stick?

This is a litany of complaints. We go back to my observation on whining.

 

[untermensche]

No more of a dream than replacing Kings with elected representatives.

The problem is, capitalist dictators are more powerful than any King.

And they indoctrinate the young to not care about dictatorial power structures.

People come out accepting them without question.

A learned helplessness.

Yes, they're more powerful than kings, which is why kings who resisted got swept away by history, and why royal families who bowed to the capitalists survive. That's how power works. Whatever is the most powerful will win. Our opinions on what should win is beside the point. Unless it really is the most powerful, it'll lose.

Kings did not give way to capitalism. They gave way to democracy.

That is what people wanted. Democratic control. Not capitalism.

Nobody but rich capitalists ever wanted capitalism. It is anti-democratic.

It works as well in China as it does in France.

When it arose in the US we see the torture of children on a massive scale to feed the capitalists.

What France has is a strong history of unions and the protections from capitalism that unions have given.

Capitalists took control and they have held on through force alone, not because it is a superior system for the majority. And as soon as capitalism began creating wealth for a tiny minority in places like England and France we immediately see the insane and massive crimes of colonialism and imperialism.

All innovation takes place in spite of the capitalist system, not because of it.

Human advancement takes place in spite of the dictatorial capitalist system that takes all innovation from the innovators, not because of it.

The majority would be far better off without it.

Capitalism is held in place by extreme force. Just as monarchies were held in place through force. It has no connection to democracy or freedom. Those are things humans want and capitalists oppose except for themselves.

That was Marx's point all the time. Over time capitalists will get more and more power, taking more and more power away from the working class.

As is the case all around us.

Studies coming out showing how the US government today mainly responds to the desires of organized capital and big business and does not respond at all to the desires of ordinary working people or groups representing ordinary working people.

US capitalism has created an oligarchy where the people have no power.

We are no better off than when we had King George III.

The transition to representative democracy would not have been possible without the support from powerful industrialists/capitalists.

The transition began with slave owners.

Capitalism had nothing to do with it except there were a lot of people trapped in the capitalist systems that wanted democracy.

To the capitalist capitalism is more important than democracy.

This we have a US democratic process completely polluted and made useless by capitalists.

And we have you fighting hard on the side of dictatorship opposing democracy, not recognizing it is democracy, not capitalism, that people want.

My whole point is that power matters.

The power of the people is stronger than the power of capitalists.

The people want democracy.

Not capitalism.

 

[untermensche]

What can be known for certain is democracy is an advancement over dictatorship.

The capitalist system is immoral. A bunch of dictatorships with very powerful dictators are not only dangerous but immoral.

Those trapped within the system must survive and are forced many times to behave immorally.

Like when they send jobs overseas and put people out of work merely to enrich themselves and others at the top.

This makes them institutional actors within an immoral system, not personally immoral.

With a system of dictators we are all forced into the directions they choose for us.

We are driving towards an ecological catastrophe as fast as possible because that is very good for the dictators.

This age will be remembered as the age shaped by the decisions of economic dictators.

If the history is written by the dictators they will be called something else, like leaders.

Who licked the red off your candy stick?

This is a litany of complaints. We go back to my observation on whining.

What makes something immoral are moral objections.

Is dictatorship in government immoral?

If so, why?

 

[Bronzeage]

What can be known for certain is democracy is an advancement over dictatorship.

The capitalist system is immoral. A bunch of dictatorships with very powerful dictators are not only dangerous but immoral.

Those trapped within the system must survive and are forced many times to behave immorally.

Like when they send jobs overseas and put people out of work merely to enrich themselves and others at the top.

This makes them institutional actors within an immoral system, not personally immoral.

With a system of dictators we are all forced into the directions they choose for us.

We are driving towards an ecological catastrophe as fast as possible because that is very good for the dictators.

This age will be remembered as the age shaped by the decisions of economic dictators.

If the history is written by the dictators they will be called something else, like leaders.

Who licked the red off your candy stick?

This is a litany of complaints. We go back to my observation on whining.

What makes something immoral are moral objections.

Is dictatorship in government immoral?

If so, why?

So, anything which you find objectionable, is immoral. Got it.

 

[untermensche]

Any man-made power structure has to demonstrate it is needed to claim it is moral.

If one person is subject to the power of another there must be a justification for it.

Dictatorial power systems are not a priori considered moral.

They must prove they are moral by first proving they are necessary.

Necessary, not merely desired by dictators.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It really doesn't make a difference whether individuals are assumed to be unselfish or not. If they are anarchistic on a organizational social scale they reject systems and group authority in favor of individual demands eg they are selfishly organized which must fail since order cannot find a utilitarian motive.

It also doesn't matter if anarchist humans are a social species because individual agreements take priority over organizational priorities "the we get along demand" required for any social order.

What is required is that one accepts that anarchism provides an impulse for change in order. What achieves this new order is an agreed compact or social construct which cannot, cannot, be anarchistic.

Finally utopianism is just as flawed as anarchism. If the next generation's demands are unknown and the next generation's genetic structure is unknown perfect society is, by definition, without assuming a guide like a God which is also unattainable.

What you call Any Rand libertarian anarchism is actually a motive dominated system where those who take power are given a pass to exercise power because they have shown they are good at doing it now which ultimately fails for the same reasons as any other form of anarchistic instinct which I outlined above.

Nope. 19'th century style anarchism (to which Untermensch refers to all the time) is collectivist. It's also known as "collectivist anarchism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism

If there's no socially accepted private ownership, so there's no point in being selfish. Libertarian anarchism assumes that property is respected. Libertarian (selfish) anarchism doesn't enter into public awareness until after the Austrian school didn't, which was after the depression, in the 1940'ies. These schools of thought are about a hundred years apart. Marx, Bakunin and Proudhon never talked about it.

Anarchist organization are words contradicting each other.

An anarchist organisation is not self contradictory.

An "archos" is a leader. "Anarchos" means, "without a leader". That's all it is. A direct democracy would be an example of an anarchic organisation. Which is what they had in ancient Greece, and it was (in it's day) a very effective form of government. So reality proves you wrong.

Ancient Greek for "organise" is "organasi". So the antonym of that would be "anorganasi". Or as we would say, "unorganised". But we can still say an "unorganised organisation". It's not self contradictory. Because the statement has an implication, ie that the organisation should be organised, but has failed in some regards.

I think you've just fundamentally misunderstood what the word means.

Also, all utopians aren't anarchists. Nazis/fascists were also utopian.

 

[untermensche]

I refer to the one example of modern technological Anarchism that was widespread.

Clearly an idea ahead of it's time.

No two Anarchist societies would be the same thing.

But unlike Capitalists Anarchists have guiding moral principles.

They do not think it is moral for one person to dictate over others.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Every open source software project is anarchistic. They're do-ocracies. Whoever does, gets to decide. The fruits of the labour is freely shared. If you disagree with what's being done... create your own branch.

Me personally, I'm a big fan of self organising, and self-correcting systems. Agile is a popular method for organising software projects. They're leaderless, and thus self organising. This method of organising projects is now catching on outside software development.

The scientific method, is another way to self-organise without leaders. Their merits as scientists advances the weight of their authority. But they're not leaders in the formal sense.

Cybernetics (Norbert Weiner) is an attempt to hand over all critical decision making to a purely mechanical system. So there is a leader. It's just that that power is out of reach of any single human.

So we know how it can be done. The main problems of all of these is that they're for nerds. Brainy people who don't like it when their emotions get in the way of them making rational decisions. Normal people aren't like that. And normal people has to be our main focus. Or we're wasting our time.

Normal people will submit to and worship whoever comes across as the most competent. People love following leaders. Normal people don't like anarchism. Normal people feel insecure and afraid when they're empowered. They might say they want power, but freak out when they get it. I think a dislike of anarchism is built into basic human psychology. We like leaders, and, overall, I think we prefer being opressed over being free. Freedom is scary.

 

[untermensche]

Every open source software project is anarchistic. They're do-ocracies. Whoever does, gets to decide. The fruits of the labour is freely shared. If you disagree with what's being done... create your own branch.

Me personally, I'm a big fan of self organising, and self-correcting systems. Agile is a popular method for organising software projects. They're leaderless, and thus self organising. This method of organising projects is now catching on outside software development.

The scientific method, is another way to self-organise without leaders. Their merits as scientists advances the weight of their authority. But they're not leaders in the formal sense.

Cybernetics (Norbert Weiner) is an attempt to hand over all critical decision making to a purely mechanical system. So there is a leader. It's just that that power is out of reach of any single human.

So we know how it can be done. The main problems of all of these is that they're for nerds. Brainy people who don't like it when their emotions get in the way of them making rational decisions. Normal people aren't like that. And normal people has to be our main focus. Or we're wasting our time.

Normal people will submit to and worship whoever comes across as the most competent. People love following leaders. Normal people don't like anarchism. Normal people feel insecure and afraid when they're empowered. They might say they want power, but freak out when they get it. I think a dislike of anarchism is built into basic human psychology. We like leaders, and, overall, I think we prefer being opressed over being free. Freedom is scary.

Nerds are just people that have a little power. They can do things others can't so they have a little more freedom.

But Bill Gates was mainly a genius at business not software development.

Human organization does not need dictators.

People raised in dictatorial systems need to be trained to follow arbitrary authority without question. This is a large part of US "education". A bunch of hoop jumping and threats.

Now they have added the incredibly high price of college so that people have huge debt, $100,000 - $150,000 just for an undergraduate degree.

People are indoctrinated to work within dictatorships.

Get rid of the dictatorships and people need to be educated differently.

And a completely different society will arise out of it.

Not a utopia but as different as moving from a monarchy to a democracy in government.

 

[fromderinside]

It really doesn't make a difference whether individuals are assumed to be unselfish or not. If they are anarchistic on a organizational social scale they reject systems and group authority in favor of individual demands eg they are selfishly organized which must fail since order cannot find a utilitarian motive.

It also doesn't matter if anarchist humans are a social species because individual agreements take priority over organizational priorities "the we get along demand" required for any social order.

What is required is that one accepts that anarchism provides an impulse for change in order. What achieves this new order is an agreed compact or social construct which cannot, cannot, be anarchistic.

Finally utopianism is just as flawed as anarchism. If the next generation's demands are unknown and the next generation's genetic structure is unknown perfect society is, by definition, without assuming a guide like a God which is also unattainable.

What you call Any Rand libertarian anarchism is actually a motive dominated system where those who take power are given a pass to exercise power because they have shown they are good at doing it now which ultimately fails for the same reasons as any other form of anarchistic instinct which I outlined above.

Nope. 19'th century style anarchism (to which Untermensch refers to all the time) is collectivist. It's also known as "collectivist anarchism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism

If there's no socially accepted private ownership, so there's no point in being selfish. Libertarian anarchism assumes that property is respected. Libertarian (selfish) anarchism doesn't enter into public awareness until after the Austrian school didn't, which was after the depression, in the 1940'ies. These schools of thought are about a hundred years apart. Marx, Bakunin and Proudhon never talked about it.

Anarchist organization are words contradicting each other.

An anarchist organisation is not self contradictory.

An "archos" is a leader. "Anarchos" means, "without a leader". That's all it is. A direct democracy would be an example of an anarchic organisation. Which is what they had in ancient Greece, and it was (in it's day) a very effective form of government. So reality proves you wrong.

Ancient Greek for "organise" is "organasi". So the antonym of that would be "anorganasi". Or as we would say, "unorganised". But we can still say an "unorganised organisation". It's not self contradictory. Because the statement has an implication, ie that the organisation should be organised, but has failed in some regards.

I think you've just fundamentally misunderstood what the word means.

Also, all utopians aren't anarchists. Nazis/fascists were also utopian.

I accept, since it is described that way, what you write about anarchism as it relates to property. However society requires systems which, when one describes it as x-anarchy, just leaves a sandy taste in one mouth. Your example of direct democracy exemplified by a greek example illustrates the basis for my discontent with this whole line of argument. Greek democracy was property based leaving out about 95% of the governed. So if you want to insert some sort form of dictatorship/slavery/discriminatory control/ base with collateral enforcement mechanisms, then I guess one can, in some sense, say self government.

Anarchism can only be a system if coupled with constraining mechanisms permitting organized function so why not just admit anarchist impulse and then describe the actual mechanisms for those with the impulse use for subsequent organization and operation.

There are other selfish motive categories beyond property so eliminating property does not eliminate need for controlling mechanisms as the greek example clearly shows. Also accepting property be respected impelis control mechanisms in place for that 'respect'. Without constraints beyond self government isn't possible.

Voluntary doesn't get there since one needn't volunteer to sacrifice oneself in favor of others to sustain the organization.

Yes, I agree if one is willing to disregard what is anarchism one can say what results from anarchistic impulse is some form of anarchism. It just doesn't wash even with a tour through definitions and word evolutions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

People raised in dictatorial systems need to be trained to follow arbitrary authority without question. This is a large part of US "education". A bunch of hoop jumping and threats.

Bullshit. Educational systems around the world are well adapted to maximising learning in children. People study this, and educational systems are mostly informed by science. The problem arises when morons, who know nothing of child and teen mental development have opinions on how schooling should be done.

Children cannot think critically effectively. They need an authority to tell them what to do. They can barely problem solve. It's a waste of time letting them do this. It's better to teach them to cram lists of information they can repeat. If we do they'll learn something they can use later. And perhaps more importantly, train their brains to work more effectively.

Pick up a book on child psychology. We have studied this. What needs to happen is that everybody who isn't an expert on child psychology back the fuck off. Parents do NOT know best how to teach their kids. That's also a recipe for failure.

There's nothing wrong with threats. People respond well to threats. As well to rewards. Without them people become lazy and undisciplined. It's very good to learn discipline early. That's good for all kinds of things later in life.

Now they have added the incredibly high price of college so that people have huge debt, $100,000 - $150,000 just for an undergraduate degree.

Or we can just have free education, like in Scandinavian countries. It's a great system. It's stupid to design a system where those with no resources are supposed to be the one's investing in it.

People are indoctrinated to work within dictatorships.

Get rid of the dictatorships and people need to be educated differently.

And a completely different society will arise out of it.

Not a utopia but as different as moving from a monarchy to a democracy in government.

I don't think so. People are indoctrinated to work in hierarchies, because that's the best way to get shit done. In Sweden and Denmark we inherited the Viking way of organising society. It's an incredibly flat power hierarchy where everybody gets a say, and everybody needs to agree. Viking chiefs were incredibly weak. All their power was informal. They still managed to conquer England and large parts of Russia. Controlled large areas of Germany and Poland. Apart from the raping and pillaging, Scandinavia is still organised like this.

I can't imagine a functional society with less hierarchy than this. I think we've pushed it to the limits. With less hierarchy than this we lose accountability.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anarchism can only be a system if coupled with constraining mechanisms permitting organized function so why not just admit anarchist impulse and then describe the actual mechanisms for those with the impulse use for subsequent organization and operation.

Yes, an anarchistic society can have constraining mechanisms. That's not a self contradiction. It mostly just means that when things go well, everybody gets the credit. And when it goes badly, everybody shares the blame.

There are other selfish motive categories beyond property so eliminating property does not eliminate need for controlling mechanisms as the greek example clearly shows. Also accepting property be respected impelis control mechanisms in place for that 'respect'. Without constraints beyond self government isn't possible.

There's in-group and out-group selfishness, which I think is an unsolvable problem, for all these anarchistic utopian ideas.

 

[fromderinside]

Anarchism can only be a system if coupled with constraining mechanisms permitting organized function so why not just admit anarchist impulse and then describe the actual mechanisms for those with the impulse use for subsequent organization and operation.

Yes, an anarchistic society can have constraining mechanisms. That's not a self contradiction. It mostly just means that when things go well, everybody gets the credit. And when it goes badly, everybody shares the blame.

There are other selfish motive categories beyond property so eliminating property does not eliminate need for controlling mechanisms as the greek example clearly shows. Also accepting property be respected impelis control mechanisms in place for that 'respect'. Without constraints beyond self government isn't possible.

There's in-group and out-group selfishness, which I think is an unsolvable problem, for all these anarchistic utopian ideas.

Your first comment flees in the face of human nature which is decidedly selfish and self serving. To argue otherwise ignores rationales for belief and faith.

Finally. We agree.