Skip to main content

View Diary: Hannibal ad portas (384 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You do not understand human nature (0+ / 0-)

    at all dude.

    Human nature at it's core seeks leaders.

    Look at wolves. They always have a leader. Their survival depends on it.

    •  That sounds positively fascist. (4+ / 0-)

      Human beings are essentially authoritarian?

      You do know that you are revealing what lies behind your unrelenting Democratic Party and White House cheerleading.

      Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

      by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 07:18:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes some of them are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ravenwind, diffrntdrummr

        This has been proven by scientific experiment. (See conservatives without conscience).

        The leap that you take from human nature gathering around leaders to totalitarian fasicms is bizarre and weak minded.

        And the ensuing insult is outlandish.

        Have you ever been in an emergency situation? Say a fire. Some people stand around dumbstruck and paralyzed..... others respond quickly and help those that can't decide what to do get out of the way of danger.  They voice commands.... like MOVE the fire is coming. That people tend to respond to that is not fascism dude. It is just human nature.

        •  Complete misperception of anarchism. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassiodorus, MrJayTee, m00finsan

          Have you ever been in an emergency situation? Say a fire. Some people stand around dumbstruck and paralyzed..... others respond quickly and help those that can't decide what to do get out of the way of danger.  They voice commands.... like MOVE the fire is coming. That people tend to respond to that is not fascism dude. It is just human nature.

          LOL.  You think that any of this violates some principle of anarchism?  That nobody can exercise leadership?

          Anarchism opposes creating some kind of permanent leadership class.  Leadership roles and council membership are rotated.  Everyone is subject to recall.  As many decisions as possible are made by direct democracy.  Some decisions are made by consensus rather than majority.

          I can always tell when you're agitated because your use of "dude" becomes more frequent.

          Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

          by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 07:37:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds to me like despised minorities ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy

            ... will lose badly in your little utopia.

            I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.
            ~ Mohandas K. Gandhi

            by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 08:03:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And why is that? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cassiodorus, MrJayTee

              Minorities are protected in anarchist system by using a consensus decision-making process rather than majority vote when personal rights are implicated.  An SB 1070 would never make it through because a Raul Grijalva would be there to veto it.

              The kind of decision-making we're talking about is hardly alien.  PTAs, New England town meetings, electric coops, church voters' meetings.  Are those more of a threat to minority rights than the DoD, CIA, DHS, BP, JPM or BoA?

              Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

              by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:24:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Misperceptions of anarchism (3+ / 0-)

            "Anarchism opposes creating some kind of permanent leadership class.  Leadership roles and council membership are rotated.  Everyone is subject to recall.  As many decisions as possible are made by direct democracy.  Some decisions are made by consensus rather than majority."

            There are no permanent leadership classes, people die, get old, fail to adapt to new circumstances that cause their "downfall", suffer accidental death, etc.

            Your last thee sentences are inconsistent.  If as many decisions as possible are made by direct democracy (I presume you mean one person one vote) then it is not possible, or certainly extremely unlikely that (electoral) decisions will ever be made by consensus rather than majority rule.  What you propose will over time only lead the elimination of minority viewpoints.  Minority viewpoints are not necessarily good or bad, tolerance of them is valuable in that they provide the opportunity for alternatives in the face of changing circumstances.  Those clamoring for a "right way" to do things overlook the fact that the optimal (most reasonable stable response) is one that can change.

            There is no constancy to behaviors, only behavioral systems that evolve to become more stable in the face of a highly dynamic environment.

            If progressives want to change the system, they need to construct concepts that lead to to the emergence of "anti-corporations".  That is entities that over time can compete for resources that can sustain alternate methods of economic practice.  This need not be communism in the classical or historical sense of the term, but must involve a kind of collectivism that gives more advantage to those who are part of the non-profit collective relative to those who seek to either engage in traditional corporate capitalism or those who are preyed upon by it.

            Progressives might do better to beat the radical right at its own game by taking over (ie buying out key corporations) or creating new alternatives (ie an Anti-Fox News) and then running them on a relatively more "not for profit basis" that will ultimately undercut the  market share of traditional corporations that engage in rawer forms of Darwinian capitalism.  

            If done strategically, with a truly altruistic goal (that will be impossible to achieve completely), and perhaps with a federation of such "anti-corporations", progressives might have a chance at dominating the game of controlling the resources needed to grow and survive.  Consequently, the anarchism of the type you seem to advocate might best work for managing such an "anti-corporation" (ie every worker, stockholder gets ONE vote).  Obviously, then the decision by consensus would become more important, assuming participants wanted to "stay competitive".

            All this of course, will need to be done in a highly competitive environment, where the bounty that has been the natural world that has historically supported humanity is rapidly disappearing, and where large and predatory capitalists roam.  This all might work if such anti-corporations are centered around a "science-based" economy, but it won't be an easy task, since no one can re-legislate Darwinian law, and the environment that has sustained humanity until now is rapidly disappearing (the primary reason for recent increases in social disfunction, extreme political views, etc.).

            •  No disagreement here. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              catfood, Cassiodorus, MrJayTee

              I was unclear.

              One example of how decision-making is accomplished is provided by Michael Albert's Parecon model.  He proposes a core value that those with the most at stake in a decision have the most input.  In some cases, this will mean consensus decision-making is employed rather than majority vote or 2/3 or whatever.

              Your idea is very intriguing and parallels some of my thinking.  I see "space" opening up in our society, both physical and cultural, where Capitalism and government no longer care to be involved to any great extent.  These spaces could be considered vacuums in which alternative ways of doing things can develop, experiment and grow.

              I would think that a core element of your "anti-corporations" would be worker governance.  No one could claim this is all worked out, but we can agree that minority rights, especially in some areas, are critical, and work until we find decision-making methods that are effective.

              Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. - JM Keynes

              by goinsouth on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:41:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Worker governance (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                goinsouth

                Yes, I think this may well explain the dramatic progress made in China.  Although it is in many ways a totalitarian state, particularly viewed through the lens of a capitalist media, corporations in China are often owned by the workers themselves.  The quiet evolution of the emergence of the power of this concept has driven much cultural and political progress there.  Although I know little of China, it appears to me that much has changed since the days of Mao and the cultural revolution.

                The manifestations of our own cultural revolution are playing out in surprisingly parallel ways.  Although appeals to fear and suppression of minority viewpoints are still an active component of political discourse in both countries, the effectiveness of such approaches are waning.  While this may seem contradictory in the current political climate, the republicans and right-wingers are setting themselves up for mind-boggling failure when they finally do take control of government.  This is so because they will have made it nearly impossible to govern, except by force and coercion, which will not prove either popular or effective.  The only thing contemporary republicans seem to agree on is the need to dismantle American government at no expense to themselves.  This will hardly be a foundation for governing, but rather a prescriptions for a re-run of the Bush presidency and even the daft have some sense of what that brought America.

                Ironically, this is what has damaged the Obama presidency, albeit for different reasons.  It simply failed to live up to its rhetoric.  When first taking office it abandoned the goal of dramatic and effective change in an effort to achieve the utopian concept of political consensus and near-term economic stability instead.

                Although contemporary myth as to why GM failed was because the union pensions dragged them down, the reality is a much more complicated mixture of executive incompetence and a failure of labor to demand a more and more assertive role in management of the company at the decision making level of the board and more shares of stock for workers, so that workers had incentives beyond better benefits and bigger salaries.  Had they done this instead, the Ruppert Murdoch's of the world would have been forced to listen to their political views if they wanted their advertising dollars.

      •  If you think (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diffrntdrummr

        using baited language to make your point helps, then I have an island to sell you where you can start your unique anarchist utopia. You don't get to pick who lives on that island with you, btw.

    •  Wolves? Lemmings? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Cassiodorus, goinsouth, m00finsan

      You are indulging in a logical falacy.

      People are not wolves.

      Your evident need to be part of a "pack" is a common and regretable flaw that comes from a psychological need to submit to authority.  Indeed many people share your need for packs and pack leaders, but it is by no means all of us.

      I seek not to lead, even less to be led, and I have no trust or respect for those who burn for either.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site