It is Clan Mentality and Hardship that Creates Superiority - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15026176
Palmyrene wrote:That seems like an issue of giving the wrong job to the wrong people.

Don't be silly.

It's plain for all to see you have never worked in a foundry.

Why place 3 highly trained men in an unskilled position when you can have one directing 3 unskilled workers and doing other things? Having university educated metallurgists shift 45 tonnes of scrap per day by hand (pushing a cart along an overhead carousel and emptying it into a bucket) is a waste.


:lol:
#15026179
ingliz wrote:Don't be silly.

It's plain for all to see you have never worked in a foundry.

Why place 3 highly trained men in an unskilled position when you can have one directing 3 unskilled workers and doing other things? Having university educated metallurgists shift 45 tonnes of scrap per day by hand (pushing a cart along an overhead carousel and emptying it into a bucket) is a waste.


:lol:


It is giving the wrong job to the wrong people. You shouldn't expect someone untrained in metallurgy to know metallurgy. Using this as an example of why workers don't know what is expected of them is very disingenious.

Given that metallurgists would be working at the factory, it's too much to expect them to make a small pamphlet full of the proper metals for a good mix or make a notice saying not to put scrap rail cushion in the furnace.

Or they could just prepare the right metal to be used in the furnace. Maybe actually teach those workers some basic metallurgy that seems like a good skill to have if your mixing together metal.

And in an anarchist society, we would have the time to create inter-disciplinary workers because we have no reason to maintain draconic notions of authority and subservience.
#15026186
@Palmyrene
They'll be trained through the education system I mentioned earlier.

And also cops are regular people dude. They just have a different sort of job.

Well some workers know how to weld while others don't. Does that make them a "special class" and thus a state? No. It doesn't.

Difference alone is not capable of creating hierarchy. I've already defined what I mean by hierarchy before.

The detectives only apprehend or discover the criminal, they don't have the authority to deal out punishments and they only have power because people give them that power.

A special class not in the sense of the regularly referred to class system, but in the sense of a specialized set of people.
If they're professionals, they're not like everyone else. And if they're like everyone else, then they're not professionals.

There wouldn't be an organizers. The detectives would work with other actors in an ad hoc way.

Then most crimes wont be solved, and those which are solved wont be closed since it'll be incredibly hard to catch the guy.

Alright, where the fuck did I say that? Tell me. Where in the material your quoting did I say what you're saying now?

Stop making assumptions.

By inclining that everyone in a neighborhood would know each other and that there won't be any blind spots that no one can see in that "neighborhood", then what you're describing is either a town or a village.

For that type of system to work, you'd have to replace cities with cluster of towns. And if you don't know how that would work, you can look at Baalbek where it is, in reality, more of a cluster of towns than it is a typical city.

Furthermore, in such a system (i.e. town clusters), each town has all of its essential services and institutions with only the largest ones in bigger hubs like Baalbek (the inner city) and Zahleh (the inner city).

For example, each town would have its own water sources and wells and generators. While in a city, the are centralized water and power stations.

Baalbek is the closest example to a highly decentralized governance system, and even then there is a state.

Stuff like this makes me wish there was a facepalm emoji.

There are neighborhoods in cities you idiot. That's what I'm referring to, everyone knows their neighborhood and who lives there.

How are you this dumb? Where else would a neighborhood be? Neighborhoods are always in cities.

anyone who lived in a city can tell you this doesn't happen.

So you're saying Amber Alert is a "mini-state"? Should Amber Alert declare independence from America?

The amber alert system is provided by the police, it's not a network on its own, it's a service provided by a network.
And the police themselves are part of an even bigger network and so on.

It doesn't say anything about being trained or being a professional. Just because you're a volunteer doesn't mean you aren't a trained professional. They are not mutually exclusive.

And if anyone can volunteer, then you wont have only professionals doing the job. By definition.

And if you only want professionals to volunteer, and need more of them to do so, then you need some sort of incentive for them to do so in that specific area, like a job basically.
Jobs are voluntary you know.

Yeah the rest of this is predicated on the idiotic assumptions that volunteers can't be trained professionals.

If everyone is allowed to volunteer, then you'll have most being untrained non-professional (in that specific task, not in general) ordinary people.

It's actually the opposite.

If people are inherently selfish, greedy, and repugnant why would you trust them to govern you?

Why would you think that would be a good idea? "Oh people are just awful! Let's give some of them absolute power! That makes sense!".

A thing called checks and balances.
All developed countries have it and most developing countries as well.
People in governance aren't free to do whatever they want, there are laws they have to abide by.

1. If there was an ideological anarchist society (as in, one that had an idea about what institutions to create in an anarchist society to maintain peace and balance) such issues won't occur because anarchists already have ways of settling disputes in non-violent ways and alot of the common reasons for disputes won't happen because property rights would be different.

What if someone didn't adhere to the ideology?
What if an entire portion of the population didn't?
What if someone was drunk or high?

2. Attempting to murder someone is always a big risk because they could potentially murder you to and if you succeed, well guess whose family or community is after your head. In fact, the idea of agreeing not to kill each other over every little thing is what let us progress as a species and no, there wasn't an authority to tell them not to.

But, in a city, where no one knows each other, and where it's incredibly hard to know who's the murderer, it's much easier to kill and get away with it.
You can even move town if you've been found out.

There is a majority of a population that thinls wreckless people or people with anger issues are dangerous. What I expect to happen is that they're going to get the anger issues and wreckless ones therapy or some kind of help. And if they do anything you can look at the system I proposed above.

They'd have to be extremely manipulative to even cause an entire town to kill each other and if that was the case it wouldn't even matter if there were policemen there. Hell, manipulative people find it easiest to take control of people in power. It would be easier for a manipulator to cause chaos in a hierarchial society than in an anarchist one.

And this is a point I alluded to as well, if everyone has to keep worrying about everyone else, then they would be too busy watching their back to do anything.

No it wouldn't. At least the family of the abused won't tolerate it and the community won't tolerate it because that would effect their lives too.

How would they know?
Do you know why domestic abuse and abuse, in general, is so hard to eliminate?

There's no capitalism. Anarchism is anti-capitalism.

So there wont be a market or money?

Because predatory businesses exist in any unregulated market, be it capitalist or socialist.

Well the U.S. has both of those and murder rates are still high and police brutality is also high.

Actually no, the US, when put in comparison with other countries with less police, is much safer.
And police brutality in the US I've found to be overblown by the media rather being a systemic problem everywhere.

There are problems, especially in areas where gang violence is spread, sure. But this is not the norm everywhere.

If you go around in Syria, even before the war, you'd know exactly what I mean.

It isn't a stranger. Generally the community in anarchist societies would be tight. If a foreigner was attacking a foreigner that would be a no-no (and they would step in) but if a foreigner was attacking a member of the community or if a member of the community was attacking a foreigner everyone would join in.

But, again, why?
Why would they step in?
Game theory. Look into it.

Defense patrols and nightly watches A. don't rely on a trained force at all and B. aren't synonymous with the police.

In a community where there isn't a police, everyone would need basic combat training (i.e. the Militia), and a special set needs additional training (defense forces).

When did I suggest any of this?

There won't always be a criminal or murderer in their community and if there was it would be obvious.

Furthermore having a police doesn't stop people today from being paranoid of criminals breaking into their house or something.

Because police deal with criminals after a crime has been committed not before.

That's inclined in your proposal. It's a logical conclusion.
And sure, the police acts after the event, but the existence of the police and jails and authority in general acts as a deterrent to crime.

Attend where? There isn't a centralized schooling place, the school is integrated into the urban fabric of the city itself. Workshops, mueseums, art galleries, people, professionals, etc. would offer classes if they want to. Then someone would compile every single person or place offering classes and that would be the "curriculum". A child might see people learning to read or having fun making pottery and want to go learn or do that. Children have an innate desire to learn and parents have an innate desire to do whatever their child wants. There's no elections here

And you don't see why this type of system is incredibly deficient?

You do know that there are several issues with the way schools are organized and operate right? And I mean down to their most basic concepts. The schools we currently see today are based on the Prussian model which was designed to prepare students for the military not teach them life skills.

What you're trying to construct here is a False equivalence fallacy.
The school system being broken in one country ( I assume it's the US's schooling system you're referring to), that doesn't mean that it's broken everywhere else.

My idea is based on how homeschooling works. In fact, it's because of the decentralized nature of the education that homeschooled students do so well in both conventional schools and college as well as gaining higher IQs.

Homeschooling works with already established curriculums and rules established by professionals in a central authority. It's not random.

It's the complete opposite. I don't want to replace it with a privatized schooling system, I want to replace with something more radical.

How is it the opposite? That's exactly what they want.

No. You don't. I'm not even sure what "optimal results" is supposed to mean. Do you want everyone to get As? Is that your goal for school?

Everyone gaining all the basic information and education needed to be a functional member of society and prepare them to specialize in latter educational years (higher education)

My system is nothing comparable to the system before schools.

What you're offering is exactly what was in place before mass schooling systems were introduced.

They can do that too. I'm not sure why you think that's incompatible with my system.

How? If you want to abolish schools and universities?

I don't know if you're aware of this, but, in higher education, instructors are specialized. Not every instructor can teach all of the material, rather each is specialized in a section.

If you're associating democracy with government you've clearly lost your mind.

Democracy is a form of governance.
And democratic governments do exist.

Whether it is a part of a state doesn't matter. Your definition of a state is a network or something (you're pretty ambigious as to how you define state) so by default Amber Alert should be a state.

The amber alert is a SERVICE offered by an existing network of institutions and entities.

Define "area". Do you mean every single house is an area? Should they pay taxes for living in their house?

Furthermore these services are provided by people other than the government. Should they pay taxes for those too?

And governments aren't guaranteed to spend that tax money into those places. They could spend it all on military too.

The area can be anything from a neighborhood to a town or an entire city.
Depending on how you choose to organize service and infrastructure grids.

And for those services (basic services), they're either privatized where you pay the government taxes and the government pays them to provide the service for everyone. State owned where the state provides everything. Or fully privatized with no government intervention where you need to pay before you can use them.

Health care is such service. And in places where the state doesn't interfere at all, those who can't pay die infront of hospitals because they couldn't pay for needed emergency care.

It wasn't. There was no "substantial" government investment in anything, anywhere. Governments of the era were tiny. For example: the national apparatus of the Dutch government in 1900 consisted of about 1000 people in total. The tax burden was a whopping 2% of GDP. And yet... industrialisation was well underway. (And that made the subsequent 20th century explosion of governmental size possible.)

VOC

My argument is that the kind of enlarged government that you can create with "modern" taxes isn't required for industrialisation. Modest internal improvements have been undertaken by night watchman states for centuries if not millennia, and therefore demonstrably do not require such taxes or such a bigger government.

Anyone who thinks taxes and governments didn't have role in building civilization, is someone who doesn't know history at all.

Go read your history.

I've already given you a general answer as to how it would be done.

Furthermore do you know what a meshnet is?

Mesh networks can not sustain the scale of internet we have today.
That needs large servers to sustain it.

And based on your general answer, the internet and communications in general would have to be scaled back radically since there wont be sufficient infrastructure to maintain them.

What about "doing a screening process" and "tell helpers not to touch equipment" do you not understand.

Then no one will get training, because without that education, no one will pass.

These things already occur in today's society anyways. They do work.

In professions, not in general sciences. And even then, in professions, the best trainee can mess things up.

Most middle management are just worthless anyways and generally managers are very bad at actually knowing the intricacies of the factory or production, they just invent deadlines and that's about it.

Direct managers are professionals in the field who just learned administrative skills.
In-direct higher-ups are administrators who organize these direct managers in their facilities and organize with other facilities.

Workers can do that far better.

They can't.

There are about a million other forms of non-capitalist exchange other than "barter" although if that's what people want they can do it.

Read up on collective force or the labor theory of value.

You're the one proposing, how will you run a society without currency?

They are very messy. Companies don't establish connections based on hierarchy; why would they intentionally get a bad deal just so they can form a hierarchial network?

The hierarchy is inside of them.
Between each other, they form supply chains.

People who are investing in science or the scientists who participate in collective luxuries.

Why would people give rewards for things that wont benefit them directly? Or, potentially, don't even understand or know what's all about.

And why the hell would you force people to do something they aren't passionate about for the money just because they're "good at it"

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They have a choice to make when choosing speciality and what to do in life.

Some people are just passionate about money and luxury.

The bad scientists don't do any of the work. They usually aim to be professors and directors, not researchers. The people you see doing long hours of research and effort at NASA or whatever are there for their field not because they want money.

Also the first point depends on the field. There's alot more engineers out there for the money than there are sociologists or biologists. You don't become a complexity scientist for the money.

:| :|

Why would supply suddenly go down? Why would my model not produce mass production networks.

Because your model is based on abolishing these networks.
:lol:

More specifically, explain why mass production networks need to hierarchial or have to have organizers without using buzzwords like "order" or "organization".

Because modern economies aren't based on basic things like wheat, they're based on things like cars, airplanes, chemicals, computers, etc
Things that are highly intricate and require a significant degree of specialization at each part of it. To be able to sustain this production, you need massive numbers of people (And by massive, I mean by the millions) working together in a very large supply chain in a very organized way where each of these people does a very specific set of tasks, all to deliver a final product like a car or a computer.
When removing organizers and introduce a system based on negotiations between workers, you then would have to wait for negotiations to take place among millions if not 10s of millions of people and reach a middle ground between all of them for each every single minor change.
And if a handful of members in just one part of that network didn't show up or stopped working, it collapses and the process has to be done all over again.

Organizers and administrators, in general, ensure that these processes function effectively and efficiently and ensure a backup or a safe plan for any malfunction.


Why would no one do it?

Because the majority are there for the money and the prestige, and your system removes both.
Heck, that's why the USSR lost steam and fell apart internally. It took away the monetary reward and the prestige that came with being a scientists so most left, and not many new ones were incentivized to join in.

EDIT:
You claim to live in Syria, you should know why removing these incentives is a shitty move.
The reasons why Syria stagnated in the 90s and never recovered is exactly the same reason why the Soviet Union stagnated in the 70s and 80s, and why China had to overhaul it's science and tech policy to avoid stagnation.
You remove the reward and the prestige from science, and for most people it simply become illogical to go through all that work to get the exact same results.
There's already entities willing to give major amounts of resources and put major effort into science without the need for middlemen.

Like who?
Corporations?
Those wouldn't exist under an anarchist system.

Changed the parts that were wrong. In short, yes. It's not that different from the current system.

That's not how the current system works, I was describing what I assume would be your system.
And I was being sarcastic about it.

It's very similar to how things work now.

Nothing you describe is similar to how things are now.







Holy shit, I accidently closed the tab and thought I lost the entire post, managed to recover it.
:lol: :lol:
#15026206
anasawad wrote:@Palmyrene
A special class not in the sense of the regularly referred to class system, but in the sense of a specialized set of people.
If they're professionals, they're not like everyone else. And if they're like everyone else, then they're not professionals.


Well, like I said, some workers know how to weld while others don't. Does that make them a "special class"? Everyone has something distinct about them.

And if you're not trying to say that them being professionals will result in a state then I'm not sure what your point is.

Then most crimes wont be solved, and those which are solved wont be closed since it'll be incredibly hard to catch the guy.


Please read the example I gave.

Regardless, 90% go unsolved anyways. Just last year, 40% of murder cases in America went unsolved. That's a 40% chance you might get murdered.

The examples I gave here and before show how an anarchist society will a murder and potential crime better than a hierarchial society.

By inclining that everyone in a neighborhood would know each other and that there won't be any blind spots that no one can see in that "neighborhood", then what you're describing is either a town or a village.

For that type of system to work, you'd have to replace cities with cluster of towns. And if you don't know how that would work, you can look at Baalbek where it is, in reality, more of a cluster of towns than it is a typical city.

Furthermore, in such a system (i.e. town clusters), each town has all of its essential services and institutions with only the largest ones in bigger hubs like Baalbek (the inner city) and Zahleh (the inner city).

For example, each town would have its own water sources and wells and generators. While in a city, the are centralized water and power stations.

Baalbek is the closest example to a highly decentralized governance system, and even then there is a state.


Cities have neighborhoods. People know their neighbors and in an anarchist society they will be far more closer than they are now.

I never said that these neighborhoods would be self-contained or isolated economically, just that everyone will know each other.

anyone who lived in a city can tell you this doesn't happen.


You think cities don't have neighborhoods?

The amber alert system is provided by the police, it's not a network on its own, it's a service provided by a network.
And the police themselves are part of an even bigger network and so on.


It's still a network and you can examine it in isolation (states need to do this for administration so don't claim that you can't). If only the big network counts then the global economy would be a state because that's the biggest network of them all.

And if anyone can volunteer, then you wont have only professionals doing the job. By definition.

And if you only want professionals to volunteer, and need more of them to do so, then you need some sort of incentive for them to do so in that specific area, like a job basically.
Jobs are voluntary you know.

If everyone is allowed to volunteer, then you'll have most being untrained non-professional (in that specific task, not in general) ordinary people.


I've given you the definition of volunteer and shown that there is no incompatibility between being a volunteer and being a professional.

People will become detectives because they want to be detectives and will seek any way for them to improve their craft.

A thing called checks and balances.
All developed countries have it and most developing countries as well.
People in governance aren't free to do whatever they want, there are laws they have to abide by.


Checks and balances are BS. Laws and checks and balances are only obeyed because people want to obey them. There is no such thing as accountability from the people, America should be a good example of this.

What if someone didn't adhere to the ideology?
What if an entire portion of the population didn't?
What if someone was drunk or high?


If they aren't anarchists they wouldn't be living in an anarchist society.

What if someone was drunk or high? Someone would step in and stop them from doing something stupid.

When you remove the threat of legal action and potential backlash, people would be free to do so.

But, in a city, where no one knows each other, and where it's incredibly hard to know who's the murderer, it's much easier to kill and get away with it.
You can even move town if you've been found out.


People know everyone in their neighborhood and if you remove the threat of violence that comes with dealing with cops, people will be far more cooperative to share information.

And this is a point I alluded to as well, if everyone has to keep worrying about everyone else, then they would be too busy watching their back to do anything.


Read my response to this.

How would they know?
Do you know why domestic abuse and abuse, in general, is so hard to eliminate?


A good chunk of it comes from authority figures like cops abusing their spouses.

So there wont be a market or money?


Who said that?

Because predatory businesses exist in any unregulated market, be it capitalist or socialist.


There are no businesses.

Actually no, the US, when put in comparison with other countries with less police, is much safer.
And police brutality in the US I've found to be overblown by the media rather being a systemic problem everywhere.

There are problems, especially in areas where gang violence is spread, sure. But this is not the norm everywhere.

If you go around in Syria, even before the war, you'd know exactly what I mean.


Obviously areas run by warlords will be less safe but even that is due to the overwhelming presence of hierarchy in those countries.

Also police brutality is very common in Syria. It's far more worse than the US and it's why people distrust the police as much as they do.

But, again, why?
Why would they step in?
Game theory. Look into it.


Because it's a person they know and letting that person hurt them would lower the living conditions of them all.

In a community where there isn't a police, everyone would need basic combat training (i.e. the Militia), and a special set needs additional training (defense forces).


No they wouldn't. They would need basic combat training to fight against states but not to defend against criminals.

That's inclined in your proposal. It's a logical conclusion.
And sure, the police acts after the event, but the existence of the police and jails and authority in general acts as a deterrent to crime.


That isn't the logical conclusion unless you think claiming cities not having neighborhoods is logical.

And the police doesn't deter someone. A rapist who wants to rape would only slowly ease into it and see how much they could get away with but they'll eventually rape. It's like a drug.

And you don't see why this type of system is incredibly deficient?


It's far more efficent than the centralized schooling system.

What you're trying to construct here is a False equivalence fallacy.
The school system being broken in one country ( I assume it's the US's schooling system you're referring to), that doesn't mean that it's broken everywhere else.


Homeschooling works with already established curriculums and rules established by professionals in a central authority. It's not random.


The Prussian model of schooling is applied in every somewhat developed state on Earth. It is not only the US.

Also homeschooling has very little regulations. You may be forces to take certain tests but the curriculum is up to you.

How is it the opposite? That's exactly what they want.


They want private fancy Catholic schools that exclude everyone who doesn't eat caviar.

My system is free and isn't centralized at all. There isn't even a central building; it's embedded into the urban fabric of the city.

Everyone gaining all the basic information and education needed to be a functional member of society and prepare them to specialize in latter educational years (higher education)


My idea of education is different. Education isn't something you just do once and then you're done. It's a continuous process for all members of society.

Being a functional member of society should be achieved by just living in it and that's what my system does. It completely immerses children in an active state of learning.

Instead of having children go to a specific place to learn and micromanage their time like it's a job, the entire city is composed of learning experiences.

What you're offering is exactly what was in place before mass schooling systems were introduced.


It isn't.

How? If you want to abolish schools and universities?

I don't know if you're aware of this, but, in higher education, instructors are specialized. Not every instructor can teach all of the material, rather each is specialized in a section.


There is still school, it's just different. And universities still exist.

Democracy is a form of governance.
And democratic governments do exist.


Democracy is a form of decision making not governance.

The amber alert is a SERVICE offered by an existing network of institutions and entities.


It is a network. The network itself is composed of citizens keeping a look out and cooperating with law enforcement. It is collaborative.

The area can be anything from a neighborhood to a town or an entire city.
Depending on how you choose to organize service and infrastructure grids.

And for those services (basic services), they're either privatized where you pay the government taxes and the government pays them to provide the service for everyone. State owned where the state provides everything. Or fully privatized with no government intervention where you need to pay before you can use them.

Health care is such service. And in places where the state doesn't interfere at all, those who can't pay die infront of hospitals because they couldn't pay for needed emergency care.


All of the above doesn't have to be owned by the state. It can be owned collectively as a commons.

And you agree that an area is arbitrary and based on whatever is convenient for the state.

VOC


Didn't exist in this time period. They're long gone.

Also the VOC was a overseas country.

Anyone who thinks taxes and governments didn't have role in building civilization, is someone who doesn't know history at all.

Go read your history.


I guess history disagrees with you then.

Mesh networks can not sustain the scale of internet we have today.
That needs large servers to sustain it.


There are scalable mesh networks that have been developed like Netsukuku.

Regardless, the internet can be owned collectively as a commons and maintained as such.

Then no one will get training, because without that education, no one will pass.


Who told you they didn't have education.

In professions, not in general sciences. And even then, in professions, the best trainee can mess things up.


They do happen in general sciences. Even trained professionals screw it up.

Direct managers are professionals in the field who just learned administrative skills.
In-direct higher-ups are administrators who organize these direct managers in their facilities and organize with other facilities.


I actually doubt that based on how I've seen people be promoted in companies. Regardless, this just proves workers can do it because direct managers are workers who learned administrative skills.

And this has nothing to do with middle management.

They can't.


They can.

You're the one proposing, how will you run a society without currency?


Who said it would be run without currency?

The hierarchy is inside of them.
Between each other, they form supply chains.


Then you can get rid of the hierarchy inside them without effecting the supply chains.

Why would people give rewards for things that wont benefit them directly? Or, potentially, don't even understand or know what's all about.


Because it's an investment. It's science.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They have a choice to make when choosing speciality and what to do in life.

Some people are just passionate about money and luxury.


You specifically said that we would get less money obsessed scientists and you said it like it was a bad thing. Like it was a flaw in anarchist societies.

If they just want money and luxury there are other avenues to get it. In an anarchist society, getting luxuries is rather easy overall. They don't need to go into a field they don't like just for the money.

Because your model is based on abolishing these networks.
:lol:


Why would they be abolished? They would simply be restructured.

Because modern economies aren't based on basic things like wheat, they're based on things like cars, airplanes, chemicals, computers, etc
Things that are highly intricate and require a significant degree of specialization at each part of it. To be able to sustain this production, you need massive numbers of people (And by massive, I mean by the millions) working together in a very large supply chain in a very organized way where each of these people does a very specific set of tasks, all to deliver a final product like a car or a computer.
When removing organizers and introduce a system based on negotiations between workers, you then would have to wait for negotiations to take place among millions if not 10s of millions of people and reach a middle ground between all of them for each every single minor change.
And if a handful of members in just one part of that network didn't show up or stopped working, it collapses and the process has to be done all over again.

Organizers and administrators, in general, ensure that these processes function effectively and efficiently and ensure a backup or a safe plan for any malfunction.


You literally used the word "organized" in your statement but I digress.

There wouldn't be much to negotiate. Supply chains could be changed or negotiated but that's the case now too.

Also managers won't be replaces by "systems of negotiations".

Because the majority are there for the money and the prestige, and your system removes both.
Heck, that's why the USSR lost steam and fell apart internally. It took away the monetary reward and the prestige that came with being a scientists so most left, and not many new ones were incentivized to join in.


That's not the reason the USSR fell apart.

And a majority of the people there for money fake research. Being a scientists will still be prestigious though and there may be monetary rewards I don't know why you think there won't.

Like who?
Corporations?
Those wouldn't exist under an anarchist system.


Federations and unions.

That's not how the current system works, I was describing what I assume would be your system.
And I was being sarcastic about it.


It's exactly how the current system works.

And that's not sarcasm. I just had an argument about this with another person and I'm not in the mood for another.

Nothing you describe is similar to how things are now.


Well yeah but some parts are.

EDIT:
You claim to live in Syria, you should know why removing these incentives is a shitty move.
The reasons why Syria stagnated in the 90s and never recovered is exactly the same reason why the Soviet Union stagnated in the 70s and 80s, and why China had to overhaul it's science and tech policy to avoid stagnation.
You remove the reward and the prestige from science, and for most people it simply become illogical to go through all that work to get the exact same results.


You mean economically? Because that had nothing to do with the amount of scientists in Syria.
Last edited by Palmyrene on 13 Aug 2019 20:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15026230
@Palmyrene
Well, like I said, some workers know how to weld while others don't. Does that make them a "special class"? Everyone has something distinct about them.

And if you're not trying to say that them being professionals will result in a state then I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is, you need professionals, and if it's based on volunteering without pre-requisites, then it falls apart.

Please read the example I gave.

Regardless, 90% go unsolved anyways. Just last year, 40% of murder cases in America went unsolved. That's a 40% chance you might get murdered.

The examples I gave here and before show how an anarchist society will a murder and potential crime better than a hierarchial society.

Better than 99.9% still.

Cities have neighborhoods. People know their neighbors and in an anarchist society they will be far more closer than they are now.

I never said that these neighborhoods would be self-contained or isolated economically, just that everyone will know each other.

Except anyone who lives in a city knows you can't know everyone in your neighborhood.

You think cities don't have neighborhoods?

They do, but not everyone knows each other in a neighborhood. Everyone in cities knows this.

It's still a network and you can examine it in isolation (states need to do this for administration so don't claim that you can't). If only the big network counts then the global economy would be a state because that's the biggest network of them all.

It's a service, a feature of a network, the police.
The global economy is not fully integrated, but yes, it is approaching global governance, that's what globalization is.

I've given you the definition of volunteer and shown that there is no incompatibility between being a volunteer and being a professional.

People will become detectives because they want to be detectives and will seek any way for them to improve their craft.

It does conflict when it's open for everyone to come in the project.


Checks and balances are BS. Laws and checks and balances are only obeyed because people want to obey them. There is no such thing as accountability from the people, America should be a good example of this.

The US is an oligarchy, it's no longer a state of laws.

If they aren't anarchists they wouldn't be living in an anarchist society.

What if someone was drunk or high? Someone would step in and stop them from doing something stupid.

When you remove the threat of legal action and potential backlash, people would be free to do so.

So anarchism can only be applied in a limited scale in a limited number of areas? You know, so those who don't want it can leave?

People know everyone in their neighborhood and if you remove the threat of violence that comes with dealing with cops, people will be far more cooperative to share information.

Except they don't. They can't know everyone in their neighborhood since everyone is constantly moving in and out.

A good chunk of it comes from authority figures like cops abusing their spouses.

No, it's not for a start.
And the reason it's hard to eliminate it is because of reporting. Not everyone reports nor is everyone capable of reporting.
The same that applies to reporting to the police apply to spreading the word around a closed community.

Who said that?

You did.
You said there wont be money, and if there is no money then there wont be a representation and division of value, which means markets wont form.
You'll have barter exchanges, but those aren't exactly functional.

There are no businesses.

Then how is anything done?
Even communistic economies have businesses and you want to abolish those too?

Obviously areas run by warlords will be less safe but even that is due to the overwhelming presence of hierarchy in those countries.

Also police brutality is very common in Syria. It's far more worse than the US and it's why people distrust the police as much as they do.

Anarchist areas open the door for warlords to come in.

Because it's a person they know and letting that person hurt them would lower the living conditions of them all.

But they can simply step aside and let others step up. They wont have to risk their lives for others.
It's game theory 101.

No they wouldn't. They would need basic combat training to fight against states but not to defend against criminals.

Criminals I assume wont have guns or hold any type of weapons then, just bare hands.
So, an anarchist society with no guns.
Got it.
:knife:

That isn't the logical conclusion unless you think claiming cities not having neighborhoods is logical.

I didn't claim that, that's a strawman.
I claimed, factually BTW, that not everyone in city neighborhoods knows each other nor can they know everyone in their neighborhood.

And the police doesn't deter someone. A rapist who wants to rape would only slowly ease into it and see how much they could get away with but they'll eventually rape. It's like a drug.

If everyone who wants to rape rapes, then we wouldn't have an entire genre of porn dedicated to rape fantasies.
They're deterred by the punishment.

It's far more efficent than the centralized schooling system.

No it's not. This system already existed before schools became a thing, and the majority were barely literate because of its deficiency.

The Prussian model of schooling is applied in every somewhat developed state on Earth. It is not only the US.

Also homeschooling has very little regulations. You may be forces to take certain tests but the curriculum is up to you.

There are tons of schooling systems around, and pretty much every developed country has its own variation.
The failure of schools in the US means just that, the failure of schools in the US, not the failure of schools in general.

They want private fancy Catholic schools that exclude everyone who doesn't eat caviar.

Bullshit. No they don't. They want a fully privatized free-market system with no government oversight.

My idea of education is different. Education isn't something you just do once and then you're done. It's a continuous process for all members of society.

It already is a continuous process.

Being a functional member of society should be achieved by just living in it and that's what my system does. It completely immerses children in an active state of learning.

Instead of having children go to a specific place to learn and micromanage their time like it's a job, the entire city is composed of learning experiences.

1- Being a functional member of society isn't achieved by "just living in it", it's achieved by work and productivity.

2- The closest thing to what you're arguing for, or atleast what it requires to work, is a hive mind and that isn't the case with humans.

There is still school, it's just different. And universities still exist.

How will universities still exist if you abolished schools?
And how would universities operate with no central authority?

Democracy is a form of decision making not governance.

Democratic governance is governance; Which, funny enough, is a anarcho-communist idea through and through.

It is a network. The network itself is composed of citizens keeping a look out and cooperating with law enforcement. It is collaborative.

It's a service that the police provide, and the people cooperate with the police.
There isn't a special group of people in the US with everything they do being providing amber alerts.

All of the above doesn't have to be owned by the state. It can be owned collectively as a commons.

Which is what states are.

And you agree that an area is arbitrary and based on whatever is convenient for the state.

and?
By convenient for the state you mean most efficient distribution to provide all the necessary services and infrastructure you mean?

Didn't exist in this time period. They're long gone.

Also the VOC was a overseas country.

The VOC was one of the first torch holders of that race and process, and it was funded and established by the Dutch government.
And it wasn't an overseas country. It was a company.

I guess history disagrees with you then.

It doesn't. You just don't know much of it.

There are scalable mesh networks that have been developed like Netsukuku.

Look up the flaws in that system, it's the same one as in all Distributed ledger tech.

Regardless, the internet can be owned collectively as a commons and maintained as such.

The servers, satellites, seafloor wirings, etc are too large of projects to be constructed or maintained without massive centralization and organization.
It can't be maintained by random people around.

It's often maintained by either states or multi-billion-dollar multinational corporations.

Who told you they didn't have education.

You did.
If they're going directly into practical training, then they don't have the required education.

They do happen in general sciences. Even trained professionals screw it up.


No they don't. You get atleast 3-5 years education before you're anywhere near sensitive material or equipment in general sciences (natural sciences) education.
Said by someone who's 2 sisters one majoring in applied physics and one in nuclear physics with both working as university instructors and active researchers.

I actually doubt that based on how I've seen people be promoted in companies. Regardless, this just proves workers can do it because direct managers are workers who learned administrative skills.

It is how it works.
And yes, they're professionals who learned administrative skills, i.e. became organizers.

Who said it would be run without currency?

You stated there wont be any money.

But I digress, who will issue this currency? how will it be issued? and how will its value be determined? without state authority.

Then you can get rid of the hierarchy inside them without effecting the supply chains.

Then they'll collapse and the supply chain follows shortly.

Because it's an investment. It's science.

Most people would choose to invest somewhere else they believe is more important.
You can see that clearly demonstrated in the public debate regarding these things in the past few years.

You specifically said that we would get less money obsessed scientists and you said it like it was a bad thing. Like it was a flaw in anarchist societies.

It is a bad thing. If you remove the incentive from it, very few would actually choose to go into these fields, and progress as a whole would slow down and stagnate.

Most people want money to achieve a higher living standard, and most of the people who are scientists and engineers are scientists and engineers because they're good at science and they can make good money in it.
If you remove that incentive, you lost all of them, and that would be the majority of people.

If they just want money and luxury there are other avenues to get it.

And if they're good at a certain field of science and enjoy it, then they'll choose to make that money in it.
If you remove the incentive, then tons of people who are good at science will go to other fields simply because they desire better and higher living conditions.

In an anarchist society, getting luxuries is rather easy overall.

How?
Everything so far suggests otherwise.

They don't need to go into a field they don't like just for the money.


Who said they don't like it?
But even if they don't (some do, some don't), most people prioritize living standards and comfort and if they have to work in jobs they don't like to get it, they will.
Welcome to the real world where people have priorities.

You literally used the word "organized" in your statement but I digress.

There wouldn't be much to negotiate. Supply chains could be changed or negotiated but that's the case now too.

Also managers won't be replaces by "systems of negotiations".

How wont there be much to negotiate? how will everyone know what tasks are they supposed to do?

Supply negotiations happen at the top administration and is done in a quick manner to ensure efficiency and continuous production, it doesn't take years to negotiate supply terms.

That's not the reason the USSR fell apart.

It fell due to economic stagnation.
Why do you think its economy stagnated? could it possibly be because everyone started leaving and all the key industries started falling short on experts and professionals internally?

Federations and unions.

Both have organizers and administrators, and if they wanted to get things done they'd have to establish cooperatives, and anyone who is a part of a union (like me for example) knows that the bigger and more complex that goal of a cooperative is, the more administrators and organizers it needs to function.

It's exactly how the current system works.

:knife:
So you don't know how the current system works, but you want to abolish it.

You mean economically? Because that had nothing to do with the amount of scientists in Syria.

Yes, economically.
An engineer in Syria made 150-200$ a month pre-civil war period.
I've known people who worked for 30 and 40 years and ended up retiring with a 120$ a month pension, and even that is gone now due to inflation as it stands closer to 30-40$ after the war.

The autopsy showed some broken bones in Epstein's […]

Trump's Dumb Economics

A study from researchers at Harvard, the Universit[…]

You obviously still haven't taken a look at my 'l[…]

@Verv , do you fancy editing your post so that y[…]