Okay, so, i know such rigorous histiographical and archaelogic texts as milton’s ‘paradise lost’, 'the lord of the flies’ and 'some shit tom hobbes said while he was tripping balls on moldy grain and everyone i know jas been translating over and over again for the past like five hundred years so they cpuld use the clichés for their rich self justifying thought terminating qualities. (Love em btw. “People suck” is like my fav thing to shout as try to localize entropy and de-escalate from complex life in rhe local area with greatest possible rapidity.)
But there are, if you want to wear some pretentions of ‘objectuvity’, some actual academics who have done actual research on these topics, and cite actual sources. Davids graeber and wengrow have some lovely work, especially graeber! And rebecca solnit’s ‘a paradise built in hell’ on how people actually function in stress when they dont have a strong incentive to suck. For those to whom actual distress is a purely acafemic exercise. You know; in case you wanted to see some footnotes. Though, it should be noted that none of solnit’s citations are ‘the bible’, so it is admittedly a weaker argument than it could be.
There’s also work about how this happened in and across other species, gping back to kropotkin and fucking darwin i think but you dont actually care because thats all lizards and trees and crap
Fuck em. You’re just here for the monkrys.
And hobbes admittedly was a pretty good storyteller who had some pretty damn strong drugs. But. if we’re doing this based on who has better drugs; a perfectly lovely criteria: im currently tripping on shit like twenty orders of magnitude nore psychoactive than anything your boy hobbes could possibly have had, and im telling you: he was wrong and you are wrong and you can only be as wrong as you are because of the frankly delusional level of abstraction at which most of us live the overwhelming majority of our bullshit lives. You literally wpuld not have the tools of thought to imagine being this wrong, unless you were.
and im willing to tell you some trippy just-so stories to that effect. I cant guarantee that my stories will be better, but my drugs are.
That’s a lot of homework, and I’ve only had a bare glimpse at the synopses. I’m not sure when I’ll have time to fully dig into them. So let me just ask directly: when you advocate for an anarchistic society, do you envision people living in communes of no more than ~100, tied to the land they live on, and forgoing large public projects like hospitals, roads, and telecommunications?
No. Where the fuck did i say that? That’s your thing.
I was on a train this morning with at least that many in the car. We vibed. It was fine. I mean, it wasnt fine; at least like a dozen of us had hangovers and i think most of us were headed to shitty exploitative coerced capitalist labor, but, like, we were fine with each other.
Closest i would ever advocate to your ‘100’ limit is bookchin’s municipalist thing, and that isnt strictly anarchist.
tied to
Not unless they wanna be? Or like have emotional reasons for it?
do you envision
I try not to do that alone too much, not that im always successful. Part of the point of a truly free society is that everyone is a part of it, everyone shapes it, everyone leaves their mark, and so is invested in it. A vision that’s totally mine doesn’t leave much room for that.
I do not expect or aim for perfect harmony. There would still be friction, communication and collaboration are made of hard work, not of magical fairy dust, and that work cannot should not (even if it could, which it can’t) come from a single actor.
your sources like Kropotlin focus on small communities, probly so that social pressures can be more effective without an enforcement group. and that’s why i question is larger projects for society would even be possible at that size of groups. not just in the agreement the duck things would be needed by a critical mass of people competing to a quorum. but also the needed disciplines which all twitter their own infastructure.
like a water system would require an intricate series of disciplines from hydraulic engineers, biochemists, metallurgists, geologists. but you don’t just have these specialists, you need to be able to have the schools for these specializations, or the foundries to manufacture the metals, and other plastics, it’s a whole chain of things that would each require sacrifice from multiple enclaves that would be abstract and hard to get an agreement. especially when you have people who still to this day argue the earth is flat.
The piece from kropotkin i referenced was about nonhuman animals.
water system
Referenced solnit. Think this comes up-in the context of places i have been, during severe crisis (during the events of the book, not when i was there. Just, like, cities yiud think of as normally heing pretty big). I don’t know why i bothered.
specialists
Yeah, anarchists have never organized any sort of education. Guess we’re fucked.
need coercion
You seem really convinced terrorism accomplisjes this. Why dont you cite some sources?
Im down to quibble about the things i have said if you want to talk to me, but you seem to be talking at rather than to me and just looping. I have no interest in perpetuating your weird obsessive compulsive mental illness.
bad actors have existed since the begining of time. and society must have the means to handle, and preferably rehabilitate them. this requires the means to compel people. traditionally with the state monopoly on violence. i fear that anarchy would be liberalism in disguise, where power would form around one who by some mechanism finds them selves with greater means.
the reason i bring up water systems is because it is a societal necessity, but would not only require mass agreement across the board, but thousands of specialists which necessitates its own large system, education
in regard to education, i am not talking about grade schools, i am talking about specialist training. in examples i see, they are non existent, and borrow from capitalistic systems. you did not answer my concerns, but just asserted they are not an issue.
most like because my main reason for concern is scalability, in which you had previously argued a fractal quorum senario. i am unconvinced, i see only possible blockage of needed decisions at every level, and when things don’t go the way groups want, an exodus of the quorum.
i guess the assumption is that people would naturally vote for what is best for society, but that assumption i know to be false, AND in cases where that is true, the individuals will not agree on what that “best for society” even is. this very conversation is proof your assumption, if i have the make of it, is wrong.
Bad actors are fine? Shrinkage. It’s whatever. And what ‘bad’ is changes when you have a society based on provoding for people. Your premise is fucked. You’re just crying about shit, there sre books you could read on the topic if you were interested in learning.
water
Bitch i already referenced this. Read what i recommemded, historical fucking examples, or fuck off. You are wrong, this is nonsense, we are better yhan you, and book explains how.
education
Yeah im not either. You seem to think there are no educated anarchists. You seem so attached to your boot on neck fetiwh that theres no point arguing with you. Like you cannot imagine anything cohering without threat of violence, like youve never so much as played a sport or a ttrpg, or a poker night, been in a book club, gone on vacation with your friends without a gun to your head and that comes off as extremely bad faith. Fuck off.
scalability
It’s been addressed in multiple different ways throughout history. I wont go over them becauee, again, you’re unconvonced anyone would ever do anything other than rape or pillage wuthout a gun to their head.
If you cqnt accept that, I don’t need to talk to you; i don’t have a gun to my head, and im very done dealing with your sickness.
if you can not be an honest interlocutor then you do not have an opinion on the matter worth engaging. hopefully someone who has the capability to articulate your position for you will eventually present themselves. this has been a total waste of time and you have addressed none a of my concerns other to say, they are not real. and with such assumptions i can equaly dismiss without effort. i think we are done here in all branches of this conversation
Comnunication has two sides. You must read with earnest intent to figures out what im thinking, as much as i must express this.
I alone cannit make communication honest. If you can only comb what i say for one thing rather than respind to things i have said abd engage with ideas, nithing i say is truth; it’s just noise.
Okay, so, i know such rigorous histiographical and archaelogic texts as milton’s ‘paradise lost’, 'the lord of the flies’ and 'some shit tom hobbes said while he was tripping balls on moldy grain and everyone i know jas been translating over and over again for the past like five hundred years so they cpuld use the clichés for their rich self justifying thought terminating qualities. (Love em btw. “People suck” is like my fav thing to shout as try to localize entropy and de-escalate from complex life in rhe local area with greatest possible rapidity.)
But there are, if you want to wear some pretentions of ‘objectuvity’, some actual academics who have done actual research on these topics, and cite actual sources. Davids graeber and wengrow have some lovely work, especially graeber! And rebecca solnit’s ‘a paradise built in hell’ on how people actually function in stress when they dont have a strong incentive to suck. For those to whom actual distress is a purely acafemic exercise. You know; in case you wanted to see some footnotes. Though, it should be noted that none of solnit’s citations are ‘the bible’, so it is admittedly a weaker argument than it could be.
There’s also work about how this happened in and across other species, gping back to kropotkin and fucking darwin i think but you dont actually care because thats all lizards and trees and crap Fuck em. You’re just here for the monkrys.
And hobbes admittedly was a pretty good storyteller who had some pretty damn strong drugs. But. if we’re doing this based on who has better drugs; a perfectly lovely criteria: im currently tripping on shit like twenty orders of magnitude nore psychoactive than anything your boy hobbes could possibly have had, and im telling you: he was wrong and you are wrong and you can only be as wrong as you are because of the frankly delusional level of abstraction at which most of us live the overwhelming majority of our bullshit lives. You literally wpuld not have the tools of thought to imagine being this wrong, unless you were.
and im willing to tell you some trippy just-so stories to that effect. I cant guarantee that my stories will be better, but my drugs are.
That’s a lot of homework, and I’ve only had a bare glimpse at the synopses. I’m not sure when I’ll have time to fully dig into them. So let me just ask directly: when you advocate for an anarchistic society, do you envision people living in communes of no more than ~100, tied to the land they live on, and forgoing large public projects like hospitals, roads, and telecommunications?
No. Where the fuck did i say that? That’s your thing.
I was on a train this morning with at least that many in the car. We vibed. It was fine. I mean, it wasnt fine; at least like a dozen of us had hangovers and i think most of us were headed to shitty exploitative coerced capitalist labor, but, like, we were fine with each other.
Closest i would ever advocate to your ‘100’ limit is bookchin’s municipalist thing, and that isnt strictly anarchist.
Not unless they wanna be? Or like have emotional reasons for it?
I try not to do that alone too much, not that im always successful. Part of the point of a truly free society is that everyone is a part of it, everyone shapes it, everyone leaves their mark, and so is invested in it. A vision that’s totally mine doesn’t leave much room for that.
I do not expect or aim for perfect harmony. There would still be friction, communication and collaboration are made of hard work, not of magical fairy dust, and that work cannot should not (even if it could, which it can’t) come from a single actor.
your sources like Kropotlin focus on small communities, probly so that social pressures can be more effective without an enforcement group. and that’s why i question is larger projects for society would even be possible at that size of groups. not just in the agreement the duck things would be needed by a critical mass of people competing to a quorum. but also the needed disciplines which all twitter their own infastructure.
like a water system would require an intricate series of disciplines from hydraulic engineers, biochemists, metallurgists, geologists. but you don’t just have these specialists, you need to be able to have the schools for these specializations, or the foundries to manufacture the metals, and other plastics, it’s a whole chain of things that would each require sacrifice from multiple enclaves that would be abstract and hard to get an agreement. especially when you have people who still to this day argue the earth is flat.
The piece from kropotkin i referenced was about nonhuman animals.
Referenced solnit. Think this comes up-in the context of places i have been, during severe crisis (during the events of the book, not when i was there. Just, like, cities yiud think of as normally heing pretty big). I don’t know why i bothered.
Yeah, anarchists have never organized any sort of education. Guess we’re fucked.
You seem really convinced terrorism accomplisjes this. Why dont you cite some sources?
Im down to quibble about the things i have said if you want to talk to me, but you seem to be talking at rather than to me and just looping. I have no interest in perpetuating your weird obsessive compulsive mental illness.
bad actors have existed since the begining of time. and society must have the means to handle, and preferably rehabilitate them. this requires the means to compel people. traditionally with the state monopoly on violence. i fear that anarchy would be liberalism in disguise, where power would form around one who by some mechanism finds them selves with greater means.
the reason i bring up water systems is because it is a societal necessity, but would not only require mass agreement across the board, but thousands of specialists which necessitates its own large system, education
in regard to education, i am not talking about grade schools, i am talking about specialist training. in examples i see, they are non existent, and borrow from capitalistic systems. you did not answer my concerns, but just asserted they are not an issue.
most like because my main reason for concern is scalability, in which you had previously argued a fractal quorum senario. i am unconvinced, i see only possible blockage of needed decisions at every level, and when things don’t go the way groups want, an exodus of the quorum.
i guess the assumption is that people would naturally vote for what is best for society, but that assumption i know to be false, AND in cases where that is true, the individuals will not agree on what that “best for society” even is. this very conversation is proof your assumption, if i have the make of it, is wrong.
Bad actors are fine? Shrinkage. It’s whatever. And what ‘bad’ is changes when you have a society based on provoding for people. Your premise is fucked. You’re just crying about shit, there sre books you could read on the topic if you were interested in learning.
Bitch i already referenced this. Read what i recommemded, historical fucking examples, or fuck off. You are wrong, this is nonsense, we are better yhan you, and book explains how.
Yeah im not either. You seem to think there are no educated anarchists. You seem so attached to your boot on neck fetiwh that theres no point arguing with you. Like you cannot imagine anything cohering without threat of violence, like youve never so much as played a sport or a ttrpg, or a poker night, been in a book club, gone on vacation with your friends without a gun to your head and that comes off as extremely bad faith. Fuck off.
It’s been addressed in multiple different ways throughout history. I wont go over them becauee, again, you’re unconvonced anyone would ever do anything other than rape or pillage wuthout a gun to their head.
If you cqnt accept that, I don’t need to talk to you; i don’t have a gun to my head, and im very done dealing with your sickness.
You’re high.
if you can not be an honest interlocutor then you do not have an opinion on the matter worth engaging. hopefully someone who has the capability to articulate your position for you will eventually present themselves. this has been a total waste of time and you have addressed none a of my concerns other to say, they are not real. and with such assumptions i can equaly dismiss without effort. i think we are done here in all branches of this conversation
Comnunication has two sides. You must read with earnest intent to figures out what im thinking, as much as i must express this.
I alone cannit make communication honest. If you can only comb what i say for one thing rather than respind to things i have said abd engage with ideas, nithing i say is truth; it’s just noise.