Not every social species has a human-style hierarchy of authority. Most of them aren't intellectually complex enough for that sort of multi-layer command hierarchy that we do.
But humans always seem to do it in societies larger than a small band.
Which is why I mentioned Alphas. There is always one who is in charged.
Nomadic pre-agricultural societies (i.e. the norm for human existence for most of our time on this planet) were not organised in this way, nor according to class stratification.
I always bring it up in these threads because it demonstrates that the "x social ill is human nature" thing is untrue, and that we are highly malleable organisms whose social structure is dependent on our material circumstances and style of living. The "dude in charge" model is pretty much ubiquitous in sedentary agricultural societies, but is not by any means universal for human existence.
Which is nice if we wanted to live as nomadic pre-agricultural people. But instead we would kinda like to have, like, a complex civilization. With services and clean running water and internet porn.
My point is not "therefore we can emulate their social structure," just that "these social traits are inevitable due to human nature" isn't accurate. I find that sort of thinking be a form of fatalism and a way of unnecessarily closing doors to future possibilities. As a side note I'd also like to note that patriarchy was not the rule in such societies either, but gradually became almost ubiquitous after agriculture and remained so for thousands of years; yet today and in more recent history we see it being eroded in many places.
My point is that the example you are using is of limited use as a case for why it's not necessarily true that certain social traits are inevitable. Because it may well be that the actual truth is "certain social traits are inevitable once a group reaches a certain size" or "certain social traits are inevitable once a group reaches a certain level of complexity" or the like.
Or, more clearly, yes you can live as a pre-agricultural nomadic society without strict hierarchies but is that true for a complex modern society of millions to billions of people?
I'm not sure, but it is the direction I think we should be heading in. Most, possibly all, of this forum seems to be in agreement that social inequality based on race is based on race, sex, gender, and sexual orientation should not just be limited or mitigated, but totally abolished. When it comes to economic and political hierarchy there is more divergence in viewpoint, but even in those dimensions, there is broad agreement that such inequalities should be minimized or reduced. No one here seems to like authoritarian regimes or the degree of wealth inequality we see in American capitalism. Most here favor expansion of democratic governance, organization of labor, and redistributive state policy.
So the point of contention does not seem centered on whether economic and political inequality are desirable features of a society, but on whether they are necessary or unavoidable ones. Some of those who argue that they are unavoidable point to human nature as the reason why. I bring up the hunter gatherers as an example of human society without those features - not to show that anarchism is necessarily possible for civilisations, but to show that "human nature" is not a convincing reason for its alleged impossibility. If political and economic hierarchy can't be done away with, something other than our biology must be pointed to as the thing that necessitates those inequalities.
The obvious answer to that would seem to be our material circumstances and environment, or in broad terms our way of living. But these are much more hopeful answers than "human nature", because our material circumstances and ways of living change much more quickly than our biology does. To refer back to the example of patriarchy: prior to the advent of agriculture, sexual egalitarianism was the rule. Then we started farming and entered a mostly unbroken era of patriarchy for thousands of years. Then, a couple hundred years ago, industry happens, and society's material circumstances change in such a way as to enable women to struggle for freedom and equality.
I'm willing to accept the notion that, throughout history, political and economic stratification were essentially unavoidable aspects of civilisation. The evidence seems to support this, in that there are no examples of any large scale sedentary society without these features, and several examples of failed attempts at forming them. And I also share the view that our current way of life is incompatible with a classless or stateless society. But I have no idea if this is true of the circumstances of the future. Our society has changed so rapidly over the last hundred years, and will change so much more over the next hundred, that I can't say what is or is not possible with any confidence. In developed nations, literacy skyrockets and birth rates drastically decline. The internet has transformed and is still transforming society in various major ways, via enabling instant global communication and information distribution, technologically abolishing certain domains of scarcity, and in innumerable other senses. The shift from fossil fuels to renewables will fundamentally change the energy base of industrial economy. Globalisation has United many nations under one economic system and fostered an unprecedented degree of cultural similarity upon them. Automation will transform humanity's relationship to work in major ways. Climate change and other environmental limits and catastrophes will exert major pressures on current models, particularly on their goal of limitless economic growth. Women across the globe will continue to gain power and erode the millenia old patriarchal power structure.
This is not to say that these changes and others will necessarily lead to less economic and political inequality. It is plausible that the opposite could occur, or that the pressure will be too much for global capitalist civilisation and it will collapse. But major change seems certain, the nature of the change seems unclear, and we have the power to be guiding hands which shape the nature of that change, so if I view economic and political inequality as social ills, why would I want to throw in the towel and accept them when I don't know that that is the case?
If one does not accept that those are social ills, that's another debate entirely; I'm arguing here against the notion of the impossibility of such change rather than against the notion that such change is undesirable.
I think my experince with the store key and the essay Hedgie linked suggest that, even if there isn't an explicit hierarchy, there is always an implicit one within a group, even if officially noone is the leader (or at least enough of a leader to demand open authority.) Those pre-agricultural societies probably had a guy everyone considered the best hunter, and probably a woman who excelled at foraging, and someone who was the best at guiding the tribe to where it needed to go (as most nomadic tribes travelled in big circles to be where the food was most plentiful depending on the season. One of the reasons grain became a staple even before farming was that you could store it in a cave or pit and as long as it stayed dry would still be edible when you returned to that spot next year) and probably a few other people that had talents that stood out among the rest. And while they might never have been a Chieftain as we would recognize it, they were probably looked up to and treated as a leader or authority at what they excelled at.
I think there's the aspect here as well as while there might not have been a hierarchy within the group before, they are literally immersed in a culture that has hierarchies in every aspect of their lives.
It's not so much "oh Hierarchies naturally form!" it's "These people have literally been conditioned to form hierarchies once a certain stimulus is triggered because their entire society is organized around them"
Is there a study that's a deep dive on the social structure of current nomadic tribes? Because they still exist.
Not sure; also I should have noted I was referring to the store employees/key to the store story
Not every social species has a human-style hierarchy of authority. Most of them aren't intellectually complex enough for that sort of multi-layer command hierarchy that we do.
But humans always seem to do it in societies larger than a small band.
Which is why I mentioned Alphas. There is always one who is in charged.
Nomadic pre-agricultural societies (i.e. the norm for human existence for most of our time on this planet) were not organised in this way, nor according to class stratification.
I always bring it up in these threads because it demonstrates that the "x social ill is human nature" thing is untrue, and that we are highly malleable organisms whose social structure is dependent on our material circumstances and style of living. The "dude in charge" model is pretty much ubiquitous in sedentary agricultural societies, but is not by any means universal for human existence.
Which is nice if we wanted to live as nomadic pre-agricultural people. But instead we would kinda like to have, like, a complex civilization. With services and clean running water and internet porn.
My point is not "therefore we can emulate their social structure," just that "these social traits are inevitable due to human nature" isn't accurate. I find that sort of thinking be a form of fatalism and a way of unnecessarily closing doors to future possibilities. As a side note I'd also like to note that patriarchy was not the rule in such societies either, but gradually became almost ubiquitous after agriculture and remained so for thousands of years; yet today and in more recent history we see it being eroded in many places.
My point is that the example you are using is of limited use as a case for why it's not necessarily true that certain social traits are inevitable. Because it may well be that the actual truth is "certain social traits are inevitable once a group reaches a certain size" or "certain social traits are inevitable once a group reaches a certain level of complexity" or the like.
Or, more clearly, yes you can live as a pre-agricultural nomadic society without strict hierarchies but is that true for a complex modern society of millions to billions of people?
I'm not sure, but it is the direction I think we should be heading in. Most, possibly all, of this forum seems to be in agreement that social inequality based on race is based on race, sex, gender, and sexual orientation should not just be limited or mitigated, but totally abolished. When it comes to economic and political hierarchy there is more divergence in viewpoint, but even in those dimensions, there is broad agreement that such inequalities should be minimized or reduced. No one here seems to like authoritarian regimes or the degree of wealth inequality we see in American capitalism. Most here favor expansion of democratic governance, organization of labor, and redistributive state policy.
So the point of contention does not seem centered on whether economic and political inequality are desirable features of a society, but on whether they are necessary or unavoidable ones. Some of those who argue that they are unavoidable point to human nature as the reason why. I bring up the hunter gatherers as an example of human society without those features - not to show that anarchism is necessarily possible for civilisations, but to show that "human nature" is not a convincing reason for its alleged impossibility. If political and economic hierarchy can't be done away with, something other than our biology must be pointed to as the thing that necessitates those inequalities.
The obvious answer to that would seem to be our material circumstances and environment, or in broad terms our way of living. But these are much more hopeful answers than "human nature", because our material circumstances and ways of living change much more quickly than our biology does. To refer back to the example of patriarchy: prior to the advent of agriculture, sexual egalitarianism was the rule. Then we started farming and entered a mostly unbroken era of patriarchy for thousands of years. Then, a couple hundred years ago, industry happens, and society's material circumstances change in such a way as to enable women to struggle for freedom and equality.
I'm willing to accept the notion that, throughout history, political and economic stratification were essentially unavoidable aspects of civilisation. The evidence seems to support this, in that there are no examples of any large scale sedentary society without these features, and several examples of failed attempts at forming them. And I also share the view that our current way of life is incompatible with a classless or stateless society. But I have no idea if this is true of the circumstances of the future. Our society has changed so rapidly over the last hundred years, and will change so much more over the next hundred, that I can't say what is or is not possible with any confidence. In developed nations, literacy skyrockets and birth rates drastically decline. The internet has transformed and is still transforming society in various major ways, via enabling instant global communication and information distribution, technologically abolishing certain domains of scarcity, and in innumerable other senses. The shift from fossil fuels to renewables will fundamentally change the energy base of industrial economy. Globalisation has United many nations under one economic system and fostered an unprecedented degree of cultural similarity upon them. Automation will transform humanity's relationship to work in major ways. Climate change and other environmental limits and catastrophes will exert major pressures on current models, particularly on their goal of limitless economic growth. Women across the globe will continue to gain power and erode the millenia old patriarchal power structure.
This is not to say that these changes and others will necessarily lead to less economic and political inequality. It is plausible that the opposite could occur, or that the pressure will be too much for global capitalist civilisation and it will collapse. But major change seems certain, the nature of the change seems unclear, and we have the power to be guiding hands which shape the nature of that change, so if I view economic and political inequality as social ills, why would I want to throw in the towel and accept them when I don't know that that is the case?
If one does not accept that those are social ills, that's another debate entirely; I'm arguing here against the notion of the impossibility of such change rather than against the notion that such change is undesirable.
I think my experince with the store key and the essay Hedgie linked suggest that, even if there isn't an explicit hierarchy, there is always an implicit one within a group, even if officially noone is the leader (or at least enough of a leader to demand open authority.) Those pre-agricultural societies probably had a guy everyone considered the best hunter, and probably a woman who excelled at foraging, and someone who was the best at guiding the tribe to where it needed to go (as most nomadic tribes travelled in big circles to be where the food was most plentiful depending on the season. One of the reasons grain became a staple even before farming was that you could store it in a cave or pit and as long as it stayed dry would still be edible when you returned to that spot next year) and probably a few other people that had talents that stood out among the rest. And while they might never have been a Chieftain as we would recognize it, they were probably looked up to and treated as a leader or authority at what they excelled at.
I think there's the aspect here as well as while there might not have been a hierarchy within the group before, they are literally immersed in a culture that has hierarchies in every aspect of their lives.
It's not so much "oh Hierarchies naturally form!" it's "These people have literally been conditioned to form hierarchies once a certain stimulus is triggered because their entire society is organized around them"
Is there a study that's a deep dive on the social structure of current nomadic tribes? Because they still exist.
Not sure; also I should have noted I was referring to the store employees/key to the store story
I know, but I mean if a society that never went agrarian could be observed to have an implicit social hierarchy; even if it's "this guy knows all the hunting tricks, you should follow him and do what he does" it would suggest that it's a natural thing, and not simply something we've brainwashed ourselves into thinking it is.
Now if I respect this really good hunter and look to him for guidance when going out hunting, does he eat better than me or sleep in a better bed than me or get to take food or shelter away from me if he gets mad at me
Now if I respect this really good hunter and look to him for guidance when going out hunting, does he eat better than me or sleep in a better bed than me or get to take food or shelter away from me if he gets mad at me
Depends on the hunter
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Anarchists posit a society without lawmakers or judges, or rather, everyone is a judge and lawmaker. Eventually someone is going to have a disagreement, and people are going to have to part ways or stand their ground and assert violently who is right and who is wrong. Then the victorious side becomes the new elite, as the losers must submit in death or exile or submission.
The fuck kind of anarchists have you been talking to?
I don't think any anarchists can actually agree on how their anarchic society is actually suppose to resolve disputes.
I can tell you that none of them think "crown yourself king through violence and demand others submit to you" is the way to go though.
I was implying the tyranny of the majority though.
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Anarchists posit a society without lawmakers or judges, or rather, everyone is a judge and lawmaker. Eventually someone is going to have a disagreement, and people are going to have to part ways or stand their ground and assert violently who is right and who is wrong. Then the victorious side becomes the new elite, as the losers must submit in death or exile or submission.
The fuck kind of anarchists have you been talking to?
I don't think any anarchists can actually agree on how their anarchic society is actually suppose to resolve disputes.
I can tell you that none of them think "crown yourself king through violence and demand others submit to you" is the way to go though.
I was implying the tyranny of the majority though.
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Its funny to call any ideological philosopher outright wrong. The fact that ideological philosophy is constantly diverging instead of converging is a sign that it has no truth to converge towards.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Anarchists posit a society without lawmakers or judges, or rather, everyone is a judge and lawmaker. Eventually someone is going to have a disagreement, and people are going to have to part ways or stand their ground and assert violently who is right and who is wrong. Then the victorious side becomes the new elite, as the losers must submit in death or exile or submission.
The fuck kind of anarchists have you been talking to?
I don't think any anarchists can actually agree on how their anarchic society is actually suppose to resolve disputes.
I can tell you that none of them think "crown yourself king through violence and demand others submit to you" is the way to go though.
I was implying the tyranny of the majority though.
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Its funny to call any ideological philosopher outright wrong. The fact that ideological philosophy is constantly diverging instead of converging is a sign that it has no truth to converge towards.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and it is neither funny nor new to say a philosopher is wrong. It is in fact probably the most common thing we do as philosophers. Even in regular society it is a perfectly normal thing to do. People say Marx was wrong all the time. They also say Rawls, or Locke, or Hobbes were wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "ideological philosophy" but the fact that there are many different political philosophies isn't a sign that there is no truth about what politics is or should be. At least not any more than the fact that there are many theories about how the universe works is a sign that the universe doesn't actually exist.
Anarchists posit a society without lawmakers or judges, or rather, everyone is a judge and lawmaker. Eventually someone is going to have a disagreement, and people are going to have to part ways or stand their ground and assert violently who is right and who is wrong. Then the victorious side becomes the new elite, as the losers must submit in death or exile or submission.
The fuck kind of anarchists have you been talking to?
I don't think any anarchists can actually agree on how their anarchic society is actually suppose to resolve disputes.
I can tell you that none of them think "crown yourself king through violence and demand others submit to you" is the way to go though.
I was implying the tyranny of the majority though.
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Its funny to call any ideological philosopher outright wrong. The fact that ideological philosophy is constantly diverging instead of converging is a sign that it has no truth to converge towards.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and it is neither funny nor new to say a philosopher is wrong. It is in fact probably the most common thing we do as philosophers. Even in regular society it is a perfectly normal thing to do. People say Marx was wrong all the time. They also say Rawls, or Locke, or Hobbes were wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "ideological philosophy" but the fact that there are many different political philosophies isn't a sign that there is no truth about what politics is or should be. At least not any more than the fact that there are many theories about how the universe works is a sign that the universe doesn't actually exist.
Also, the vast number of competing philosophies within capitalism...
Anarchists posit a society without lawmakers or judges, or rather, everyone is a judge and lawmaker. Eventually someone is going to have a disagreement, and people are going to have to part ways or stand their ground and assert violently who is right and who is wrong. Then the victorious side becomes the new elite, as the losers must submit in death or exile or submission.
The fuck kind of anarchists have you been talking to?
I don't think any anarchists can actually agree on how their anarchic society is actually suppose to resolve disputes.
I can tell you that none of them think "crown yourself king through violence and demand others submit to you" is the way to go though.
I was implying the tyranny of the majority though.
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Its funny to call any ideological philosopher outright wrong. The fact that ideological philosophy is constantly diverging instead of converging is a sign that it has no truth to converge towards.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and it is neither funny nor new to say a philosopher is wrong. It is in fact probably the most common thing we do as philosophers. Even in regular society it is a perfectly normal thing to do. People say Marx was wrong all the time. They also say Rawls, or Locke, or Hobbes were wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "ideological philosophy" but the fact that there are many different political philosophies isn't a sign that there is no truth about what politics is or should be. At least not any more than the fact that there are many theories about how the universe works is a sign that the universe doesn't actually exist.
They don't just state that someone is wrong - they make an argument, challenge the premises, and build on the history of the conversation.
The fact that we have so many competing theories of the universe means that there is not enough knowledge to verify any of them, or falsify them, as such the value of those theories cannot be determined.
To bring it back to leftism, all the leftist governments we've seen in power have devolved into ideological state religions, with party leaders as high priests, Marx as the prophet to be interpreted. Challengers outcast as revisionist heretics.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Anarchists posit a society without lawmakers or judges, or rather, everyone is a judge and lawmaker. Eventually someone is going to have a disagreement, and people are going to have to part ways or stand their ground and assert violently who is right and who is wrong. Then the victorious side becomes the new elite, as the losers must submit in death or exile or submission.
The fuck kind of anarchists have you been talking to?
I don't think any anarchists can actually agree on how their anarchic society is actually suppose to resolve disputes.
I can tell you that none of them think "crown yourself king through violence and demand others submit to you" is the way to go though.
I was implying the tyranny of the majority though.
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Its funny to call any ideological philosopher outright wrong. The fact that ideological philosophy is constantly diverging instead of converging is a sign that it has no truth to converge towards.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and it is neither funny nor new to say a philosopher is wrong. It is in fact probably the most common thing we do as philosophers. Even in regular society it is a perfectly normal thing to do. People say Marx was wrong all the time. They also say Rawls, or Locke, or Hobbes were wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "ideological philosophy" but the fact that there are many different political philosophies isn't a sign that there is no truth about what politics is or should be. At least not any more than the fact that there are many theories about how the universe works is a sign that the universe doesn't actually exist.
They don't just state that someone is wrong - they make an argument, challenge the premises, and build on the history of the conversation.
The fact that we have so many competing theories of the universe means that there is not enough knowledge to verify any of them, or falsify them, as such the value of those theories cannot be determined.
To bring it back to leftism, all the leftist governments we've seen in power have devolved into ideological state religions, with party leaders as high priests, Marx as the prophet to be interpreted. Challengers outcast as revisionist heretics.
The fact that we explain why they are wrong does not change the fact that calling a philosopher wrong is perfectly normal. Literally do it all the time, frequently part of normal conversations. I could have explained why Stirner is wrong, but I didn't think that I had to explain why his individualist anarchism is wrong and dumb.
But ignoring that for a moment and also ignoring your weird characterization of leftist governments, are you under the impression that capitalist governments don't adhere to a political ideology?
Anarchists posit a society without lawmakers or judges, or rather, everyone is a judge and lawmaker. Eventually someone is going to have a disagreement, and people are going to have to part ways or stand their ground and assert violently who is right and who is wrong. Then the victorious side becomes the new elite, as the losers must submit in death or exile or submission.
The fuck kind of anarchists have you been talking to?
I don't think any anarchists can actually agree on how their anarchic society is actually suppose to resolve disputes.
I can tell you that none of them think "crown yourself king through violence and demand others submit to you" is the way to go though.
I was implying the tyranny of the majority though.
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Its funny to call any ideological philosopher outright wrong. The fact that ideological philosophy is constantly diverging instead of converging is a sign that it has no truth to converge towards.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and it is neither funny nor new to say a philosopher is wrong. It is in fact probably the most common thing we do as philosophers. Even in regular society it is a perfectly normal thing to do. People say Marx was wrong all the time. They also say Rawls, or Locke, or Hobbes were wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "ideological philosophy" but the fact that there are many different political philosophies isn't a sign that there is no truth about what politics is or should be. At least not any more than the fact that there are many theories about how the universe works is a sign that the universe doesn't actually exist.
They don't just state that someone is wrong - they make an argument, challenge the premises, and build on the history of the conversation.
The fact that we have so many competing theories of the universe means that there is not enough knowledge to verify any of them, or falsify them, as such the value of those theories cannot be determined.
To bring it back to leftism, all the leftist governments we've seen in power have devolved into ideological state religions, with party leaders as high priests, Marx as the prophet to be interpreted. Challengers outcast as revisionist heretics.
The fact that we explain why they are wrong does not change the fact that calling a philosopher wrong is perfectly normal. Literally do it all the time, frequently part of normal conversations. I could have explained why Stirner is wrong, but I didn't think that I had to explain why his individualist anarchism is wrong and dumb.
But ignoring that for a moment and also ignoring your weird characterization of leftist governments, are you under the impression that capitalist governments don't adhere to a political ideology?
Liberal political ideology at least leaves open the possibility that they are incorrect. That is why Liberals put in procedures for amending Constitutions, they recognized the limits of their understanding and knowledge, and believed in free speech and association to leave open the possibly of change in thought and theory.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I guess what I really want to say is that you should never stop challenging your side of politics, thought, ideology, religion, etc., unless you want to repeat every mistake of every revolution gone wrong.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Anarchists posit a society without lawmakers or judges, or rather, everyone is a judge and lawmaker. Eventually someone is going to have a disagreement, and people are going to have to part ways or stand their ground and assert violently who is right and who is wrong. Then the victorious side becomes the new elite, as the losers must submit in death or exile or submission.
The fuck kind of anarchists have you been talking to?
I don't think any anarchists can actually agree on how their anarchic society is actually suppose to resolve disputes.
I can tell you that none of them think "crown yourself king through violence and demand others submit to you" is the way to go though.
I was implying the tyranny of the majority though.
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Its funny to call any ideological philosopher outright wrong. The fact that ideological philosophy is constantly diverging instead of converging is a sign that it has no truth to converge towards.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and it is neither funny nor new to say a philosopher is wrong. It is in fact probably the most common thing we do as philosophers. Even in regular society it is a perfectly normal thing to do. People say Marx was wrong all the time. They also say Rawls, or Locke, or Hobbes were wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "ideological philosophy" but the fact that there are many different political philosophies isn't a sign that there is no truth about what politics is or should be. At least not any more than the fact that there are many theories about how the universe works is a sign that the universe doesn't actually exist.
They don't just state that someone is wrong - they make an argument, challenge the premises, and build on the history of the conversation.
The fact that we have so many competing theories of the universe means that there is not enough knowledge to verify any of them, or falsify them, as such the value of those theories cannot be determined.
To bring it back to leftism, all the leftist governments we've seen in power have devolved into ideological state religions, with party leaders as high priests, Marx as the prophet to be interpreted. Challengers outcast as revisionist heretics.
The fact that we explain why they are wrong does not change the fact that calling a philosopher wrong is perfectly normal. Literally do it all the time, frequently part of normal conversations. I could have explained why Stirner is wrong, but I didn't think that I had to explain why his individualist anarchism is wrong and dumb.
But ignoring that for a moment and also ignoring your weird characterization of leftist governments, are you under the impression that capitalist governments don't adhere to a political ideology?
Liberal political ideology at least leaves open the possibility that they are incorrect. That is why Liberals put in procedures for amending Constitutions, they recognized the limits of their understanding and knowledge, and believed in free speech and association to leave open the possibly of change in thought and theory.
Liberal or liberal?
Cause I think there is certainly a... distinction there.
Yes and they are stupid people. They had faith and their faith betrayed them.
They forgot that the core principle of Liberalism is a belief in reason and truth. Finding reason and truth requires doubt, of everything, including ourselves most of all.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Not every social species has a human-style hierarchy of authority. Most of them aren't intellectually complex enough for that sort of multi-layer command hierarchy that we do.
But humans always seem to do it in societies larger than a small band.
Which is why I mentioned Alphas. There is always one who is in charged.
Nomadic pre-agricultural societies (i.e. the norm for human existence for most of our time on this planet) were not organised in this way, nor according to class stratification.
I always bring it up in these threads because it demonstrates that the "x social ill is human nature" thing is untrue, and that we are highly malleable organisms whose social structure is dependent on our material circumstances and style of living. The "dude in charge" model is pretty much ubiquitous in sedentary agricultural societies, but is not by any means universal for human existence.
Which is nice if we wanted to live as nomadic pre-agricultural people. But instead we would kinda like to have, like, a complex civilization. With services and clean running water and internet porn.
Also, the idea that nomadic tribes were not hierarchical is also false. They weren't all "biggest man with biggest stick is in charge" but that doesn't mean there wasn't a hierarchy or leadership. It's simply that force was a poor method for retaining control, because you could not control a place and be there all the time to make sure only you had it, because everyone had to walk to new places all the time. Information and fertility were key drivers of influence.
While the method for forming a hierarchy and why it was formed has always been in flux, its existence has not been.
Rigid hierarchies also depend on a degree of separation and mystification that is not possible in smaller communities. If everyone remembers that time the chief had explosive diarrhea and started crying about it, they are less likely to start putting paintings of him on the walls and cal him "Dear Leader."
Unless of course, he can resort effectively to that great cleanser of minds, beating you half to death with a stick in front of all your friends. Which is why once we did settle down and our big men with big sticks could control important pieces of land with said big sticks, suddenly no-one was listening to your hilarious stories about when you were his nurse.
Not every social species has a human-style hierarchy of authority. Most of them aren't intellectually complex enough for that sort of multi-layer command hierarchy that we do.
But humans always seem to do it in societies larger than a small band.
Which is why I mentioned Alphas. There is always one who is in charged.
Nomadic pre-agricultural societies (i.e. the norm for human existence for most of our time on this planet) were not organised in this way, nor according to class stratification.
I always bring it up in these threads because it demonstrates that the "x social ill is human nature" thing is untrue, and that we are highly malleable organisms whose social structure is dependent on our material circumstances and style of living. The "dude in charge" model is pretty much ubiquitous in sedentary agricultural societies, but is not by any means universal for human existence.
Which is nice if we wanted to live as nomadic pre-agricultural people. But instead we would kinda like to have, like, a complex civilization. With services and clean running water and internet porn.
Also, the idea that nomadic tribes were not hierarchical is also false. They weren't all "biggest man with biggest stick is in charge" but that doesn't mean there wasn't a hierarchy or leadership. It's simply that force was a poor method for retaining control, because you could not control a place and be there all the time to make sure only you had it, because everyone had to walk to new places all the time. Information and fertility were key drivers of influence.
While the method for forming a hierarchy and why it was formed has always been in flux, its existence has not been.
Rigid hierarchies also depend on a degree of separation and mystification that is not possible in smaller communities. If everyone remembers that time the chief had explosive diarrhea and started crying about it, they are less likely to start putting paintings of him on the walls and cal him "Dear Leader."
Unless of course, he can resort effectively to that great cleanser of minds, beating you half to death with a stick in front of all your friends. Which is why once we did settle down and our big men with big sticks could control important pieces of land with said big sticks, suddenly no-one was listening to your hilarious stories about when you were his nurse.
The general thinking is that it wasn’t violence that turned the big man into the King. It was the establishment of the priesthood and the idea that the ruler is blessed and thus anyone who harms them will face divine justice.
This explains why human adolescents become absolutely unbearable and on puberty switch from "I want to live with mummy and daddy forever!" to both sides counting the days until college.
I would suggest not treating the kids like dirt. This idea that of course all adolescents will instantly become unbearable and count the days until leaving home feels so weird to me. I did not, neither did my siblings, and the only one of my cousins that did was the one whose parents are dipshits we generally don't talk to.
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Teenage rebellion is not a universal human constant and is heavily contextual to the society in question. Psych and socio studies as disciplines are slowly realizing that if you only study Western Civ, your results are only valid there.
Cause I think there is certainly a... distinction there.
People are aware that Francis Fukuyama has written books since that title right? (Which was actually a divergent expansion on the original, hubristic, academic article)
Like, he's publicly stated within the last decade+ "yeah, actually I was wrong to proclaim the "end" of history, and I regret carrying water for the neocon movement."
His trajectory actually supports @Jephery 's statement about the importance of engaging in introspection and challenging one's political/philosophical beliefs (and how Liberalism can be conducive to such an exercise).
I've seen folks on Twitter throw a screencap of that book not infrequently also, and it's not the rhetorical trump card capital-L "Left" people may think it is.
I remember finding The Origins of Political Order to be an interesting read.
I agree. That said I was coming from a fairly low base of knowledge of political science. I learned a lot of basic shit. Now that I know more, I'm more skeptical. Actually an interesting question about political science is what book would confirm rather than disconfirm my Marxist priors. Polysci history books just make me more right wing.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Posts
Not sure; also I should have noted I was referring to the store employees/key to the store story
I know, but I mean if a society that never went agrarian could be observed to have an implicit social hierarchy; even if it's "this guy knows all the hunting tricks, you should follow him and do what he does" it would suggest that it's a natural thing, and not simply something we've brainwashed ourselves into thinking it is.
Depends on the hunter
Aside from Stirner being wrong and egoist anarchism being super fringe, egoist anarchism does not claim that violently ruling others is the way to go, it just says you should do whatever you like without respect for anything close to society or conventional morality.
However, it also says submission is never the way to go. Anarchist association must be premised on the fact that each individual is associating out of conscious egoism.
Its funny to call any ideological philosopher outright wrong. The fact that ideological philosophy is constantly diverging instead of converging is a sign that it has no truth to converge towards.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Anarchism is a political philosophy and it is neither funny nor new to say a philosopher is wrong. It is in fact probably the most common thing we do as philosophers. Even in regular society it is a perfectly normal thing to do. People say Marx was wrong all the time. They also say Rawls, or Locke, or Hobbes were wrong.
I don't know what you mean by "ideological philosophy" but the fact that there are many different political philosophies isn't a sign that there is no truth about what politics is or should be. At least not any more than the fact that there are many theories about how the universe works is a sign that the universe doesn't actually exist.
Also, the vast number of competing philosophies within capitalism...
They don't just state that someone is wrong - they make an argument, challenge the premises, and build on the history of the conversation.
The fact that we have so many competing theories of the universe means that there is not enough knowledge to verify any of them, or falsify them, as such the value of those theories cannot be determined.
To bring it back to leftism, all the leftist governments we've seen in power have devolved into ideological state religions, with party leaders as high priests, Marx as the prophet to be interpreted. Challengers outcast as revisionist heretics.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The fact that we explain why they are wrong does not change the fact that calling a philosopher wrong is perfectly normal. Literally do it all the time, frequently part of normal conversations. I could have explained why Stirner is wrong, but I didn't think that I had to explain why his individualist anarchism is wrong and dumb.
But ignoring that for a moment and also ignoring your weird characterization of leftist governments, are you under the impression that capitalist governments don't adhere to a political ideology?
Liberal political ideology at least leaves open the possibility that they are incorrect. That is why Liberals put in procedures for amending Constitutions, they recognized the limits of their understanding and knowledge, and believed in free speech and association to leave open the possibly of change in thought and theory.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Liberal or liberal?
Cause I think there is certainly a... distinction there.
They forgot that the core principle of Liberalism is a belief in reason and truth. Finding reason and truth requires doubt, of everything, including ourselves most of all.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Unless of course, he can resort effectively to that great cleanser of minds, beating you half to death with a stick in front of all your friends. Which is why once we did settle down and our big men with big sticks could control important pieces of land with said big sticks, suddenly no-one was listening to your hilarious stories about when you were his nurse.
The general thinking is that it wasn’t violence that turned the big man into the King. It was the establishment of the priesthood and the idea that the ruler is blessed and thus anyone who harms them will face divine justice.
I would suggest not treating the kids like dirt. This idea that of course all adolescents will instantly become unbearable and count the days until leaving home feels so weird to me. I did not, neither did my siblings, and the only one of my cousins that did was the one whose parents are dipshits we generally don't talk to.
People are aware that Francis Fukuyama has written books since that title right? (Which was actually a divergent expansion on the original, hubristic, academic article)
Like, he's publicly stated within the last decade+ "yeah, actually I was wrong to proclaim the "end" of history, and I regret carrying water for the neocon movement."
His trajectory actually supports @Jephery 's statement about the importance of engaging in introspection and challenging one's political/philosophical beliefs (and how Liberalism can be conducive to such an exercise).
I've seen folks on Twitter throw a screencap of that book not infrequently also, and it's not the rhetorical trump card capital-L "Left" people may think it is.
I agree. That said I was coming from a fairly low base of knowledge of political science. I learned a lot of basic shit. Now that I know more, I'm more skeptical. Actually an interesting question about political science is what book would confirm rather than disconfirm my Marxist priors. Polysci history books just make me more right wing.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck