"If you had a society with a simple economic structure (automation helped marvelously in that respect, provided that the material desires of the people remained modest) and if you had a homogeneous population of high average intelligence and low average nastiness, well, then perhaps the ideal anarchic state was possible." (p. 560)
"...anarchic state..." is a contradiction. "Anarchy" means no government whereas "state" means coercion by a government but we need only replace "anarchic state" with "anarchic society."
Simple economic structure: produce what is needed.
Modest material desires: not necessary with the fullest development of automation.
Homogeneous population: heterogeneity is preferable and need not be disharmonious.
High average intelligence: education can encourage and develop the potential of each individual.
Low average nastiness: the major determinant of nastiness or of its opposite in children is how they are treated by adults.
Yes, I think that anarchist society is feasible.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I absolutely disagree. Amarchist societies are neither feasible or desirable. Absent the genetic mutation which warped and twisted the Gwydiona, some kind of state will be needed to keep crime and disorder in check. And I don't share your faith in "education."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there will not always be crime. Abundance will make theft redundant. Universal social sanity will make personal violence unthinkable as it often is in civilized societies now. Education serves society. A different kind of society will need and institute a different kind of education: developing individual potentials instead of just preparing individuals to slot into stratified roles in a prevailing socioeconomic structure.
Paul.
Low average nastiness.
How do you keep the nastiness low?
There seems to be a genetic component to sociopathy.
Even if there isn't, there still needs to be negative consequences for behavior than harms others. If that behavior benefits the person who behaves that way it will not stop.
In small societies in which everyone can know everyone else, ostracism may well be enough to keep such behavior down. Thus societies like Hutterite colonies split when the population gets much over 100 (?) so that slackers are ostracized & a commune is practical.
There has been some talk of internet sites providing ways of keeping track of reputation so ostracism can work on a larger scale. However, that often becomes a mob denouncing the heretics. See both Trump supporters denouncing 'RINOs', or the 'woke' denouncing JK Rowling (& other 'TERFs' ) for suggesting that being a man or a woman is a matter of the biological physical differences rather than psychological preferences.
Such mobs can get control of a government, but rules limiting the powers of the state can limit the damage done before the sane push back.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Apologies, but I disagree with all your points. I believe there will always be crime--and it won't matter how rich a society might be, because "poverty" is relative, not absolute. Poor people of today, at least advanced nations, have a standard of living that would be considered fantastic two or 300 years ago (or even just 100 back!). And many criminals not because they need to, but because they can amass great wealth trafficking in drugs, sex slavery, etc.
Universal social sanity? I disagree because people don't need to be starving or insane to quarrel and fight for any reason at all, no matter how absurd you might think the "causes" are. Men will compete for status, power, women, etc. Or stab one another if they lose games of chess or poker!
And that's why I don't share your faith in "education"! Mere education will NOT prevent some people from being bad, incompetent, foolish, or simply failures. I am doubtful of the practicality of using online social media for keeping allegedly deviant persons in line. For the reasons you yourself listed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there needn't be any "power" in a society where everyone holding any kind of public office is elected and accountable. Women are equal members of society, not property of men. It is perfectly possible for there to be competitive sports and games without any animosity. People can be brought up to that. Mere education will do nothing but a better society will express itself through better education.
For a lot of people in Britain, standards of living are really declining right now. There is a lot of wealth but it is very unevenly distributed and the inequality is increasing.
Paul.
But note that the people who have this anarchic society are -not human beings-, effectively.
Humans are not driven to violence and competition for power by circumstances or objective needs.
They do so because for thousands of generations those qualities increased the chance of successful reproduction.
Note, the fact that they may not increase those chances -in any specific time or place- means nothing.
We're talking genes here; and you can't reason with a gene. It operates at a far more fundamental level.
And genetic/instinctual drives are -constant-. You can overcome them by conscious thought or by conditioning in any given instance; humans are behaviorally flexible.
But... the impulse always comes back.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still disagree. Nor do I believe the kind of Utopianism you dream of will ever happen. You also overlook how many don't care beans about politics and public affairs. They are quite willing to let ambitious and power hungry people to effectively monopolize public offices.
Sports??? You jest! I only need to remind you of the notorious "football hooligans" of the UK to show sports can attract violence. And ice hockey games can be quite violent in the US. Other examples would be the gladiatorial games of the Roman Empire.
Better societies will be possible only by being realistic about how rotten humans can be and having no illusions about them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you still disagree. We seek at most clarification, not agreement most of the time.
That competitive sport is possible without hostility is sufficient to show that - this is possible!
Most people don't care about politics because most of the time they don't see it as directly affecting them. That can change.
When asked to imagine a qualitatively different society in the future, you continue to assume the continuance of our set of social relationships, as if a time traveller from the Middle Ages were to ask us whether we were Guelphs or Ghibellines or to whom we owed fealty.
Paul.
Kaor. Paul!
I agree clarification is desirable. But I have enough egoism to find it pleasing when people agree that I am right! (Smiles)
I agree sports don't always have to be marked by aggressive hostility. But it happens!
And I see no reason or evidence for believing many, perhaps most, will not continue to be largely indifferent to public affairs.
I disagree with your last paragraph because what you would like to see happening is contrary to the hard facts of history and how real humans behave.
And "fealty" is a real and living concept! Many Americans feel loyalty (fealty) to the US. And I have no doubt many Britons feel the same way about Charles III and the UK.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: the -names- of factions and their superficial rationalizations have changed since the Middle Ages, but the -reality- of factions contending for power has not.
It's a matter of separating the essence from the propaganda.
Contention for power -is- an eternal constant of human society. There's no reason to believe it will ever change. They did it with swords, we do it with guns, all same-same.
I think I commented that if you try to fight tribalism, you just end up creating an Anti-Tribalist Tribe, which of course is Good and Right and must fight the BadWrong Tribalist tribe...
It's like trying to outrun your own sweat.
Far better to accept the inevitability of sweat and invest in air-conditioning. Which does not solve the problem, but manages it instead, accepting that it's never going away.
Trying to "solve" something that's a condition, not a problem, usually just makes the condition worse.
We are not the makers of our world, nor are we the authors of our selves. Imagining that we are, or can be, is hubris -- and after hubris, nemesis. But madness lets nemesis in.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! The wisest founders of states try to arrange matter so that struggles are carried out non-violently and in ways that don't dangerously threaten the losers. In fact, the losers should be convinced they might win another time.
Ad astra! Sean
The State's basic function, whatever else it does, is to monopolize violence as far as it can. It punishes crime and fights wars.
In a pre-State level of social organization, this function is handled in a decentralized way.
The net result of that is that there's more violence. This is very consistent, according to the archaeological evidence.
Intra-human violence takes a big step down when the State is invented and the 'lex talonis' ceases to function.
Then there's another big step down when the modern level of State organization (with universal police forces, for instance) is developed.
But the highly violent pre-State setup is the 'instinctual' one for human beings, and our instincts haven't changed since Ancient Sumeria and the first city-states.
Take away the State's coercive hand, and the Old Adam comes back -automatically-. You're back to blood feuds and raiding overnight.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Again, I agree. And I don't believe that innate propensity for violence all human beings have will go away. Meaning the state will remain a necessity.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment