So if we argue against hierarchies, we’re still arguing against capitalism and still arguing for communism, just more of an anarchocommunism. Communism isn’t just the countries that tried, just like capitalism isn’t just the usa
No, because it would form into a dominance hierarchy. It’s the iron law of oligarchy, and communism does not have any mechanisms to prevent its formation. Unless humans evolve beyond their own nature, “anarchocommunism” is not in the realm of possibility.
That would be a genetic fallacy if you are basing validity on origin instead of content. Would you prefer the social dominance theory? It’s broader in scale but still explains the inevitability of hierarchy and concentration of power.
Yes you know all your vocab words. These are just philosophical theories that have plenty of detractors. They aren’t true just by virtue of their existence. And I think the political party of the source is relevant when it’s a political theory. It says a lot about the conclusions that theory leads to, and when it leads to fascist Italy then clearly something went wrong
We aren’t talking normative philosophy or metaphysics. The iron law and SDT are based on observable phenomena supported by empirical evidence. I’m not going to accept an Agrippa trilemma argument where nothing can be proven absolutely true. I understand these concepts about hierarchy may be uncomfortable to one’s ideological fantasy, but it’s not productive to minimize these things because they are uncomfortable.
Just because I don’t think those theories are true doesn’t mean I think they couldn’t be proven true. Anarchism is also a political theory based on observable phenomena supported by empirical evidence. It is very contradictory to the theories you bring up which means they can’t all be true, even though they’re all published theories. We could do a big experiment to figure it out though. We’d just need to first get to a communist society, then we can see if it can sustain itself or if hierarchies naturally dominate without outside influence. I’m willing to be proven wrong, are you?
Anarchism is not feasible on a large scale, most places in the world will tend towards hierarchy. There are certain necessary conditions for Anarchism to be sustainable long-term, such as the Zomia region in SE Asia due to geography. That’s assuming these tribes are non-hierarchical, I haven’t looked that far into it.
stateless societies like “Zomia” have successfully repelled states using location, specific production methods, and cultural resistance to states.
That’s the first time I’ve ever seen a “law” called an “iron law”, which is kind of wild for a law of political science. Kinda like they had insufficient evidence and had to resort to PR instead, like “look, it’s an iron law, you have to believe it”.
So if we argue against hierarchies, we’re still arguing against capitalism and still arguing for communism, just more of an anarchocommunism. Communism isn’t just the countries that tried, just like capitalism isn’t just the usa
No, because it would form into a dominance hierarchy. It’s the iron law of oligarchy, and communism does not have any mechanisms to prevent its formation. Unless humans evolve beyond their own nature, “anarchocommunism” is not in the realm of possibility.
Oh you’re right, I have total faith in the “iron law” created by someone who went on to join Italy’s National Fascist Party
That would be a genetic fallacy if you are basing validity on origin instead of content. Would you prefer the social dominance theory? It’s broader in scale but still explains the inevitability of hierarchy and concentration of power.
Yes you know all your vocab words. These are just philosophical theories that have plenty of detractors. They aren’t true just by virtue of their existence. And I think the political party of the source is relevant when it’s a political theory. It says a lot about the conclusions that theory leads to, and when it leads to fascist Italy then clearly something went wrong
We aren’t talking normative philosophy or metaphysics. The iron law and SDT are based on observable phenomena supported by empirical evidence. I’m not going to accept an Agrippa trilemma argument where nothing can be proven absolutely true. I understand these concepts about hierarchy may be uncomfortable to one’s ideological fantasy, but it’s not productive to minimize these things because they are uncomfortable.
Just because I don’t think those theories are true doesn’t mean I think they couldn’t be proven true. Anarchism is also a political theory based on observable phenomena supported by empirical evidence. It is very contradictory to the theories you bring up which means they can’t all be true, even though they’re all published theories. We could do a big experiment to figure it out though. We’d just need to first get to a communist society, then we can see if it can sustain itself or if hierarchies naturally dominate without outside influence. I’m willing to be proven wrong, are you?
Anarchism is not feasible on a large scale, most places in the world will tend towards hierarchy. There are certain necessary conditions for Anarchism to be sustainable long-term, such as the Zomia region in SE Asia due to geography. That’s assuming these tribes are non-hierarchical, I haven’t looked that far into it.
stateless societies like “Zomia” have successfully repelled states using location, specific production methods, and cultural resistance to states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asian_Massif#Zomia
So it’s working, because of that area’s natural resistance to outside influence. Sounds like our experiment is going to be very enlightening
That’s the first time I’ve ever seen a “law” called an “iron law”, which is kind of wild for a law of political science. Kinda like they had insufficient evidence and had to resort to PR instead, like “look, it’s an iron law, you have to believe it”.