02-02-2006, 09:48 AM
|
 |
Site Moderator
Guru
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 29
Posts: 17,759
|
|
You guess wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p="
The problem with anarcho-syndicalism (left-wing anarchism) is that it's impossible. People always want to rule over others. It's an instinct left over from evolution. Where there is anarchy, the next person to take control is usually very authoritarian (e.g. Franco), since nothing is stopping the strongest from simply taking power.
|
People don't always want to rule over others as a product of evolution. If that were true you and I would want to rule over others. Am I not human? The thing your getting mixed up is the need of people to be accepted for their social status within the community they are socialized into. Dogs and apes are the same way, but their communities are more instinctually based than ours. That is why in egalitarian hunting-gathering tribes more focus is spent on feeding friends and family than on acquiring stuff. Actually acquiring stuff is considered bad to them.
People only seek power over others if that is what they are conditioned to do for status in their community. Notice that most successful Americans are more worried about having control of themselves than over others. Control over others also is necessary to those of low status or who have little control over themselves as a means to gain control of themselves or gain status.
In a small enough community, such troublesome deviants can be redirected or detained. It's only when there is a large enough number of like-minded low-status people that revolution occurs. And as far as war goes, it only happens when there is a scuttle over resources or some kind of interest. That is why a moderating authority and rule of law is always required or else standing militaries to act as deterrents.
So yes, some amount of law or defense is required. But no, there is not some built-in human "want to dominate others" mentality. We worry about our status, not who we control or what we control. And how we define status can vary almost infinitely. |
Leadership, as I understand it, is not a cultural construct. All early civilizations that I have heard of were absolutist monarchies, and I'm guessing that prehistoric societies were very hierarchical as well. Personally, I view it as part of the will to power. It is true that, theoretically, we might want power only over ourselves, but as soon as the fear of want enters the equation, people inevitably begin competing for control over others, believing (usually wrongly) that it is necessary to have control over themselves. For anything approaching anarcho-syndicalism to be possible, one of two things would have to change. Either there would have to be almost no basic human wants unfulfilled or there would have to be no fear of not achieving wants. Since there will always be frustrated needs and wants and since fear of loss of us control (with the resulting attempt to control others) will always exist, a strong hierarchy will always exist in society. Hence the issue is not one of whether some people are to rule over others, but rather who those rulers are to be and how their power can be contained. Which sociologists have had theories similar to mine, by the way? |
Civilization is only 10,000 years old. And yes they were totalitarian. Primarily because that form of authority was the easiest way to manage a large population and develop the economy at the time. The things that we like about authoritarians today stem from those strengths, but thankfully most of us prefer more individualism these days. Pre-civilized people were much less authoritarian, if you're talking about chieftains. Chieftains were accountable to their tribes. Before that, people lived in hunting-gathering bands in which it was to no one's advantage to gain power. Instead they helped more in order to gain status, status with little actual dominance and little material reward. They were actually the freest of all societies, but the standard of life sucked and growing population made it unsustainable.
We did create authoritarianism because we needed it. Now that we don't, we should destroy it.
__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.
Get your daily dose of truth*
* or something approximating it
|