On communication ...
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:50:00AM -0000, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:35:31 -0000 Juan wrote: ... > > Fine, So what's the cause/source of statism? =) > > Social mammals have a herd instinct, and more specifically humans > naturally select leaders at a subconscious level in social situations. > > Because we're in some sense pre-disposed to selecting leaders, we're > exploitable to people who would seize power. To many, it seems just > natural and comfortable that there should be someone, with authority, that > they can look to in order to find out what they should do. > > You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select > "popular" kids, and others try to emulate them. It's no coincidence that > the "king" and "queen" of the prom will be the most popular pair of kids > in school. In fact, the king and queen as selected years before the prom. > It's no coincidence that the jocks in high school go on to become the cops > as adults. > > At a deep level, that is the mechanism. Primates, humans included, have an > ingrained alpha/beta dynamic that makes us select leaders. That is the > core psychological hook that the whole thing rides on. And it trickles all > the way down, individual sub-groups will have their own leaders, and so > on. A hierarchy .. a pecking order.. arises rather spontaneously. > > For people deeply attached to the state, when you call into question the > state, in an emotional way, you're sort of insulting their father, or > maybe "big brother" would be more apropros, and you're calling into > question the entire structure of what they know. They find it difficult to > believe a world without the state is possible, because at some unconscious > level, they've always felt the presence of that hierarchy. It lets them > know their station in life, and that is comforting to people.. at least > people in the middle, and certainly at the top. > > So, what do we do about all this? Well, it should be immediately obvious > that we're up against something much larger than a mere principality. It > may seem daunting to consider, but it's really not that big of a deal. > Humans have organized in fantastically diverse ways in history. We can > recapture some of that, and finally dispense with the authoritarian > nonsense. > > First though, taking the emotional/social side into account, I'd like to > highlight a few things that are important in order to grow a base of > people large enough to do away with the state, and to survive without a > state (that is, the types of social changes we'd need to have in place in > order to not re-create a state after their downfall). > > The emotional ties people have are important to consider, when trying to > "win a convert" to an anti-authoritarian view, make your arguments against > the state .. "gentle" .. couch it with "I wonder if people could organize > without it.." when they object, AGREE, but continue with the "wondering." > We should feel compassion for people so enamored with authoritarianism, > and be gentle with them. Many anarchist writers of the past have looked at > them as some sort of debased beast who is content to lick their chains, > and this view is why we don't have more people. Be compassionate: the > statist is one that is weary, and feels weak. They get brow-beat with > orders from superiors regularly. Our job is to give them respite. Don't > brow-beat them with arguments designed to make them feel inferior. Gently > encourage new thoughts. Make them feel strong. Ask for their opinions, and > don't be quick to dismiss. If you disagree, nudge them towards your view. > > It is more effective, persuasion wise today, and one day, without a state, > those would need to be social norms so that the "betas" get uplifted, and > feel like they too can lead, in some areas. > > Take note when people are being deferential towards you, and putting you > in a subtle position of social power, and ABDICATE that power. Ask for > their opinions, and defer to them. When someone comes to you, for advice, > or a solution.. Be content to say you don't know, and encourage them to > use their own understanding. Encourage them to see that you aren't their > superior. > > With those types of norms in place, the roots of power have less surface > to take hold, and in the absence of a state (either self-made collapse, or > insurrection) we're more likely to be able to fill the power vacuum with > something better than the current notion of the state. > > > > Well, to some extent that must have been true? Granted, the > > fact that they agreed with whatever you said is suspicious. But > > the solution seems a bit ad hoc. Maybe confusing them worked, > > but you must have confused other people who were listening too? > > At first, yeah.. but like all social circles "word gets around." > > And yeah.. it was a bit ad hoc, but that is kind of the whole thing.. > people are individuals, and a successful non-authoritarian society has to > have really flexible social protocols to adapt to that individuality. > > The only way, that I see, to really make a society where people don't have > to conform to an insane litany of arbitrary social norms is to have very > few social norms that are very flexible and adaptable towards people. > > > There may be a mix of causes, but as a libertarian I would > > say : 1) being lazy is a virtue 2) by far the most important > > problem is the rigged economic system. > > I must say, I'm surprised by #1. Most libertarians I've met are very > enamored with the self-made-man trope and the idea that people should be > ambitious, and do well for themselves. Or did you mean libertarian in the > old-school sense, and not so much the modern "objectivist" sense? > > I don't entirely disagree with you here. Certainly, people deserve more > time for slack, and sloth, but I don't know that I'd say laziness is a > virtue. > > The rigged economic system is a problem, true. Providing alternatives to > that system is another thing that needs to at least have seeds planted if > we're to get through a power vacuum. ... > >> > All the services that the state has monopolized like > >> > education, 'health care', whatever. can be provided by the > >> > market/the people/the commune once the state is gone. > >> > >> Cart before the horse, man. > > > > > > Yes, exactly. That is exactly the reason why your analysis > > isn't right. > > > > You cannot compete with the state, providing all the garbage > > services the states provides, if you don't deprive the state > > FIRST of their monopoly powers. > > It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an alternative. > It doesn't need to be a complete, viable alternative. It just needs to be > a working model. A proof of concept. > > Why? Because I'm not trying to destroy the state.. directly. I'm not > trying to blow it up, and start from zero. I'm trying to grow alternatives > that will, over time, allow the state to wither.. the same way it didn't > appear overnight and slowly grew. That is how it will be replaced. > > At bottom, a state is just a human activity. PEOPLE DO it. We just have to > attract a critical mass of people doing something different. > > > Consider the example of stuff banned by the state like 'some > > drugs'. What is your plan? Sell drugs on the black market? And > > you think that would limit state power? It obviously never > > does. > > Uhm. The cartels run Columbia dude, so I'm not sure what you're exactly > getting at there. > > But you're making a subtle error. Helping disabled people isn't illegal. > The state has their hands in it anyhow. We can take that over, and get > them out of it. > > By appropriating social services, there is also a propaganda effect > involved.. the state will have a difficult time blasting away at > anarchists involved with helping disabled, the homeless, etc. Food not > Bombs gets shit, usually out of health-code nonsense, but even still, they > are relatively immune because of the propaganda effect. > > You lose that when you get into overt crime areas. This is what fucked > over anarchism at the turn of the 20th century. The "propaganda by deed" > horseshit is what inspired robberies, crime, assassinations, and > associated "anarchy" with "chaos" in the public mind. > > It is, essentially, why I am politically pacifist. In theory, I'd be up > for good old insurrection, but I'd have to KNOW we'd win. Fuck the > self-interest of it, I don't care about that.. but the potential for > centuries of setbacks is too great if we let the victory write our > history. > > > > And it doesn't even have to be an army. It's just a matter of > > getting a big enough number of people to say "no". > > AGREED! Critical mass of people living without the state. That's what I'm > working towards. > > >> We're not there yet. In order to fight, people need something to fight > >> for. Thats where the OTHER non-state services come in, in my view. > > > > > > As you said, cart before the horse =P > > Perhaps. But I like the smell of this horse better. >