In order to collectively own everything, you must have a mechanism to decide the use of the means of production. Some things can be produced, but should not be, and leaving it up to local decision making will produce imbalances, as things that are easier or more fun to produce are produced more often than required.
You need a central nexus of control, and a person or group of people to be the final arbiter of decisions. Every time it’s been done in history, either the leaders of the revolution, or the people violent and powerful enough to stab them in the back and take control have landed in this position. Mysteriously, a small group of people controlling all production has only ever lead to tyranny.
Any communism that begins in revolution will devolve into tyranny, and there’s no words a dictionary can string together that will change that. Voluntary communes also seem to have problems, but it’s more often splintering, which is significantly less harmful.
In order to own anything at all, you need a mechanism to protect that property with violence. When you have to protect your own property with violence through hired guards, it’s feudalism. A necessary quality of capitalism is that the government protects your property with violence. Capitalism cannot exist without governments that defend property with violence or the threat of it.
All modern states are the final arbiters of decisions, just like the USSR and similar governments. If business contracts are signed in America, it’s the governments that force people to follow them. If you have a property dispute, the government decides who wins through laws. The government ensures that individual rights are protected through violence, from basic rights like the right to life, to the right to have private property. Laws are backed up by violence, as laws only matter when enforced.
The issue with attempts to establish communism in the past is that their democratic mechanism either failed, or never existed to begin with. When democratic workers councils disagreed with what Stalin wanted, he just ignored them. What could they do about it? When member states of the Soviet Union got upset with federal decisions, tanks were sent in to silence any dissent. These states enforced systems that centralized power and allowed small groups, or even a single person to make unilateral decisions and never have their power challenged.
Stalin made some erroneous philosophical assumptions, and thought it meant he could violate sovereignty. Boy, was he wrong.
Capitalism works more on capitulation, which gives it a but more staying power. Only a bit, though, because capitulation only goes so far.
What we need is a system that people buy into and sustain of their own free will - not from having been coerced or convinced, but because they value it.
The problems start before Stalin. I also don’t know what you mean by capitulation or how the USSR worked less by it than capitalism.
As far as a system that everyone buys into out of their own free will, it’s probably not possible. Even in a system that perfectly ensures equality for all people, a couple of assholes will not like the system because they want to dominate others. Even anarchy would require a mechanism to uphold anarchy through violence. The best we can do is to create a system where everyone is equal and it is most prudent to uphold it from a rational point of view.
Indeed, Stalin’s not the only failed communist/socialist, but at least he had some valid philosophy backing him (right until he glazed over individual rights).
It was somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek usage of the word ‘capitulation’. But I meant it as roughly somewhere between coercion and choice, and leaning more towards choice than coercion does.
Equality for all won’t work, structually or socially, except in some narrow (but critical) bands of focus. And anarchy has precisely the flaws you specify.
While ‘perfect’ equality and anarchy can’t effectively exist, a society could be based around concepts of sovereignty. Not abandoning capitalism, but acknowledging the energy flow cash represents, and the need to use it both ethically and effectively. Not abandoning communal collectivity, but acknowledging that respect for sovereignty is the cornerstone to a solid collective.
The issues in any society are distributed throughout its members, and manifest in the psychological and emotional landscape of its people. The sad thing about this is that, as a societal structure hits it’s limits, you see people exercising the principles of that society as fully as they can, and it still doesn’t cut it. For capitalism, that’s working endlessly, getting guilty for not working more/effectively enough, or getting all the things you were supposed to want and entering a general malaise because they’re all meaningless.
But the thing is, top to bottom, people caught in the capitalist mindset are all looking for a good deal - and a ‘good deal’ is defined as one asymmetrically in my benefit. But there’s no intuitive and natural, sustainable enjoyment of the results. It’s like gambling once the urge has taken over someone, and they don’t even pay attention to win or loss. Oh, sure, they like winning and don’t like losing, but they’re never going to take their winnings and go home, our really make back what they’ve lost. They’re just going to continue.
Anyways - that same distributed nature is what the concept of sovereignty depends on. Capitalism is not something that needs to be fought - it works well with equitable exchange and prudent action. But the mentality that it trends towards must be fought. The urges to follow the advertisement, to take the simplistic way out, and to choose the cheaper (in all senses of the word) option. To trick others into getting the worse end of the deal, or to just be ‘good hearted’ and look the other way while you get screwed.
With sovereignty, first and foremost, the issues in the world that you care to change are your own to change. They may not be your fault, but they are your situation and cultural background. They are the hand you are dealt. They are your responsibility. And the first place to change them is within yourself - to recognize how you are connected to those things, and how and why what you do results in or feeds those things - and to make change in your own life, first and foremost, before you make claims on what others should do. Enforcement action against others is limited to circumstances where sovereignty has been (or is being) violated.
Until this mentality is prevalent enough to represent fundamental cultural change, it is irrelevant what government is chosen, other than to pragmatically choose what is already in place (or whatever works). Once this mentality is prevalent enough to represent fundamental cultural change, it is irrelevant what government is chosen, because the way out it is used will be effective enough and just enough - and it will be worked towards the ends of sovereignty, both individual and collective.
Having a mentality of sovereignty won’t change much, if only because it doesn’t fix many of the inherent problems with a global human society. A big downside to capitalism and free markets are mortal limitations. We can’t predict the future or understand the full effects of our actions. We estimate based what information we have, but we can often be wrong even if we have good intentions. The externalities of our actions are basically impossible to calculate, and even when we discover them, we possess the ability to suspend our empathy and ignore potential harms.
I’m also not a fan of the assumption that we can’t tell others what to do until we put our own lives in order. Sometimes getting others to do things is essential to changing your own life and improving your own situation. On a personal level, you can set boundaries with toxic people in your life or convince others to leave you alone. On a large scale, you can overthrow an oppressive system or change laws that prevent you from living well. Telling others what they should do is not mutually exclusive to making changes in your own life.
Sovereignty is great and all, but even if widely respected by most, some will not, and those that do must step in to protect it. The way I view it, laws don’t exist for ethically behaving people, they exist because there will always be unethical people, and there’s no way to ensure that any ethical person will always be ethical.
The fundamental reality is that someone who wants to do good can participate in an evil system. Unregulated global capitalism uses child slaves and keeps people in poverty, all while pumping substances into the environment that harm everyone. You might respect the sovereignty of everyone you meet, but anything you buy can be made by manufacturers who don’t respect the sovereignty of people you’ll never meet.
Capitalism is too big for its problems to be solved by individual behaviors without changing our current system. We must change it to actually make a system that respect everyone’s anything, be it sovereignty, human rights, or the ability to live.
Not too big. You just have to have effective individual behaviors. They spread, because they work. Capitalism is currently a leading way of life because it is effective both for individuals and for collectives, at least from a raw, short-term power standpoint.
But that standpoint is a valid and important one. There’s no need to get rid of capitalism, there’s a need to adopt better ideologies, live by them, and gain by them. …which is what I do.
The point of sovereignty isn’t ‘you can’t stop other people from being bad.’ It’s that that kind of thinking (though necessary in a pinch) keeps you from addressing the ways you’re relinquishing power to the existing system on an ongoing basis.
In the end, though, I’m just making conversation, and we’ll both live as we wish. In some senses, we all live by sovereignty anyways. It’s just more effective when you realize it.
Effective individual behaviors rely on empathy and denying short term gratification for long term prudence. Empathy breaks down on large scales for most people, and denying short term exploitation to build a better world is not something even the best of us can reliably do. Good vibes aren’t useless, but they are not enough to make necessary changes.
As far as relinquishing power goes, my eyes are wide open. It’s necessary in theory, but I don’t respect laws that prevent people from living well. I respect the enforcement, but only because I must work to avoid it. I recognize that the only way to stop some bad things is violence, and that all rights must be protected by someone. It’s undeniable that violence, although often avoidable, is necessary to exist. Human made laws and concepts without enforcement will be trampled on and basically don’t matter.
Oh, I’m not saying violence isn’t necessary at times.
But violence is the outflow of the underlying conflict - and that conflict can often be resolved, or won at an earlier stage.
I’m also not saying something stupid like ‘if only people worked together, things would just be better!’ You can never rely on someone, particularly not the world at large, to never do the bad thing (whatever that is).
But the entire issue of empathy breaking down on larger scales is an individual abd collective psychologocal issue, and is precisely the area I’m leveraging.
However, this can’t be leveraged in the direct sense (show more pictures of dead puppies, and say ‘vote for me, I’ll end puppy mills!’ really only goes so far, with an empathically exhausted populace that can’t scale up their presence because they’ve already been emotionally squeezed dry. The actual emotions themselves need to be felt and understood.
The point of power that people don’t generally notice that they are ceding isn’t material. It’s more fundamentally based in their psychology and motives. By the time their consideration gets to a massive scale, they’ve emotionally checked out - and I don’t blame them, there’s a lot to consider, and groups that are linked together with the practical/emotional bond (i.e., that have a ‘real’ bond between the individual and culture) have historically also been very inflexible - though very embued with vitality.
That inflexibility isn’t fundamentally necessary, even though it’s even present in our current ‘culture’, where people are often bound to the culture at large by A) lying to themselves, ‘and if enough people just got together…’ blah blah blah, or B) accepting a lie and ‘facing reality’ saying you have to forego the empathic bond on a large scale.
That said, building a culture where there’s a flexible, practical bond flush with emotive empathy and the energy that comes from that is difficult. But much of cultural knowledge is passed on not by empathy, but by the presence of empathy when a power conflict is won or lost.
At the very least, I have a tool that gives me a lot of control in my own life, and over others who would cause conflicts with me, often enough without direct conflict. But it’s more than a tool to win, it’s a way of re-linking the empathetic mind to others. I think I’ve got the seed of a new culture. …but I’m ok with the fallback of ‘I have a thing that benefits me and me alone,’ though to me that’s clearly the less valuable circumstance.
I suppose that if the world is right, then my mind will change. …and if I am right, the world will change.
Oh - and to be clear, I’m not trying to stop the things that already exist in the world from existing. I generally like or need those things. But I am creating a way of life that makes the world worthwhile to me.
![[META] Never change, lemmy.ml](https://i.imgur.com/1pxAyiq.jpg){kind=link}
In order to collectively own everything, you must have a mechanism to decide the use of the means of production. Some things can be produced, but should not be, and leaving it up to local decision making will produce imbalances, as things that are easier or more fun to produce are produced more often than required.
You need a central nexus of control, and a person or group of people to be the final arbiter of decisions. Every time it’s been done in history, either the leaders of the revolution, or the people violent and powerful enough to stab them in the back and take control have landed in this position. Mysteriously, a small group of people controlling all production has only ever lead to tyranny.
Any communism that begins in revolution will devolve into tyranny, and there’s no words a dictionary can string together that will change that. Voluntary communes also seem to have problems, but it’s more often splintering, which is significantly less harmful.
In order to own anything at all, you need a mechanism to protect that property with violence. When you have to protect your own property with violence through hired guards, it’s feudalism. A necessary quality of capitalism is that the government protects your property with violence. Capitalism cannot exist without governments that defend property with violence or the threat of it.
All modern states are the final arbiters of decisions, just like the USSR and similar governments. If business contracts are signed in America, it’s the governments that force people to follow them. If you have a property dispute, the government decides who wins through laws. The government ensures that individual rights are protected through violence, from basic rights like the right to life, to the right to have private property. Laws are backed up by violence, as laws only matter when enforced.
The issue with attempts to establish communism in the past is that their democratic mechanism either failed, or never existed to begin with. When democratic workers councils disagreed with what Stalin wanted, he just ignored them. What could they do about it? When member states of the Soviet Union got upset with federal decisions, tanks were sent in to silence any dissent. These states enforced systems that centralized power and allowed small groups, or even a single person to make unilateral decisions and never have their power challenged.
Stalin made some erroneous philosophical assumptions, and thought it meant he could violate sovereignty. Boy, was he wrong.
Capitalism works more on capitulation, which gives it a but more staying power. Only a bit, though, because capitulation only goes so far.
What we need is a system that people buy into and sustain of their own free will - not from having been coerced or convinced, but because they value it.
The problems start before Stalin. I also don’t know what you mean by capitulation or how the USSR worked less by it than capitalism.
As far as a system that everyone buys into out of their own free will, it’s probably not possible. Even in a system that perfectly ensures equality for all people, a couple of assholes will not like the system because they want to dominate others. Even anarchy would require a mechanism to uphold anarchy through violence. The best we can do is to create a system where everyone is equal and it is most prudent to uphold it from a rational point of view.
Indeed, Stalin’s not the only failed communist/socialist, but at least he had some valid philosophy backing him (right until he glazed over individual rights).
It was somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek usage of the word ‘capitulation’. But I meant it as roughly somewhere between coercion and choice, and leaning more towards choice than coercion does.
Equality for all won’t work, structually or socially, except in some narrow (but critical) bands of focus. And anarchy has precisely the flaws you specify.
While ‘perfect’ equality and anarchy can’t effectively exist, a society could be based around concepts of sovereignty. Not abandoning capitalism, but acknowledging the energy flow cash represents, and the need to use it both ethically and effectively. Not abandoning communal collectivity, but acknowledging that respect for sovereignty is the cornerstone to a solid collective.
The issues in any society are distributed throughout its members, and manifest in the psychological and emotional landscape of its people. The sad thing about this is that, as a societal structure hits it’s limits, you see people exercising the principles of that society as fully as they can, and it still doesn’t cut it. For capitalism, that’s working endlessly, getting guilty for not working more/effectively enough, or getting all the things you were supposed to want and entering a general malaise because they’re all meaningless.
But the thing is, top to bottom, people caught in the capitalist mindset are all looking for a good deal - and a ‘good deal’ is defined as one asymmetrically in my benefit. But there’s no intuitive and natural, sustainable enjoyment of the results. It’s like gambling once the urge has taken over someone, and they don’t even pay attention to win or loss. Oh, sure, they like winning and don’t like losing, but they’re never going to take their winnings and go home, our really make back what they’ve lost. They’re just going to continue.
Anyways - that same distributed nature is what the concept of sovereignty depends on. Capitalism is not something that needs to be fought - it works well with equitable exchange and prudent action. But the mentality that it trends towards must be fought. The urges to follow the advertisement, to take the simplistic way out, and to choose the cheaper (in all senses of the word) option. To trick others into getting the worse end of the deal, or to just be ‘good hearted’ and look the other way while you get screwed.
With sovereignty, first and foremost, the issues in the world that you care to change are your own to change. They may not be your fault, but they are your situation and cultural background. They are the hand you are dealt. They are your responsibility. And the first place to change them is within yourself - to recognize how you are connected to those things, and how and why what you do results in or feeds those things - and to make change in your own life, first and foremost, before you make claims on what others should do. Enforcement action against others is limited to circumstances where sovereignty has been (or is being) violated.
Until this mentality is prevalent enough to represent fundamental cultural change, it is irrelevant what government is chosen, other than to pragmatically choose what is already in place (or whatever works). Once this mentality is prevalent enough to represent fundamental cultural change, it is irrelevant what government is chosen, because the way out it is used will be effective enough and just enough - and it will be worked towards the ends of sovereignty, both individual and collective.
Having a mentality of sovereignty won’t change much, if only because it doesn’t fix many of the inherent problems with a global human society. A big downside to capitalism and free markets are mortal limitations. We can’t predict the future or understand the full effects of our actions. We estimate based what information we have, but we can often be wrong even if we have good intentions. The externalities of our actions are basically impossible to calculate, and even when we discover them, we possess the ability to suspend our empathy and ignore potential harms.
I’m also not a fan of the assumption that we can’t tell others what to do until we put our own lives in order. Sometimes getting others to do things is essential to changing your own life and improving your own situation. On a personal level, you can set boundaries with toxic people in your life or convince others to leave you alone. On a large scale, you can overthrow an oppressive system or change laws that prevent you from living well. Telling others what they should do is not mutually exclusive to making changes in your own life.
Sovereignty is great and all, but even if widely respected by most, some will not, and those that do must step in to protect it. The way I view it, laws don’t exist for ethically behaving people, they exist because there will always be unethical people, and there’s no way to ensure that any ethical person will always be ethical.
The fundamental reality is that someone who wants to do good can participate in an evil system. Unregulated global capitalism uses child slaves and keeps people in poverty, all while pumping substances into the environment that harm everyone. You might respect the sovereignty of everyone you meet, but anything you buy can be made by manufacturers who don’t respect the sovereignty of people you’ll never meet.
Capitalism is too big for its problems to be solved by individual behaviors without changing our current system. We must change it to actually make a system that respect everyone’s anything, be it sovereignty, human rights, or the ability to live.
Not too big. You just have to have effective individual behaviors. They spread, because they work. Capitalism is currently a leading way of life because it is effective both for individuals and for collectives, at least from a raw, short-term power standpoint.
But that standpoint is a valid and important one. There’s no need to get rid of capitalism, there’s a need to adopt better ideologies, live by them, and gain by them. …which is what I do.
The point of sovereignty isn’t ‘you can’t stop other people from being bad.’ It’s that that kind of thinking (though necessary in a pinch) keeps you from addressing the ways you’re relinquishing power to the existing system on an ongoing basis.
In the end, though, I’m just making conversation, and we’ll both live as we wish. In some senses, we all live by sovereignty anyways. It’s just more effective when you realize it.
Effective individual behaviors rely on empathy and denying short term gratification for long term prudence. Empathy breaks down on large scales for most people, and denying short term exploitation to build a better world is not something even the best of us can reliably do. Good vibes aren’t useless, but they are not enough to make necessary changes.
As far as relinquishing power goes, my eyes are wide open. It’s necessary in theory, but I don’t respect laws that prevent people from living well. I respect the enforcement, but only because I must work to avoid it. I recognize that the only way to stop some bad things is violence, and that all rights must be protected by someone. It’s undeniable that violence, although often avoidable, is necessary to exist. Human made laws and concepts without enforcement will be trampled on and basically don’t matter.
Oh, I’m not saying violence isn’t necessary at times.
But violence is the outflow of the underlying conflict - and that conflict can often be resolved, or won at an earlier stage.
I’m also not saying something stupid like ‘if only people worked together, things would just be better!’ You can never rely on someone, particularly not the world at large, to never do the bad thing (whatever that is).
But the entire issue of empathy breaking down on larger scales is an individual abd collective psychologocal issue, and is precisely the area I’m leveraging.
However, this can’t be leveraged in the direct sense (show more pictures of dead puppies, and say ‘vote for me, I’ll end puppy mills!’ really only goes so far, with an empathically exhausted populace that can’t scale up their presence because they’ve already been emotionally squeezed dry. The actual emotions themselves need to be felt and understood.
The point of power that people don’t generally notice that they are ceding isn’t material. It’s more fundamentally based in their psychology and motives. By the time their consideration gets to a massive scale, they’ve emotionally checked out - and I don’t blame them, there’s a lot to consider, and groups that are linked together with the practical/emotional bond (i.e., that have a ‘real’ bond between the individual and culture) have historically also been very inflexible - though very embued with vitality.
That inflexibility isn’t fundamentally necessary, even though it’s even present in our current ‘culture’, where people are often bound to the culture at large by A) lying to themselves, ‘and if enough people just got together…’ blah blah blah, or B) accepting a lie and ‘facing reality’ saying you have to forego the empathic bond on a large scale.
That said, building a culture where there’s a flexible, practical bond flush with emotive empathy and the energy that comes from that is difficult. But much of cultural knowledge is passed on not by empathy, but by the presence of empathy when a power conflict is won or lost.
At the very least, I have a tool that gives me a lot of control in my own life, and over others who would cause conflicts with me, often enough without direct conflict. But it’s more than a tool to win, it’s a way of re-linking the empathetic mind to others. I think I’ve got the seed of a new culture. …but I’m ok with the fallback of ‘I have a thing that benefits me and me alone,’ though to me that’s clearly the less valuable circumstance.
I suppose that if the world is right, then my mind will change. …and if I am right, the world will change.
Oh - and to be clear, I’m not trying to stop the things that already exist in the world from existing. I generally like or need those things. But I am creating a way of life that makes the world worthwhile to me.