On communication ... On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:50:00AM -0000, xorcist@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.