This is the log of a discussion that I had with someone in August 2021, in a semi-public politics room on Matrix. It goes into detail on what an egalitarian (and by extension an anarchist) society might look like, what the underlying viewpoints and rationales are, and how it could work in practice. The discussion covered so much ground and was so exemplary of how difficult it can be for many people to grasp these concepts in a hierarchical world, that I've decided to publish it in full.
I've long felt that while egalitarian ideology is clearly the right choice, many of its proponents are very bad at really getting it across to people who aren't already half-convinced. This is something that we, as a movement, really need to work on to succeed - not telling people to "read theory", but communicating to them in their own language what it's all about, why they should care, in a frame of reference that they can identify with and that gives them agency.
I'm therefore publishing this in the hope that it'll be helpful to others. Not just to those who want to learn more about what egalitarian ideologies (anarchism, socialism, communism, etc.) are really about, but also to those who are already on board with these ideologies and who have difficulty explaining them to people from different backgrounds - perhaps this can give some insight into where it's going wrong.
The usual disclaimer applies: I can only speak for myself, and my view of these ideologies. I don't speak for any one ideological movement. Also, this has been edited for publication in a few ways: names are pseudonyms and some other details have been redacted, and some disruptive trolling by a third party has been snipped out. Otherwise, it's published as-is.
If you want to contact me, you can find me on Matrix as @joepie91:pixie.town.
| 4:35 PM | joepie91 | you know, I think that the socialists and communists who respond to the famine argument with "no, socialism/communism provides basic necessities for everybody"... are wrong to do so |
| 4:36 PM | joepie91 | I don't think that 'famine' is actually what people are complaining about, I think it's a hyperbolic meme that complains about something entirely different - the more general perception of socialism/communism as being ideologies where fun is not allowed, you will get what you need to survive and no more |
| 4:36 PM | joepie91 | and when you respond with "it provides for everybody", all you're doing is basically confirming that notion, including an implicit "and no more than that" glued onto it |
| 4:38 PM | joepie91 | and I think that this kind of 'defensive' approach that tries to negotiate a middle ground with bad-faith claims is actually harmful, and instead people should be taking a more offensive stance, explicitly recognizing "enjoying life" as a base necessity of humans, and explicitly stating that that will be provided for, too |
| 4:38 PM | joepie91 | ie. not "socialism/communism provides basic necessities for all" |
| 4:38 PM | joepie91 | but "socialism/communism provides enjoyment of life for all" |
| 4:42 PM | joepie91 | as in, I feel like a lot of people arguing for socialism/communism do themselves understand the enjoyment of life that can come from such a system, but they are failing to communicate that to people who are arguing from a different frame of reference without the same assumptions and/or background knowledge |
| 5:15 PM | joepie91 | made it a twitter thread https://twitter.com/joepie91/status/1426562866950385665 |
| 5:55 PM | Jacob | joepie91: interesting. if you wish socialism to win the happiness argument, how do you see this happening? it seems to me like the government achievements are usually measured with hard numbers like GDP growth (which ofc are massaged to the benefit of whoever is in charge at the time). do you think a "happiness quotient" of some kind would be a possible way to compare different political systems? |
| 6:00 PM | joepie91 |
Jacob: I'm actually neither a socialist nor a communist, and I care more about policy views than affiliations, so I cannot argue for socialism specifically - but to answer your question more generally, I do not believe that this form of measurement has merit or purpose outside of capitalist ideology in the first place. it's the usual problem with statistics - you can make them say basically anything by framing them differently or measuring them differently. but more importantly, I do not think it is needed to quantify things like happiness like that, neither to optimize for it nor to argue it. many of the aspects of leftist ideologies have such profound impact on quality-of-life that they can be made visible just through reasoning alone, without any precise numbers |
| 6:00 PM | joepie91 | it's a bit like how you don't need exact numbers to conclude that a truck is bigger than a skateboard |
| 6:01 PM | joepie91 | it's really obvious just from looking at it, and you can even plausibly argue why a truck cannot be smaller than a skateboard |
| 6:01 PM | joepie91 | without ever invoking a single numeric metric |
| 6:03 PM | joepie91 | (I do not think that a lot of leftists are plausibly arguing leftism, though, hence that thread :p) |
| 6:03 PM | Jacob | okay, then it comes down to communication as your twitter thread says. so far it does not appear that people think that the happiness superiority of socialism is self-evident |
| 6:03 PM | joepie91 | indeed |
| 6:06 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: one concrete example of such a thing you can reason about without exact numbers: assuming that 'wealth' directly or indirectly encompasses property of some kind (which it basically does, though often through a lot of layers of indirection), you can argue that since the amount of property on the planet is finite, less/no wealth inequality means a higher overall standard of living, because the finite resources are distributed more evenly across people, and so only a few people have less wealth whereas a lot of people have more wealth -- the only point where you need to look at concrete numbers, is when you want to eg. determine whether the new amount of wealth is enough for every single human to live comfortably |
| 6:07 PM | joepie91 | but the base concept of "less wealth inequality means more even distribution therefore generally better wealth across the world population" can hold up entirely through reasoning alone, though you could think about it in terms of imaginary percentages if you really wanted to |
| 6:08 PM | joepie91 | (this is still a pretty abstract example, because I don't have a more concrete belief of someone to argue against/about :p) |
| 6:11 PM | joepie91 | or another maybe less-abstract case that you can understand through reasoning: if you could somehow figure out a perfect way to distribute resources where they are needed, then private property (ie. exclusive claim over things regardless of whether you are using them yourself) is a problematic concept, because it will 'reserve' resources that therefore cannot be used for useful purposes |
| 6:12 PM | joepie91 | therefore, if you wish to make the best use of resources on a societal scale, private property cannot be a factor in it |
| 6:12 PM | joepie91 | (how to distribute it accurately is a separate discussion, which is of course a complex topic, and the answer to that is not necessarily a form of centralization) |
| 6:21 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i see, that is indeed a cogent argument for a socialist system, and assuming that material wealth equates with happiness it backs up your argument. of course then we get to the tricky part of getting this wealth from the people who have it - traditionally they are not too keen to part with that, but it is indeed a different question |
| 6:21 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: I don't agree that material wealth equates with happiness, to be clear :) I just took the topic of wealth because it's easier to invent an example for without having a specific person's belief to frame it around |
| 6:22 PM | joepie91 | "happiness" is a pretty fuzzy topic that encompasses a lot of different concerns and priorities, and I can't really make any assumptions about what people's personal frame of reference on it is |
| 6:23 PM | joepie91 | so a more neutrally-perceived topic like wealth is simpler |
| 6:26 PM | Jacob | joepie91: there are metrics like this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report for estimating "happiness". but it is a crude tool at an individual level. but it seems to me like most people still have low enough level of material wealth that they'd prefer a metric that reflects how they can be better off financially rather than pure happiness (which presumably reflects the financial status of the people as well - if sweat all night about your debt you probably aren't too happy) |
| 6:27 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: the problem with these kinds of metrics is that they were invented because people really wanted a quantifiable metric (because that fits into a capitalist way of viewing the world), not because there was a reliable metric available |
| 6:28 PM | joepie91 | the wiki page also briefly goes into this, but the bottom line is that these kind of metrics basically always have laundry lists of issues that make them functionally useless if you have an activist goal of making the world a better place |
| 6:28 PM | joepie91 | as opposed to "I am trying to weigh happiness and government expenses" |
| 6:29 PM | joepie91 | or, worse, "I am trying to prove that my specific ideology is better and picked a metric that does so" |
| 6:30 PM | joepie91 | so overall, I just don't like trying to measure ideologies by metrics. you almost invariably end up with ideological beliefs packaged up in objective-looking numbers |
| 6:30 PM | joepie91 | I'd rather be upfront about the ideological views and argue their merits directly |
| 6:31 PM | Emily | Measurements like that are also very easy to make dodgy claims of causality about |
| 6:32 PM | joepie91 | yep - because you don't have to provide a rationale for a causal link, just observe a correlation and sorta kinda imply that the causal link must be the one that fits into your viewpoint |
| 6:32 PM | Emily | And just statistical massaging in general |
| 6:32 PM | joepie91 | (which you can't do as easily when arguing ideologies on their own merit directly, because there'd be an obvious hole in your reasoning) |
| 6:33 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i appreciate what you're saying. statistics in matters such as these are so heavily tweaked that they don't reflect truth at all. but if we ignore statistics, how do people decide what is the best? do you think socialism is so self-evidently superior that people should back it just because of the value proposition it offers? |
| 6:34 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: well, like I said, I'm not actually arguing for socialism or communism specifically. but if you ask "do you think that the common underlying policy views are so self-evidently superior", then my answer would be yes |
| 6:34 PM | joepie91 | it often takes a lot of discussion to get to that point though, because you have to unpack all sorts of assumptions and beliefs people have picked up along the way (often as a result of intentional propaganda, but not always) |
| 6:36 PM | joepie91 | like, probably the two most persistent beliefs to unpack, that are also really ingrained into people's belief systems nowadays, are 1) society cannot function without a clear hierarchy, and 2) humans are fundamentally rotten and untrustworthy and adversarial |
| 6:36 PM | joepie91 | neither is actually correct, but deconstructing the beliefs is a Job and a half |
| 6:37 PM | joepie91 | unfortunately, both also need to be deconstructed for people to accept the 'leftist' policy views |
| 6:38 PM | Alice | That is the hard part. We all grew up with capitalism being the default. Taking the journey to be able to consider other systems isn't something that someone else can do for you. Others can just help you see the current system through a different light. Then one can finally start figuring out what others think and if one maybe find it persuasive. |
| 6:38 PM | joepie91 | yep |
| 6:39 PM | Emily | Stop drinking capitalist realism juice today and do your health a favor |
| 6:39 PM | Emily | /end marketing voice |
| 6:39 PM | joepie91 | was gonna say, who called in the Meme Marketing Department :p |
| 6:40 PM | Emily | Me! >:D |
| 6:40 PM | Jacob | joepie91: the contest between ideologies is... well, a contest. do you think socialism being "self-evidently better" is a good enough marketing strategy to overcome the current systems? |
| 6:42 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: not in and of itself. that's also what my complain-y thread is about, and what Alice's comment was about for that matter; it's going to be necessary to help people see things in a different light, to change their frame of reference, deconstruct unspoken beliefs, get people to a point where they can reason about the merits of different ideological beliefs without being 'burdened' by the assumptions they have picked up throughout their life, so to say |
| 6:42 PM | joepie91 | IMO, this is the job of activists specifically and leftists more generally; to take that first step of engaging with people, also on a personal level, and help them relate their personal experiences in life to the system they live in and the underlying ideology |
| 6:43 PM | joepie91 | basically, no ideology is gonna sell itself |
| 6:43 PM | joepie91 | no matter how obviously correct (insofar that exists) it would be when viewed in a neutral light, because people don't view things in a neutral light, we're all shaped by our experiences |
| 6:44 PM | joepie91 | and activists should be the 'bridge' from those personal experiences to the underlying concepts |
| 6:45 PM | joepie91 | (this is also why I don't like blanket shittalking of anyone who isn't a leftist, actually) |
| 6:46 PM | joepie91 | (which is unfortunately still very common in leftist circles...) |
| 6:48 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i'm glad to hear you say that. a lot of people these days are out there just looking for something to be upset about. it's not good marketing and frankly it's also being a bit of a turd as a person. |
| 6:50 PM | Jacob | the superpower of the capitalist system is money which buys a lot of positive marketing. if socialism is to prevail do you think the power of people finding it superior is enough to make it overcome the status quo? |
| 6:50 PM | joepie91 | not "is", but "can be", yes |
| 6:51 PM | joepie91 | I don't think we're there yet, but I think that especially younger generations of leftists are moving it in the right direction |
| 6:52 PM | joepie91 | I do actually have some experience in "beating the moneybags", although not quite on the topic of political ideology, and moneyed marketing is nowhere near as invulnerable as people like to assume |
| 6:52 PM | Jacob | joepie91: can you share any of those stories? |
| 6:52 PM | joepie91 | the most recent and obvious example of this would probably be Andrew Lee's failed attempt at taking over Freenode |
| 6:53 PM | Jacob | yeah, that was a fun one (i was one of the first users on libera). but the FOSS community is arguably a lot more aware than the general public when it comes to certain issues |
| 6:54 PM | joepie91 | the fact that we can now all collectively laugh about the wannabe-royalty billionaire running freenode into the ground, is evidence that money alone doesn't guarantee you a PR win |
| 6:54 PM | joepie91 | I actually don't think that's true, necessarily |
| 6:54 PM | joepie91 | I think tech people have a tendency of judging people's awareness entirely on a scale of "awareness about tech things specifically" |
| 6:55 PM | joepie91 | digital privacy, open-source, etc. |
| 6:55 PM | joepie91 | often overlooking that most people simply have other priorities, awareness in different areas, fundamentally the same capabilities of identifying wrongs and being motivated to do something about it |
| 6:55 PM | joepie91 | just in areas that, conversely, tech people don't really talk or care about |
| 6:57 PM | joepie91 | another concrete example that kinda shows something like this: MongoDB is still hurting from the article I wrote in 2016 or so that enumerated exactly why it was hyped-up trash. I still hear stories of not-really-technical clients not wanting their new software to be built with MongoDB |
| 6:57 PM | Jacob | that's fair. and certainly the covid apps have been an example of how tech doesn't always solve real-world problems. but are people in general aware enough about politics to make educated decisions and be able to choose the optimal strategy? |
| 6:58 PM | Jacob | and if they aren't, why should they choose socialism over the status quo? |
| 6:59 PM | joepie91 | I don't think you can - or should - expect every single person to have the interest and capabilities to be a political advisor or decisionmaker. but what you can expect (on a fundamental level, anyway) is a good-enough understanding of political frameworks to decide which direction sounds the most reasonable, which representative is most aligned with their personal viewpoints, what they should be in support of and most importantly, when and where they should get involved themselves |
| 7:00 PM | joepie91 | this is all assuming that people have a reasonably informed view of different ideologies and which parts are ideology to begin with, which is where I currently believe the issue is, and which IMO is the responsibility of the political 'underdogs' to resolve |
| 7:00 PM | joepie91 | (as the status quo in any system will never do so) |
| 7:01 PM | joepie91 | or to put it more simply: most people don't need to know the exact cost of building a specific railroad track, they just need to know whether it's the reasonable choice to solve an infrastructure problem |
| 7:02 PM | joepie91 | or even more high-level, they need to know which people tend to come up with the reasonable infrastructure solutions |
| 7:07 PM | Jacob | joepie91: that is a compelling argument in a situation where information is fair and free. but currently a lot of financial interests with ample capital benefit from the system as it is now and they back efforts to portray the current system as the best there is. even if socialism is the superior idea, it still needs some power to combat the information landscape we have now. how do you think this obstacle could be overcome? |
| 7:08 PM | joepie91 | (one moment, need to sort something out) |
| 7:08 PM | Jacob | np |
| 7:15 PM | joepie91 |
Jacob: information will never be 100% fair and free in and of itself; the above is with the assumption that there are adversaries who are trying to mislead, and it is the job of leftists and activists more generally to counteract that, for which personal engagement is necessary. ultimately, all other things being equal, and with clear communication, people will pretty reliably pick reasonable ideas out of a mass of ideas - the problems we're struggling with right now distort that situation in 3 main ways:
|
| 7:16 PM | joepie91 | capitalists are not gonna stop buying people, populists are not gonna stop hooking onto existing sentiments, which leaves one solution: activists need to care enough about and become good enough at communication and engaging with people personally, to outweigh the other two |
| 7:18 PM | joepie91 | I also think that 1:1 engagement is an often-overlooked tactic here; convincing individual people (or even small groups) in casual conversations that weren't specifically started with the purpose of politics, but where some concern or frustration from someone can be used as an 'entry point' for relating it to systemic issues and root causes |
| 7:18 PM | joepie91 | but in a way that helps them, also emotionally, not in an unwanted-preacher-y way |
| 7:19 PM | joepie91 | a way that gives them hope, some way to act out their frustration in a productive manner |
| 7:19 PM | Jacob | joepie91: do you think activists are capable of achieving such level of success? from what i've seen activists are very rare compared to the shills for the status quo |
| 7:19 PM | joepie91 | a lot of people don't feel heard by common mass activist rhetoric, think protest signs; but people definitely do feel heard when you are talking to them specifically about their problems and how they fit into the world |
| 7:20 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: yes, I think it is possible. not easy, just possible. |
| 7:21 PM | joepie91 | I think that most people who are already activists could do this, given enough practice and effort; the biggest problem is the "meta-activism" -- convincing people not just to hold activist views, but to actively spread this to other people, ad infinitum |
| 7:21 PM | joepie91 | like, more concretely: I can convince someone that capitalism is bad. but can I convince someone to work on convincing someone else who I don't personally know that capitalism is bad? |
| 7:23 PM | joepie91 | this is why I tend to dive into the meta-activism so much, the discussions of how activism works, how it can be made more effective, the specific tactics that I use, etc. - it helps people apply that in their own life, in a manner where they actually understand the mechanics and aren't just copying behaviour |
| 7:23 PM | joepie91 | as copying behaviour is lossy |
| 7:24 PM | Jacob | joepie91: are there examples of such success that exist today that you could mention? |
| 7:25 PM | joepie91 | there unfortunately seems to be very little documentation on this sort of thing. but I would say that the squatting movement in the Netherlands in its heyday did a pretty good job of this |
| 7:26 PM | joepie91 | they didn't just squat buildings, they didn't just protest; they engaged neighbours, the broader community, drew people in through social venues, made a real effort to explain the why of squatting, how it could work |
| 7:27 PM | Jacob | yes, from what i hear the squatters in germany and denmark have done quite well too. christiania has been a nice social experiment |
| 7:27 PM | joepie91 | you could also argue that historically, the major religions have gotten this process down to a tee |
| 7:27 PM | joepie91 | think eg. missionary schools |
| 7:28 PM | Jacob | religion has a profit motive unlike socialist activism though |
| 7:28 PM | joepie91 | it's a bit more complex than that :p |
| 7:28 PM | joepie91 | and there's plenty of problematic history with religious missionaries, for sure |
| 7:29 PM | joepie91 | but I still think that it is one of the better sources to look at in terms of historical success here, because it is well-documented and it definitely did work |
| 7:29 PM | joepie91 | even if the objectives were a bit different |
| 7:31 PM | joepie91 | I don't personally really like organized religion, but like with eg. the alt-right, I think it's important to at least understand effective tactics even when they are used by people who you dislike or vehemently oppose - it's the only way to build up a good defense, for starters, and there's often things to be learned from the methods |
| 7:31 PM | joepie91 | as long as you very carefully look at the social implications and downsides of specific methods too, it can be an informative source |
| 7:34 PM | Jacob | sure. for example i find it odd that so many people hate donny and refuse to think about that man at all. whatever else you can say about him, he did become the president of the united states - clearly something he did worked to get him there. imho the smart move would be to study the successful people and use that to your advantage |
| 7:34 PM | joepie91 | well, not necessarily use that to your advantage, it depends on whether the approach is ethically defensible |
| 7:35 PM | joepie91 | for example, if the tactic in question encourages blind trust in authority, I do not believe it would be appropriate to use for leftist purposes even if it provides short-term wins |
| 7:35 PM | joepie91 | but yes, you should definitely understand it |
| 7:37 PM | joepie91 | that having been said, the alt-right is a bit of a special case - they tend to actively exploit discussions around their viewpoints to propagate them further, so it's something to analyze very carefully and only when you already know the traps |
| 7:37 PM | joepie91 | same reason you should never 'debate' with a nazi, basically |
| 7:39 PM | Jacob | yes, you banned a nazi type yesterday. it was fair but i did not even notice that they had such inclinations. the dogwhistles these people have are very successful, but i don't know if there is a way to harness that strategy for a good purpose |
| 7:42 PM | joepie91 | I don't think so, no. I sometimes see something similar happen with some leftist memes (eg. the "guillotine" meme), and while their purpose is not exactly the same, they have the same property of being essentially ideological in-jokes. while there's nothing wrong with in-jokes per se, I also see quite a lot of leftists seemingly using them instead of arguments, and that doesn't really help anybody |
| 7:43 PM | joepie91 | it's inscrutable to anyone who isn't part of that in-group, can even appear offensive or threatening to them, and you're really not going to convince anybody of anything more than general undirected anger with a context-less meme |
| 7:44 PM | joepie91 | all it's really 'good' for is fostering an "us vs. them" atmosphere, and while that can be applicable in some cases, I don't think it's a healthy long-term frame of reference for activism |
| 7:45 PM | Jacob | yes, i think people underestimate how easy it is to appear threatening to others when it comes to mass movements |
| 7:45 PM | Jacob | sorry, but i need to attend to something in the meatspace, i'll be back in 25 min |
| 7:45 PM | joepie91 | np :) |
| 7:46 PM | joepie91 | also, honestly, I think the only way for leftist activism to succeed, is to have it operate in a frame of hope, not a frame of anger. it needs to provide perspective to people, a future, not just something that makes them feel more and more depressed and eventually burned out |
| 7:47 PM | joepie91 | the racist asshats got this one right, unfortunately; just their framing of 'hope' is "if we just get rid of the immigrants/whatever, all your problems in life are solved" |
| 7:48 PM | joepie91 | and I think that's something a lot of leftists also don't really recognize; that the voter/fanbase of racist populists isn't driven by hatred, but by hope |
| 7:48 PM | joepie91 | false hope, but hope nevertheless |
| 7:48 PM | joepie91 | the hatred is just an outward expression of their particular ideology |
| 8:02 PM | joepie91 | (also, that doesn't mean I consider racism even remotely acceptable, to be clear. but know your enemy etc. etc.) |
| 8:11 PM | Jacob | joepie91: yep, you have an interesting proposal, and i can hardly find fault in a movement that is based on hope. i guess now it's just down to executing the plan |
| 8:13 PM | Emily | There is a socialist writer who wrote about the value of hope. My mom cited him in her book about hope. I forget his name, give me a bit and i might find out |
| 8:15 PM | Jacob | Emily: that sounds nice, please let us know. lately i've been reading emil cioran who concentrates on failure, suicide, suffering, decay and nihilism. might be a nice change of pace to do something about hope :) |
| 8:32 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: I already am executing the plan :) the part where I convince people that the ideology is worth paying attention to on the basis of hope, anyway |
| 8:33 PM | joepie91 | you can too :p |
| 8:33 PM | joepie91 | the detailed implementation is a whole separate challenge, but that's the sort of thing you can only really discuss once you already have a sizeable amount of people together who share the same end goal |
| 8:34 PM | joepie91 | and as always, even the best plan doesn't survive contact with the enemy |
| 8:36 PM | joepie91 | so it will undoubtedly be a perpetual iterative process, to continuously and gradually improve things |
| 8:43 PM | Jacob | joepie91: out of interest, what argument would you use to convince disillusioned people to join your movement? the "occupy" movement began as idealistic as well but it was undermined by hired agents from the good old status quo. how is your movement different and more resistant to attacks by your political opponents? |
| 8:43 PM | joepie91 | I think you underestimate the impact that occupy has had, tbh |
| 8:44 PM | joepie91 | even just for the tiny one where I used to live, I can directly trace it to current-day leftist and/or collectivist initiatives, like neighbourhood improvement projects, protests, etc. |
| 8:45 PM | joepie91 | and occupy was not so much meant to be overthrowing capitalism or whatever, as it was a meeting point, an awareness campaign, a way for people who want to see change (of many different kinds) to get in touch with each other |
| 8:45 PM | joepie91 | which, well, it did |
| 8:46 PM | joepie91 | in that sense I don't think it 'failed', exactly. it would have been nice if it had directly turned into a persistent long-term movement, but I'm not sure anybody really expected that to happen, I think most of those involved were well aware that it was always going to be a temporary thing, nothing more than a 'planted seed' of sorts |
| 8:50 PM | joepie91 | but to address your question more directly, I'm not sure I'd use the phrase "join your movement" to begin with. I don't think it should really be seen as a centralized organized thing, as something that people attach themselves to just because they like the sound of it. I think it needs to go deeper than that, be more of a continuous process of helping people build a lasting understanding what makes up our current society and in what ways it is oppressive, in what ways it could be better and why... to serve as a foundation to build better structures on, to change people's lens through which they view the world, to essentially give people agency to improve the world around them independently |
| 8:51 PM | joepie91 | (this is also why I don't consider myself either a socialist or a communist) |
| 8:52 PM | joepie91 | capitalism isn't a single coherent movement either, it doesn't sustain itself by having some one central leader who everybody follows ideologically, it's more of a... background tune to society, some roughly-shared ideological view of things across people who have grown up and learned how things work in a certain (capitalistic) context |
| 8:52 PM | joepie91 | something ambient and assumed that weaves throughout everything and definitely benefits a specific group of people most, but that isn't led by those people exactly |
| 8:53 PM | Jacob | joepie91: okay, i did not know that the occupy thing had any effect. i live away from the hotspots so all i heard was them protesting and then it obviously being undermined by the vested interests. it's nice if some of it made people be kinder to each other |
| 8:53 PM | joepie91 | to borrow a phrase from a few past activist things: centralized movements are fragile, but you can't kill an idea |
| 8:54 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i do like the "v for vendetta" thing. but do you think a leaderless movement can compete? people tend to have a need for a leader |
| 8:55 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: that's that common false assumption about society not functioning without hierarchy that I mentioned earlier, cropping up ;) |
| 8:56 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i'm open to being wrong. it would indeed be nice if nation-states were not the pinnacle of governance, but so far they look like they are |
| 8:57 PM | joepie91 | humans are quite capable of self-organizing, there's quite a lot of evidence of that (IIRC the book 'anarchism works' goes into a couple examples), but I think the most important detail is that self-organized groups tend to have something that looks like a leader but isn't |
| 8:58 PM | joepie91 | like, for example, if you work on a software project, you might have one person on the team who understands the problem domain really well, and they will be explaining a lot and correcting a lot, and their behaviour will look a lot like that of a 'leader' in the hierarchical-society sense |
| 8:59 PM | joepie91 | but it isn't really; it's them temporarily taking the wheel on something that they happen to have expertise in, and they have no authority beyond how much others trust them to know what they're talking about |
| 8:59 PM | joepie91 | and that is something that people need, yes |
| 8:59 PM | joepie91 | however, hierarchical leaders are something different; they are assigned, directly or indirectly, and kept in place through oppression, beyond the level of trust that their subjects have for them |
| 8:59 PM | joepie91 | whether that is explicit oppression or merely inability for anybody 'insignificant' to gain a voice |
| 9:00 PM | Jacob | yes, peter gelderloos has some very interesting ideas and i very much enjoyed his book. i'm open to him being right but so far these ideas have not taken over the world |
| 9:00 PM | joepie91 | and this difference is crucially important for understanding how seemingly 'leaderless' movements or organizations can work |
| 9:00 PM | joepie91 | haven't they, though? |
| 9:00 PM | joepie91 | most of your day-to-day social interactions probably don't involve a leader or hierarchy |
| 9:01 PM | joepie91 | outside of your job |
| 9:01 PM | joepie91 | people coordinate things without a hierarchy all the time |
| 9:01 PM | joepie91 | like having discussions with friends, or deciding who picks up the bar tab, or building a shed with family |
| 9:02 PM | joepie91 | or even more consequential things such as discussing long-term living arrangements |
| 9:02 PM | joepie91 | but that just seems natural, that's just how things work, so it gets very little attention in everyday discourse, it's just an assumed thing |
| 9:02 PM | Jacob | but doesn't society need a monopoly on violence like we have now? |
| 9:02 PM | Emily | Ernst Bloch was the name |
| 9:03 PM | Jacob | thank you Emily |
| 9:03 PM | joepie91 | the thing that stands out is the part where hierarchy is imposed, that is what is constantly the subject of discussion between people, and a lot of people have wrongly come to believe that that must mean it is The Only Way because that is "how everything works", except "everything" really just encompasses "the things that people talk about a lot" |
| 9:03 PM | joepie91 | it's like that thing where things that never happen don't make the news, things that sometimes happen do make the news, and things that happen all the time never make the news again |
| 9:04 PM | joepie91 | so do humans really fundamentally need hierarchy to organize? I don't think so, there's mountains of evidence in everyday life that they don't, just the conversation happens to focus on the specific things where we currently have hierarchy and so people assume it's a constant |
| 9:05 PM | joepie91 | that doesn't mean we can't have people to be inspired by, or coordinators of specific things that are their expertise, or whatever |
| 9:05 PM | joepie91 | but they are not leaders, they are specialists |
| 9:05 PM | Jacob | joepie91: but is that a scale issue? most people have maybe 20-50 close associates and they can talk things out with them. but won't it be different when you have millions of strangers to organize with? |
| 9:05 PM | joepie91 | yes, to some degree this is a scale issue |
| 9:06 PM | joepie91 | this is why I am opposed to Facebook/Twitter-style social networks, for example, including FOSS alternatives that fundamentally try to do the same "global community" thing |
| 9:06 PM | joepie91 | human interaction and consensus doesn't scale that far |
| 9:06 PM | joepie91 | nation states have much the same problem |
| 9:07 PM | joepie91 | they are too big to be truly representative of their population, too big to reach true consensus, but because nation states are an all-or-nothing deal - either you are part of it or you are not - you get to choose between either practical scale benefits (eg. large infrastructure projects) or representation and consensus |
| 9:07 PM | joepie91 | on a smaller scale (heh), cities have much the same problem |
| 9:08 PM | joepie91 | however, much of this hypercentralization of people is also driven by capitalist incentives, and it is reasonable to expect that a more collectivist society would come to look different |
| 9:09 PM | joepie91 | not necessarily without scalability benefits (cooperation between groups of people as a single unit is a thing), but without the all-or-nothing centralization that we have today |
| 9:10 PM | joepie91 | basically, the idea that you just replace the word "capitalism" with "communism" or "socialism" and leave everything else in society exactly the same, is a myth - it will never work out that way. but I consider that a feature, not a bug |
| 9:10 PM | joepie91 | because much of people's everyday misery comes from exactly these sort of scale issues, that we are running in today |
| 9:10 PM | Jacob | so you think that there is some kind of a reasonable group size where people can self-organize and then either pass that decision to a higher authority or to use that consensus to interact with similar-sized groups? |
| 9:11 PM | joepie91 | pretty much, though I am not so fond of the "higher authority" option personally, because it tends to be hierarchy again |
| 9:11 PM | joepie91 | research so far suggests that the group size lies somewhere around 100-300 |
| 9:12 PM | joepie91 | though that is based on the assumption of active involvement from everybody, so in practice that group size is likely to be larger due to people who are uninterested in the process and just trust others to handle it |
| 9:12 PM | Jacob | yes, from what i've read by anthropologists and others who know more than me that is the typical historical village size and the level that they say people are able to organize in |
| 9:13 PM | joepie91 | (the number I'm referring to here is basically the "number of meaningful relationships a human being can maintain") |
| 9:13 PM | joepie91 | right |
| 9:13 PM | joepie91 | it's one of those numbers that keeps coming up in a lot of different places |
| 9:13 PM | joepie91 | totally unrelated to the current topic, but another such number is '4 hours' |
| 9:14 PM | joepie91 | it's roughly the maximum 'focus time' for a typical human, it's also roughly the amount of time that a human can plan for / estimate accurately, etc. |
| 9:14 PM | joepie91 | but that's a tangent :p |
| 9:14 PM | Jacob | not a tangent. i think for a good political system you need to take into account the weaknesses that humans have |
| 9:15 PM | joepie91 | I suppose that's true |
| 9:15 PM | joepie91 | it's interesting either way, it just seems to be the more-or-less hard cap in people's interaction with time |
| 9:15 PM | joepie91 | just like 100-300 seems to be the hard cap in people's social interaction with other people |
| 9:17 PM | Jacob | i'd venture that some populists and covid deniers and so on exploit some weaknesses humans have atm. if one could come up with a positive thing that could target these same things, they could garner a larger audience fast |
| 9:19 PM | Jacob | but back to what you said. so if people organize in small groups, how would you prevent someone within that group becoming dominant? now we have billionaires being the top dogs financially, wouldn't small groups end up being similar? |
| 9:20 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: that is why I consider it important to build a solid foundation of understanding of social dynamics, of what makes communities work, etc. |
| 9:20 PM | joepie91 | and why I think that should be a prerequisite for a true leftist movement |
| 9:26 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: basically, you cannot build an egalitarian society on blind adherence to anything, whether it is a person or an ideology - if you do, then you'll end up in exactly the situation you're describing, where one well-spoken person can take over and control an entire community without resistance. that is why it is so important to make understanding group dynamics etc. an integral part of your community's culture, something that people are taught as they grow up and that they can use to protect their community from such things |
| 9:26 PM | joepie91 | it's something to never stop teaching, basically |
| 9:31 PM | Jacob | joepie91: what you're saying requires a lot of education. education in general is a laudable goal, but it seems like another hurdle to overcome. i'd argue that certain political groups hinder education to maintain support, and to overcome that you'd have to have your people in power to get things started in the direction you want |
| (editor note) | Some disruptive trolling was removed from this point onwards. It did not meaningfully contribute to the discussion, but some of the messages refer to it. | |
| 9:37 PM | Jacob | Alice: i was surprised how negative the reaction to George was, so i was worried that this is one of those rooms where dissenting opinions are a cause for a ban |
| 9:37 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: it's not. but engaging in bad faith is |
| 9:37 PM | Emily | It's not, being disruptive on purpose is |
| 9:38 PM | joepie91 | and now they are calling me names in another room, so 🤷 |
| 9:42 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: so the general idea is, disagreeing is fine - so long as you do so respectfully and with the goal of reaching a mutually improved understanding of whatever is being discussed. unfortunately some people have a different goal, generally one that lies somewhere inbetween "trolling" and "winning the debate" and "disrupting discussions", and that tends to become clear pretty quickly from how they approach a conversation |
| 9:42 PM | joepie91 | this is another one of those things that communities would need to learn to identify and defend themselves from |
| 9:43 PM | joepie91 |
|
| 9:44 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i've had a really pleasant time talking about socialism with you, and the way i saw this fellow interjecting did not set my troll alarms off so far. i may be wrong and maybe he's a known troll (i'm new around here so i don't know what's up). but if this is a place where free expression is curtailed by mods then this is a place i don't want to be in |
| 9:45 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: not a known troll, but definitely known trolling behaviour. and just to be explicit: this is absolutely not a 'free speech' zone in the sense that assholes tend to interpret the term :) |
| 9:45 PM | joepie91 | which is to say, behaviour matters |
| 9:46 PM | joepie91 | also, the idea that you need to never moderate people in order to have a productive conversation is completely wrong; if anything, it's the complete opposite, because disruptive people will prevent nuanced and in-depth discussion of a topic |
| 9:46 PM | joepie91 | see also https://twitter.com/joepie91/status/1413873379225051141 which is related |
| 9:48 PM | joepie91 | basically, if someone shows themselves unwilling to be respectful towards others, either in behaviour or in general viewpoints, then they should be removed from a discussion, if you want to be left with a useful discussion for everybody else |
| 9:49 PM | Liam | Jacob: This may not be the place for you then. You're absolutely welcome to stay if you want to, but these rooms do not have free expression as their goal, as there are plenty of other places for that. It's meant to be a nice and comfortable place to hang out, and in striving for that goal we do take stronger moderation actions than other places do sometimes. |
| 9:49 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: or in other words: the discussion we've had so far would not have been possible had this room been moderated along IRC-esque "free expression no matter what" lines, because someone would have crashed it within minutes with some witty-sounding absolutist (and completely wrong) claim |
| 9:50 PM | joepie91 | as, well, has more or less happened now |
| 9:54 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i think we've had a civil conversation here (let me know if you disagree). and i'm okay with things not being as freewheeling as IRC where we'd had a bunch of racist/sexist/whatever stuff going on by random people by now. but what this situation makes me worry about is the freedom to disagree. this fellow who joined the conversation seemed to be into capitalism and perhaps a conservative - is it not okay for people like that to chime in with their views? |
| 9:58 PM | Alice |
|
| 9:58 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: oh no, our conversation has been completely fine, I have no issues with that. but this other person didn't actually engage with the discussion, they didn't try to understand the points being made, they just made some barely-coherent absolutist claims that were meant to attack people and disrupt the conversation, not to improve mutual understanding - like for example the phrasing as "hating", the constant tangential comments, the lack of actually substantively responding to specific points, etc. |
| 9:59 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: basically, they were trying to distract the discussion away from nuance and detail and towards blunt statements and beliefs, and they've unfortunately succeeded |
| 10:00 PM | joepie91 | because we are no longer discussing the thing we were |
| 10:04 PM | Jacob | this is the last thing i'll say about the drama. imho it's very useful to listen to people who have differing (political) views than yours. you don't need to agree but you can learn about how and why they think the way they do and that can be really useful |
| 10:05 PM | Emily | Sure, if they're willing to engage constructively and actually interact with the points being made, which has decidedly not been the case here |
| 10:05 PM | Liam |
|
| 10:06 PM | Evelyn | Fwiw, my understanding is that while this is a worthwhile goal, this is quite not the place to have that kind of a conversation. |
| 10:06 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: I do routinely listen to (and even seek out) views of people with different views, that's how I came to that point of "racist populist followers are driven by hope, not hatred" for example. I'm just not willing to deal with people who are actively seeking to disrupt conversations :) |
| 10:07 PM | joepie91 | you won't learn anything from that |
| 10:07 PM | joepie91 | it just saps energy |
| 10:07 PM | Jacob | Liam: that's nice. all i'm looking for in a chatroom is a place where opinions can be expressed freely (in good faith). we don't need to agree but we can learn something from each other |
| 10:08 PM | joepie91 | I suspect that expressing fundamentally oppressive views here will also not be considered acceptable; though that is of course something different from "someone who assumes the status quo passively" for example |
| 10:08 PM | joepie91 | see also: nazis not welcome, no matter how 'polite' |
| 10:09 PM | Jacob | joepie91: that's okay, i think nazism has been pretty thoroughly shown to not be a good idea by now |
| 10:09 PM | Evelyn | also "see also": Popper's Paradox |
| 10:09 PM | Evelyn |
|
| 10:09 PM | joepie91 | right, more just wanting to point out that 'free expression' is not quite the desirable property that people often think it is, unless you interpret in a very specific way (and that's never the way that people complaining about bans interpret it) |
| 10:14 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i think this drama of late has been very interesting and pertinent to what we've been talking about. if you want people to organize in small groups and interact with other such groups; how would you achieve consensus that doesn't break down into the kind of dissent we've had here? |
| 10:16 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: by making "recognizing bad-faith actors" a core part of the community's culture, something passed through generations, and considered a core part of how you have a civilized discussion instead of the currently-common view of "as long as nobody uses swear words it's fine" |
| 10:16 PM | joepie91 | this is hard, but not impossible; I've been doing this in some communities at a smaller scale already, with pretty good success |
| 10:17 PM | joepie91 | basically, explaining moderation decisions and the underlying factors/indicators in depth to people |
| 10:17 PM | joepie91 | to help people build up an intuition for this sort of thing |
| 10:17 PM | joepie91 | it has taken a lot of time, but that is something I expect to become less labour-intensive once it's just a cultural thing to maintain rather than a cultural thing to change, as it is now |
| 10:18 PM | joepie91 | (as you've probably noticed by now, I tend to test out these sorts of concepts at small scale to verify that they work :p) |
| 10:22 PM | Jacob | joepie91: isn't that a very precarious thing to build a whole system on? you might be on board and educated with all the necessary stuff to manage things. but what about your child or just some guy? you know, most people have the IQ of 100 and on average a lot of people fall below that. a system like this might decay over time like all the others we've had so far |
| 10:22 PM | joepie91 | I don't accept the premise that IQ is a valid indicator of intelligence or ability to participate in society |
| 10:22 PM | Evelyn | What... does any of this have to do with... IQ? |
| 10:23 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: that having been said: 1) all systems decay over time, this has always been true, this likely always will be true, I don't consider that a reason not to try and improve things, and 2) that's why teaching these sorts of skills to people is important |
| 10:24 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i agree that IQ is an arbitrary measurement. but my point was average people vs the ideal, informed populus. look at the way some people reacted to covid for example if you need an example of stupidty (5G causing it, etc) |
| 10:24 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: that's not "stupidity" as much as it is "a societal failure to teach people the skills they need to function in society" |
| 10:25 PM | joepie91 | that's not on them, that's on those who are supposed to be doing the teaching |
| 10:25 PM | joepie91 | people aren't born smart, they develop according to their environment, the things and ideas they come into contact with, the opportunities they have to learn |
| 10:25 PM | joepie91 | right now, a lot of people don't have sufficient opportunities, and we're teaching the wrong things |
| 10:25 PM | joepie91 | it's no surprise then that people are coming to wrong conclusions |
| 10:26 PM | joepie91 | but that is a systemic, collective issue - not an individual one |
| 10:29 PM | Jacob | joepie91: yes, we get back into the education aspect of it. you may be right that that's where the problem lies. how would we further education when the powers that be opt to downgrade it? |
| 10:30 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: by not relying on the powers that be to do that education. what is activism really, if not "providing education as a grassroots initiative where it's left absent by the established powers"? |
| 10:31 PM | joepie91 | and if activism is just 'adversarial education', for lack of a better term, then that provides a clear 'migration path' to it becoming non-adversarial education once circumstances change |
| 10:31 PM | joepie91 | it's basically the same job, just made easier by not having to fight an uphill battle |
| 10:32 PM | joepie91 | in the end, IMO, it all revolves around education, and I mean that in a fundamental sense; not just telling people stuff, not just convincing them of beliefs, but actually teaching people fundamental skills that grant them agency to shape the world around them |
| 10:33 PM | joepie91 | 'identifying bad-faith actors' is a part of that, 'how to organize projects effectively' is another part, 'how do social dynamics work' yet another, even things like literacy are a part of that |
| 10:35 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i read that three times. what you say is right but do you really think that's possible? my faith in humanity is so far gone that it seems like a very unlikely thing to work |
| 10:36 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: I'm not a psychic, so I can't guarantee you with 100% certainty that it will happen or work :) but I've been spending pretty much the past two decades diving into this topic, and from everything I've been able to find, after accounting for unfounded assumptions, I strongly believe that this can work, yes |
| 10:37 PM | joepie91 | but it is also such a messy topic with so many wrong assumptions held by so many people in so many contexts that it will be a lot of work to pick it all apart |
| 10:39 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: take for example some well-established parts of popular culture in terms of understanding human behaviour; the stanford prison experiment, grading performance (in eg. school or work), lord of the flies, and the bystander effect |
| 10:39 PM | joepie91 | every single one of these is somewhere between a complete fabrication and a poorly-supported hypothesis; none of them are actually credible |
| 10:39 PM | Jacob | joepie91: the stanford prison experiment has been discredited |
| 10:39 PM | joepie91 | yes, so have all the others |
| 10:39 PM | Emily | Even the bystander effect? |
| 10:40 PM | joepie91 | yep |
| 10:40 PM | Emily | Huh |
| 10:40 PM | joepie91 | the bystander effect is a poorly-supported hypothesis at best by this point; it's basically entirely based on the murder of kitty genovese, which was misreported |
| 10:40 PM | joepie91 | it was reported as "nobody did anything"; in reality, multiple people called the police, but the police fucked it up |
| 10:40 PM | joepie91 | (that's the very summarized version) |
| 10:41 PM | Emily | They didn't tell me that part in psychology class... |
| 10:41 PM | joepie91 | exactly! |
| 10:41 PM | Liam | I mean, it is still a part of any first responder training to designate a person and instruct them specifically to call 911 |
| 10:41 PM | Emily | Sounds kind of similar with the incident behind Stockholm syndrome being coined similarly being rooted in police incompetence |
| 10:42 PM | joepie91 | and this is kind of the point I'm trying to make here - nearly everybody believes at least one of these to be 'true and proven', and bases a certain view on it of humans being hopeless and bad, when in reality it was never true to begin with |
| 10:43 PM | joepie91 | there are a lot of persistent beliefs like that that are interfering with activists' abilities to get people to be active in improving the world |
| 10:43 PM | Jacob | joepie91: but isn't there a power in believing that things are solid and reputable? people believed in the german mark before hyperinflation for example. and they believe now in the US dollar for about the same amount of proof |
| 10:43 PM | joepie91 | because everybody is independently believing stuff about the other humans around them that isn't actually true 🙃 |
| 10:44 PM | Jacob | joepie91: and they believe in the system that is currently in power. and even if that is not backed up by facts the belief has some power, no? |
| 10:45 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: correct; and that is why that step I mentioned earlier, of understanding people's personal concerns and troubles in life and relating them to systemic issues, is so important |
| 10:45 PM | Emily | The flip side of that is also that you can undermine some of that power by changing people's beliefs |
| 10:45 PM | joepie91 | you need to basically help people understand that their life isn't "the system is good and I have some individual issues", but "these individual issues are caused (at least in part) by systemic issues", and only then can you start talking about how to address those systemic issues |
| 10:45 PM | Oliver | mean while beside the theoretic principle i ask my self there is an incident and people see it and no one acts oh yeah they act .. they call the police and wait like zombies so they did act and the police failed why why on earth did the prople not act beyond talking to theyr smartphone it may depends on the incident of course wut what was the example? was it about one that beats his wife or point his weapin on a kid ... i would let a zombie call the police and solve this meanwhile |
| 10:46 PM | joepie91 | Oliver: people don't act themselves because they have grown up with the idea that this is the police's responsibility |
| 10:46 PM | Jacob | joepie91: so how does one make the people believe in socialism? is it the P2P tactics you've spoken of or do you have other ideas for it? |
| 10:46 PM | joepie91 | from that perspective, they made the correct call |
| 10:49 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: well, again, I am not advocating for socialism specifically. but for moving from hierarchical to egalitarian ideology in general, I have personally not seen a way in which this can be achieved without some P2P aspect to it - people are complicated, everybody has their own life and their own circumstances, and I don't believe that it is possible to address "the masses", so to say, and have people feel genuinely heard to a degree that they are willing to part with a very fundamental and core belief, that of hierarchy being unavoidable |
| 10:50 PM | joepie91 | maybe there is a way that I am not aware of, but I have not seen it; and one thing I'm certain of is that "awareness campaigns" alone cannot do it |
| 10:51 PM | Jacob | joepie91: yes, i think at this point we could as well be discussing convincing people about anything. it's a very difficult and chaotic thing |
| 10:52 PM | joepie91 | an additional aspect is that I think that even if you had an effective "mass method", it would rely on a hierarchical aspect; one speaker, many listeners. and it would be difficult to get across the message of egalitarianism when very obviously not practicing it |
| 10:52 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: some things are easier to convince people of than others though :p |
| 10:52 PM | joepie91 | and for some things, convincing can be scalable, but they are generally not core beliefs |
| 10:53 PM | joepie91 | see, again, Freenode :p |
| 10:54 PM | joepie91 |
|
| 10:55 PM | joepie91 | the idea should have a chance to grow and develop based on people's insights in the process of spreading it, it doesn't need to be preserved exactly as it started, so long as the spirit remains intact |
| 10:57 PM | Jacob | joepie91: yes, i've been quite impressed with the way donny, bolsonaro and duterte managed to gain power. i did not choose right-wing populists on purpose, but i know people from those countries and they seem as surprised as i am at the whirlwind that is their rule. clearly there is a way to gain power by appealing to the public but it does not seem to be the way of appealing to their education - so how would you propose appealing to people's higher instincts in an electoral contest? |
| 10:59 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: well, the thing with populists is that they don't run on a platform of policy, but on a platform of sentiment |
| 10:59 PM | joepie91 | and that is much easier to achieve |
| 10:59 PM | joepie91 | they don't need to actually come up with sensible policy or even really do anything, it's not expected of them |
| 11:00 PM | joepie91 | it's the emotions they appeal to, the cultural assumptions that they hook into, that makes people vote for them |
| 11:00 PM | Jacob | joepie91: yep, the populists are turds - but that doesn't mean they aren't successful |
| 11:00 PM | joepie91 | (this is true for populists of any kind, regardless of underlying views) |
| 11:00 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: sure, but that success is not exactly replicable, because "success" is defined very differently |
| 11:01 PM | joepie91 | the success condition for a populist is 'getting elected' and maybe 'staying in power' |
| 11:01 PM | joepie91 | the success condition for an egalitarian activist, however, is 'fundamentally changing how society works' |
| 11:02 PM | joepie91 | and that is not only much harder to achieve, but also requires a very different approach. showing hope to people with promises (not that dissimilar to populists) can still be a part of getting people to pay attention to you in the first place - but if your success condition is to change society, you actually need to deliver on those promises, whereas a populist has no such obligation |
| 11:04 PM | joepie91 | and if you want people to be the solution, in a self-organizing manner, rather than just voting you into power and expecting you to do it because you are now at the top of the hierarchy... then making widespread promises like populists do is not a great foot to start off on :p |
| 11:07 PM | Jacob | joepie91: do you follow the cryptocurrency market btw? they have a whole thing run on decentralized financial systems that seek to undermine the current financial system. what you are saying seems like a gigantic job and the crypto world seems like a financial analogue of it |
| 11:07 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: not remotely. the cryptocurrency industry is basically just capitalists who want to be at the top of the hierarchy instead of the current people at the top |
| 11:08 PM | joepie91 | most everybody who actually cared about egalitarianism through cryptocurrency jumped ship a decade ago |
| 11:08 PM | Jacob | joepie91: how is that? |
| 11:09 PM | Emily | Most of the remaining sizable actors in crypto are rent seekers and con artists |
| 11:10 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: so originally the idea behind Bitcoin (I was actually there at first too :p) was to provide egalitarian digital cash. however, the problem is that it tried to solve a socioeconomic problem with technology, something that rarely goes well - none of the underlying factors that lead to wealth hoarding were addressed, and so the cryptocurrency world quickly attracted capitalist vultures who saw the exchange rate hikes and wanted to get their slice of the pie... and quickly people started reproducing the financial industry but built on cryptocurrency |
| 11:11 PM | joepie91 | and that is basically where we are now; capitalist vultures wearing the promise of egalitarian finance as a sort of disguise to make themselves richer |
| 11:11 PM | joepie91 | when you actually start looking at these systems, none of them ever address the real problems |
| 11:11 PM | joepie91 | because the real problems are not technological in nature |
| 11:12 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i see. isn't that the issue with trying to implement socialism too; wouldn't it be taken over by financial interests? |
| 11:13 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: as long as we live in a capitalist society - ie. a society where the hierarchy is determined by wealth - yes, capitalist interests are a threat to attempts at spreading egalitarian ideology |
| 11:13 PM | joepie91 | which is why it is important to be aware of them and have defensive strategies |
| 11:13 PM | joepie91 | a major weakness of capitalism is that it is nowhere near as efficient or responsive to 'market conditions' as its proponents like to believe, and that can be exploited to weaken that threat |
| 11:14 PM | joepie91 | money moves slow, basically |
| 11:14 PM | Jacob | joepie91: but if you're trying to overcome a capitalist system, don't you need to use their tactics to get enough publicity for your thing to begin with? |
| 11:14 PM | Jacob | yeah, the efficient market hypothesis is total nonsense, i agree with you there |
| 11:14 PM | joepie91 | quite the contrary; if you use 'their tactics', you are playing their game, which is rigged in their favour, on their playing field, which they control |
| 11:15 PM | joepie91 | that is not a game you can win |
| 11:15 PM | joepie91 | instead, your tactics should be specifically based around the weaknesses of your adversary, the parts that aren't in their rulebook because they cannot gain an edge there |
| 11:16 PM | Jacob | yep, that's how the viet cong won (and indeed the taliban is about to) |
| 11:16 PM | Jacob | so what is the winning strategy for socialism? |
| 11:16 PM | joepie91 | it's also historically how riots have played an essential role in enacting social change :) |
| 11:17 PM | joepie91 |
|
| 11:17 PM | joepie91 | much of hierarchical ideology is based around convincing people that they are weak, that their spot at the bottom of the hierarchy is deserved |
| 11:18 PM | joepie91 | if you can show them that that is not true, the equation changes |
| 11:18 PM | joepie91 | and it is very difficult to put that genie back into the bottle, so to say |
| 11:19 PM | joepie91 | once people learn and experience that they really can enact change collectively, in spite of 'higher powers', the claims in hierarchical ideology of them being weak suddenly don't seem so credible anymore |
| 11:20 PM | joepie91 | this is also where the "organizing" thing comes from :p |
| 11:20 PM | Jacob | yes, i think people in general could use some empowerment. look at the rastafarians - they always rage about the babylon but according to their god it's better to be weak and go to heaven rather than doing something (which is why they never achieved anything besides getting high) |
| 11:21 PM | joepie91 | can't say I'm really familiar :p |
| 11:21 PM | Jacob | but you know, i've never had this experience you speak of - i've never been in a situation where i think that my actions can cause any kind of meaningful political change |
| 11:23 PM | Jacob | and i hardly think i'm alone in that. so that might be a thing to sell people on, to make them think that what they think actually matters and will affect governance |
| 11:23 PM | joepie91 | not just 'make them think', but make them experience :) |
| 11:24 PM | joepie91 | for you personally: if you have some sort of direct action group near you, that is a pretty good place to start |
| 11:24 PM | joepie91 | food-not-bombs-esque things are pretty widespread, giveaway shops / really really free markets also depending on area |
| 11:25 PM | joepie91 | the 'classical' option are unions but, assuming you're working in tech, it's an, err, "up-and-coming" concept there to put it mildly :p |
| 11:25 PM | joepie91 | and they tend to be more focused on paid labour than I like personally |
| 11:27 PM | Jacob | joepie91: personally i am one of the few people who are completely mobile. i have no loyalty to any government and i move between countries whenever the politicians force me to. i get that i'm in the extreme minority in being able and willing to do this, and frankly the kind, fair future you speak of sounds kind of nice |
| 11:28 PM | joepie91 | honestly, that actually puts you in a very good position to travel around and talk to people and spread these sort of ideas |
| 11:29 PM | joepie91 | I kinda do this online, but there are plenty of people who don't practically live behind their PC or phone, and who cannot be reached that way |
| 11:30 PM | joepie91 | but... I think it's a good idea to get locally involved somewhere first, in something collective, to get a better experience of how it works, of how it can work, what the difficulties are, how it provides empowerment, and so on |
| 11:30 PM | joepie91 | wherever that 'somewhere' ends up being for you |
| 11:31 PM | joepie91 | after all, can't exactly go around spreading ideas that you can't stand behind |
| 11:31 PM | joepie91 | so this is the "it will prove itself" part :p |
| 11:33 PM | Jacob | i honestly don't know what to say. you speak of a fair, kind world and that sounds very good to me. but being nice and talking to people just doesn't seem like a way to make it happen |
| 11:34 PM | Jacob | maybe i am too cynical, and i certainly won't stop talking to people and being nice to them just because of this; i'm just skeptical that it'll lead to some political endpoint |
| 11:35 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: being nice and talking to people is, of course, just the starting point - actually getting there will absolutely be a lot of work, and involve setting up alternative social support structures, learning more about behaviour, defending from bad actors (and depending on how you get involved possibly defending from physical violence); it's by no means an easy task |
| 11:36 PM | joepie91 | but... words and ideas are powerful, and they really are an essential component of it all, and IMO the starting point |
| 11:37 PM | joepie91 | the nice part about getting involved in direct action groups of some kind is that in the absolute worst case, it leads to no large-scale political change, but you'll still have fed people, you'll still have reduced waste, you'll still have given people a place to live, you'll still have cost some shitty company a lot of money, etc. - you'll still have done something that is fulfilling and has had an immediate local impact |
| 11:38 PM | joepie91 | something to tip the scales a bit, basically |
| 11:38 PM | joepie91 | but more likely, it's an entry point to bigger, more lasting change |
| 11:39 PM | joepie91 | so there's no way to lose, really, the worst case is that you don't win as much as you'd hoped |
| 11:40 PM | joepie91 | well, okay, the worst case is probably actually that whatever group you are involved in falls apart due to infighting because not everybody involved had the intention of being constructive :p |
| 11:40 PM | joepie91 | which sucks but is also educational on how to prevent that next time |
| 11:40 PM | joepie91 | and generally that just ends up spawning into a new group anyway |
| 11:41 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: separately from this, I think you may enjoy the book Humankind by Rutger Bregman - it's a book that dives into the belief of humans being terrible and where it comes from (it also addresses some of the myths I mentioned earlier), and shows how it's not actually true and the history of cooperative behaviour, sources and all |
| 11:41 PM | Jacob | what you're saying is the reason i stay away from politics and people. it's always such a chaotic mess and frankly a waste of my time. i am open to you convincing me to act otherwise but so far being hands-off has served me well |
| 11:42 PM | joepie91 | very easy read that's both uplifting and credible, and I think it'll really help with your general perception |
| 11:42 PM | Jacob | joepie91: thank you for the book recommendation! i'm a big reader and i'll put that on the list |
| 11:43 PM | joepie91 | Jacob: well, as one data point, the privacytools community is one place I do moderate on Matrix, and I very strictly moderate on good vs. bad faith there, and the result is that there are regular productive political discussions, including between people who disagree, because those who are there to disrupt rather than progress are excluded from the community |
| 11:44 PM | joepie91 | (more recently, this has been more self-moderating, I rarely have to ban anybody anymore as the rest of the community has now learned how to identify these cases) |
| 11:44 PM | Jacob | oh that's nice, privacytools is a good resource |
| 11:45 PM | joepie91 | basically, consistently productive political discussions are entirely possible; it just requires a very different way of looking at how to run your community, one where "a productive outcome" is the priority that overrules all others in discussion, and where everybody who participates is expected to agree with that |
| 11:45 PM | joepie91 | another example would be the hackerspace I go to, <redacted name of hackerspace> |
| 11:46 PM | joepie91 | hackerspaces are somewhat notorious for being endless drama fountains, but <redacted name of hackerspace> is not, because the board has put a lot of care into 'community gardening', so to say |
| 11:46 PM | joepie91 | understanding behaviour, modifying the environment and social expectations to prevent this sort of thing |
| 11:46 PM | Jacob | nice, i lived for a while in <redacted location> - nice town indeed |
| 11:46 PM | joepie91 | that doesn't mean there are never disagreements, but they are completely manageable, and it's a stable community and a stable place to be in |
| 11:47 PM | joepie91 | all this to say: the problem was never politics or even people, but rather insufficient community gardening |
| 11:48 PM | joepie91 | tolerating abusive behaviour for too long, not making it clear what the social expectations are, generally not being able to spot problems early, etc. |
| 11:48 PM | joepie91 | (I believe <redacted article link> also goes into some detail about how <redacted name of hackerspace> is organized and why) |
| 11:49 PM | Jacob | yeah, i think that's where we are now after all this talk. managing groups. not easy but at least we've broken the problem down to a manageable chunk |
| 11:49 PM | joepie91 | yep :) |
| 11:51 PM | Jacob | that's a pretty nice hackerspace too |
| 11:51 PM | joepie91 | it is! |
| 11:51 PM | joepie91 | it does take a little getting used to in terms of how organized it is, though |
| 11:52 PM | joepie91 | but once you are used to it, it's very nice |
| 11:52 PM | joepie91 | you can basically just assume that you will arrive to a functioning, working space |
| 11:52 PM | joepie91 | and that the atmosphere with other people will be nice |
| 11:53 PM | Jacob | yeah, everything seems to be neater these days. IRC was chaotic compared to matrix. ham clubs were chaotic compared the hackerspaces =) |
| 11:53 PM | joepie91 | don't worry, most hackerspaces are still chaotic :p |
| 11:53 PM | joepie91 | and in some ways, <redacted hackerspace name> is too, the chaos is just nicely filed away in boxes :D |
| 11:54 PM | Jacob | hehe |
| 11:54 PM | joepie91 | I don't actually think that all hackerspaces need to be this organized, either - it's good for there to be both organized and chaotic spaces, different people will like different things |
| 11:54 PM | Jacob | have you read <redacted book name> btw? they mention it on the post. a really awesome book |
| 11:54 PM | joepie91 | I still haven't :p |
| 11:54 PM | joepie91 | it's on my list though |
| 11:55 PM | joepie91 | but yes, <redacted name of hackerspace> is named after it |
| 11:55 PM | Jacob | see! it's really worth reading |
| 11:56 PM | Jacob | joepie91: i'm a heavy reader (50-70 books/year) and it's still among the best books i read that year. so what it's worth, i recommend it |
| 11:56 PM | joepie91 | noted :) |
| 11:56 PM | joepie91 | thanks |
| (editor note) | The conversion trailed off onto other topics beyond this point... |