Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

5

elchololoco wrote

When implemented directly, in groups of 150 people or fewer, then yes.

In the overwhelming majority of other cases, fuck no.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Can you expose the reasoning behind the number 150?

Also, how much is "overwhelming majority"?

2

elchololoco wrote (edited )

Yes. 150 is Dunbar's Number. It is an upper limit on "the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person."

Direct democracy by consensus is the only just form of democracy; and this form of democracy does not work in groups larger than ~150 people. Above this size, the group will inevitably have to resort to coercive methods in order to maintain order.

There is an entire book on this subject called "150 Strong: A Pathway to a Different Future", by Rob O'Grady. You can buy a copy here if you like. (Note: I am neither Rob O'Grady nor being paid by him to write this.)

A good review of the book and its central thesis can be found in three parts here, here, and here. (Note: I am neither Dmitry Orlov nor being paid by him to write this.)

As for the "overwhelming majority of other cases", I mean all cases excepting only a federation of autonomous communities with 150 or fewer members, who band together for their mutual aid and protection.

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Thank you

I had no idea of any of this research

Without doing any of the reading, I'd say from the ignorant point of view that

Above this size, the group will inevitably have to resort to coercive methods in order to maintain order.

it should be about organized police, as the small group does precisely that. And it can do it in far worse ways than police violence.