kore

Reply to comment by kore in [OC] No, meritocracy is NOT anarchy by ziq

kore wrote (edited )

Not to speak for them, but I've read what they wrote and it seems to me it's more about distinguishing between the idea of "expertise" and "authority." It's definitely along the right track, I think, but it's a little confusing, because the semantic range of "authority" to most people is pretty wide, which is why "authority" got used in this way by people like Chomsky and Bakunin in the first place.

the way i think about it is when authority as in "power over others" and authority as in "we should let this woman lead the 3-month project to build the community kitchen because she's successfully built 5 of them before" are are referred to by the same word it's easily to conflate them and say that that woman has "power over others".

7

kore wrote

It's so weird that this article just is like "welp, the people that define what open source is say those types of licenses aren't open source, so they're not, oh well, guess we can't do better."

It's sort of a tough issue imo. Like any sort of open source project that doesn't allow commercial use will only be adopted very narrowly, at least under current conditions. Also, many corporations have released open source projects that people can benefit off of. Take the Go language, for instance. Like, google could have kept that language for internal use only or even just kept the implementation closed, but the implementation is open source. Obviously one could talk about the PR involved in that decision and how it makes google seem like a "good guy." But still, I'm glad that corporations are at least semi-on-board with the whole open source idea. There are better alternatives, obviously, but the most likely alternative of companies closing stuff down is much much worse.

2

kore wrote

Thanks for this. I've been thinking about it recently, "wait a second, all of these companies can just profit off of programmer's labor for nothing"

Imagine if the Linux Kernel was non-commercial lol.

2

Reply to DSA by alex

kore wrote

Know any good places to read about history of DSA re: this topic?

2

kore wrote

Okay. I guess I'm just confused about why someone would be anti-civilizing if that necessitates being anti-social relations, based on the premises in this particular discussion. And also confused about how it would be possible to be anti-authoritarian if one must accept the authority of technology. I'd like to think that one can be anti-authoritarian and also make use of technology, which is I guess why I'm engaging in this discussion, to see what others think.

I appreciate your input, Raddle always makes me think pretty hard. To synthesize both our thoughts a little, I think it's interesting that somehow technology can sometimes be this really weird thing that is pretty pathological, like in your "iForest" example, but other times it can be pretty straightforward and helpful. As in the case of controlled burns. I think that's personally a shortcoming of some anti-civ arguments, the idea of "technology" being a monolith. I also think the tools/technology distinction is sort of flimsy.

Maybe a stupid thought, but if we try to control technology don't we have "authority" over it? ;)

1

kore wrote (edited )

I am trying to say that if thinking about how one relates to others and uses techniques and skills to survive" is "civilizing," then there appears to be no way to live in relation to others while not being civilizing. And if I were asked "what's your point?", I would reply that I don't see any other way to live...

Another thing I thought of, when native americans (and others) burned forests, they were using technology to affect their environment in a way that was beneficial to them. And so since before people could write, there was a co-constituting relationship between technology and the world. The existence of the forests that many native americans lived in was dependent on technology to reproduce itself.

My "I eat" etc. comment was more directed at the "comprehensibility" point. When people help each other, they help each other.

1

Reply to comment by kore in studying in the US ? by cryptolake

kore wrote

I would say that depending on what you study even institutions that are themselves embedded in liberal ideas have plenty of professors and students that question that. You're not going to get it in Economics or International Relations or Public Policy, but you will in places like Africana Studies, History, English.

No institution is a monolith. Obviously I can only comment for one but there were sociopathic future politicians and indigenous anarchists eating in the same dining hall.

2

kore wrote

I think one has to realize that so-called 'anarchic societies,' don't come with a blueprint and attempting to rifle through the possibilities and present one of them as the absolute is the basic function of the civilizing mindset.

I am thinking about how I want to relate to others and use techniques and skills to live. Is this civilizing?

Automation and artificial intelligence is not just a mere advance in technology as it is a distilization of the drive behind specialization; it's a reaction against the uncertainty of nature and the cosmos; it's civilization attempting to make itself obsolete through the development of a world dependant on the existence of itself; it's going to create a world of unimaginable weirdness.

Isn't life itself an ordering, a self-reproducing structure? Like I could say the same thing about bacteria "bacteria's existence depends of the existence of itself" It's just tautological, I don't understand what you're getting at.

The world is increasingly unthinkable—a world of planetary disasters, emerging pandemics, tectonic shifts, strange weather, oil-drenched seascapes, and the furtive, always-looming threat of extinction. In spite of our daily concerns, wants, and desires, it is increasingly difficult to comprehend the world in which we live and of which we are a part. To confront this idea is to confront an absolute limit to our ability to adequately understand the world at all. -Eugene Thacker, In The Dust of this Planet

So? Who cares if I can't comprehend it? I eat, I sleep, I work, I play.

0

kore wrote

Right so I guess my question is what stops people from making their lives easier with tools that aren't accessible to everyone? I'm just having trouble understanding the social mechanisms in place in hypothetical anarchic societies that would prevent this sort of thing from happening. Like it seems that if one takes the Fifth Estate statement quoted as true, then any sort of technology that relies on social organization is authoritarian. For example, one could argue that early humans who practiced collective hunting and indeed had to do so were participating in a "technology" that required social organization and thus accepted its authority into their lives.

1

kore wrote

Do you think indigenous anarchies are naturally resistant to developing advantageous technologies? (or "tools", as you call them). Like if one community lives on a pile of metal ore and uses it to make more durable and efficient tools (which is totally possible on a local, small scale), do they not have an advantage over other communities?

Then add the complication of this metalworking community not having ceramics, which the neighboring community does, and then trade developing so each community has both.

All of the sudden from this very simple scenario we have what the Fifth Estate says of technology: " It is a form of social organization, a set of social relations." and that we must "accept its authority."

I have trouble understanding why people wouldn't do this sort of thing. Do these scenarios inevitably lead to authoritarian institutions?

The idea of "accepting its authority" sorta reminds me of the Amish, actually, or the Luddites. Making a careful evaluation of the technology in question and then deciding whether to accept it into the community.

1

kore wrote

Also if you look at some places that have already "collapsed" like Yemen and Syria and Afghanistan just to name a few one can see that for the majority of people things get horrible fast. In the case of collapse I see more fundamentalist militant groups marauding than egalitarian communes flourishing.

1

Reply to comment by kore in by !deleted18811

kore wrote

I actually had no idea there was such a specific meaning for these terms! I just liked the idea of moving it away from a geographic marker because in many poor countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia there are very wealthy people and groups that benefit from Western neoliberalism.

1

Reply to by !deleted18811

kore wrote

i've read core vs periphery. I think this works well, because there are many so-called "Western" and "developed" countries that have significant portions of the population living in so-called "third world" conditions or who are so far outside the neoliberal orthodoxy that it is rather strange to me to refer to them as "Western" Australia comes to mind for example (Australian aborigines), Russia (people living in far northern/eastern russia, reindeer herders), Canada (inuit). This terminology is pretty useful I think because one can use "periphery" in many ways, whether it be geographic, economic, social. One might say that poor black people in U.S. cities are very much on the economic and social "periphery" of Western neoliberal "democracy," even though they are geographically in the Western neoliberal "core"

4

Reply to comment by kore in by !deleted18811

kore wrote (edited )

I'm more just playing around with terms. I find it impossible to make a catch-all definition of authority, as any other word. I just thought it was an interesting point, after all. Is there a difference between authority and authoritarianism? Just like I've seen critiques of anarchy vs anarchism

0

Reply to comment by kore in by !deleted18811

kore wrote (edited )

EDIT: Okay so this was kind of a stupid post in retrospect. I guess what I was trying to get at is that all terms, including "Anarchism" and "Authority" and "Democracy" are dependent on the contexts they are used in. What "Anarchism" meant in 1850 is different than what it means now. words have a history and all that jazz. I get that expertise isn't a hierarchical power structure.

Bakunin, What is Authority?:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer...I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."

Engels "On Authority" is also pretty good, pretty chill passage here, even though Engels didn't really get it totally:

"But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all;...Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"

Food for thought, anyway. EDIT: upon thinking a little more Engels was kind of a dumbass in this essay, but I think I was just trying to point out that there is some sort of "authority" in self-determination.

−1

Reply to by !deleted18811

kore wrote

The history of these terms is pretty fascinating to me. I think a substantial reason that North American anarchists prefer the term "anarchy" as opposed to "libertarian socialism" is that the word "libertarian" in United States politics now refers to something like "anarcho"-capitalist ideology, and so this might give people who don't know the history of the terms the wrong idea. Even though anarchists were the original libertarians.

1