Who is “we” in this situation? Is it a post revolution United States? Is it a hypothetical island? Is this anarcho-syndicist, mutualist, collectivist, etc? There’s more than one school of thought for anarchism
Why are we negotiating money in a moneyless society?
Focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn’t matter what it is, or even who you’re trying to get it from, the point is that you need something another group of people has. How are you going to get it?
Everybody in your town is just going to leave their homes and walk to the nearest town together; or are you going to send a representative to that town to negotiate trade for you?
It doesn’t matter what it is, or even who you’re trying to get it from, the point is that you need something another group of people has
It very much does matter. Not all anarchist societies are going to work the same way. How you give and receive will therefore change based on the type of society. I encourage you to look into the different types of anarchy, both in practice and theoretical:
In this hypothetical question, to what degree does industrialization exist? Is personal property a thing? Surely you understand that private property wouldn’t exist. Do people organize as workers, neighbors, or both? Who owns what? Do states exist, or is this a global revolution?
There is so much that you have left out that is vital to an earnest answer. How are you going to expect an answer when you’ve given so little information?
Everybody in your town is just going to leave their homes and walk to the nearest town together; or are you going to send a representative to that town to negotiate trade for you?
So there is two incorrect assumptions about what you’re saying here.
The first is that trade must be negotiated, the second is that communication must be done in person.
There is such a thing as mutual aid, a gift economy, and with mutualism/collectivisim, there is no expectation of a return. You do what you can to help out your fellow man. You take what you need, and give what you can. Resources are distributed freely. Most models of anarchism both in practice and theoretical follow this pattern, or something close to it. So there is no “price” to be negotiated, that idea is nonsense in most anarchist schools of thought.
There has been this recent development called mail, in which we write things down on pieces of paper, and send them off to someone else to read. This is a form of communication that does not require in person communication, or representatives. Additionally, you may have heard of an even more recent development called the internet. With this fantastic invention you can communicate to people anywhere in the world in less than a few seconds, again making the need for in person representation non-existent.
Uh oh, your understanding is thousands of years out of date.
I wrote out this big thing to try to explain all of the problems with that link you gave me but honestly, the short answer, is that you just don’t know what you’re talking about
Not in “Anarchy is best”, I mean, in general, about most things, most of the time.
It’s not an insult, it’s true for all of us.
I’m a pretty good programmer but I’d make a real shitty brain surgeon. I’m bad at farming. I don’t know anything about cars, etc…
So collectively, as a group, we can’t vote on these things.
Not only can you not constantly ask a society to collectively vote on every decision (simply because you would just spend your entire day voting on a million things and never actually doing anything), but you can’t vote because you don’t know enough about most of the topics to make any kind of actual decision
And he kind of touches on this but at the end of the day he’s like, “trust the experts”
But experts don’t always agree and all they can do is tell you what they think is best and then you have to choose between the options they give you but some of you will know more than others about the subject (not enough to be an expert but also more than your neighbor) and your society will roughly be split among the choices… and that’s assuming this is one of the things they let you vote on. Again, you can’t vote on everything, you’d be so busy voting you couldn’t get any work done. So most of the time the experts make decisions for you and the rest of the time you have to choose between only the options the experts give you and half the people voting are going to be moronic on the subject
Any of this starting to sound familiar?
He tries to get around this by saying that these people don’t have any real power because today we’re voting on options for a road given to us by engineers and tomorrow it’s options given to us by Doctors, but this ignores that situations are usually not that clear cut and even they were, while that may very well be a better system of government, it’s still a system of government
You wake up one day and the doctors held a vote without you (because you don’t have time to vote on everything) that says sugary drinks are bad and you can’t have them any more. The city planners got with the doctors and decided to tear down three houses and put a road there because it’s better for emergency vehicles and the anthropologists voted without you that it would be best if there were cameras on every street corner
actually a good question. From my understanding it’s the wronged party and they present it to their local community. Or you advocate for people who are being overlooked.
The model is for smaller communities so that if justice is done poorly then people interjecting can correct it
Who is the authority that controls the network your bittorrent client uses? Who is the authority that forces you to share? Who is the authority that keeps bad actors from ruining it for everyone else? There isn’t one. Authority and violence are not the only models for providing systems. The fact that you can’t even conceive of consentual systems is kind of scary, like there’s an important piece of your mind missing.
I feel bad for you, you don’t know how to admit your wrong. There are people that manage which code gets in there and doesn’t. The fact you can’t admit that is sad. Gl in life fr
No, it’s a peer-to-peer protocol that does not depend on a “hub” or central server. Like, very famously. Trackers exist to facilitate peer discovery, but the protocol allows clients to discover each other through DHT, “distributed lookup network,” with no central server. Maybe you’re too young to remember gnutella but BitTorrent was created to be invulnerable to disruption by doing away with all central servers. Fucking ask an AI before you start insulting people’s intelligence, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
What about tor? What about i2p? What about gnutella? What about mojonation? What about the federation of Lemmy servers, who is in charge of that? What about FreeNet? What about Bitcoin? What about Ethereum? Bro, do you even code???
Finding your thesis convincing requires you to be utterly ignorant of the world you are living in, blinded by your own baggage and bullshit and too cowardly to be curious.
And who is gonna be the authority to organize everything?
You do not need an authority figure to organise stuff. We use the consensus model for decision making.
Scope out this dude’s comments. He won’t be reading any of that
welp, i tried 🤷
I never blame anyone for opening up to others in good faith. You’re part of why this site doesn’t suck
who decides if there is an issue and who presents it to who?
Anyone can bring up a issue forward to the group
how?
We need to renegotiate prices on lithium with China. How do I do that?
Who is “we” in this situation? Is it a post revolution United States? Is it a hypothetical island? Is this anarcho-syndicist, mutualist, collectivist, etc? There’s more than one school of thought for anarchism
Why are we negotiating money in a moneyless society?
Focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn’t matter what it is, or even who you’re trying to get it from, the point is that you need something another group of people has. How are you going to get it?
Everybody in your town is just going to leave their homes and walk to the nearest town together; or are you going to send a representative to that town to negotiate trade for you?
How are you going to decide who represents you?
Uh oh, you’ve just reinvented government
It very much does matter. Not all anarchist societies are going to work the same way. How you give and receive will therefore change based on the type of society. I encourage you to look into the different types of anarchy, both in practice and theoretical:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
In this hypothetical question, to what degree does industrialization exist? Is personal property a thing? Surely you understand that private property wouldn’t exist. Do people organize as workers, neighbors, or both? Who owns what? Do states exist, or is this a global revolution?
There is so much that you have left out that is vital to an earnest answer. How are you going to expect an answer when you’ve given so little information?
So there is two incorrect assumptions about what you’re saying here.
The first is that trade must be negotiated, the second is that communication must be done in person.
There is such a thing as mutual aid, a gift economy, and with mutualism/collectivisim, there is no expectation of a return. You do what you can to help out your fellow man. You take what you need, and give what you can. Resources are distributed freely. Most models of anarchism both in practice and theoretical follow this pattern, or something close to it. So there is no “price” to be negotiated, that idea is nonsense in most anarchist schools of thought.
There has been this recent development called mail, in which we write things down on pieces of paper, and send them off to someone else to read. This is a form of communication that does not require in person communication, or representatives. Additionally, you may have heard of an even more recent development called the internet. With this fantastic invention you can communicate to people anywhere in the world in less than a few seconds, again making the need for in person representation non-existent.
Uh oh, your understanding is thousands of years out of date.
I wrote out this big thing to try to explain all of the problems with that link you gave me but honestly, the short answer, is that you just don’t know what you’re talking about
Not in “Anarchy is best”, I mean, in general, about most things, most of the time.
It’s not an insult, it’s true for all of us.
I’m a pretty good programmer but I’d make a real shitty brain surgeon. I’m bad at farming. I don’t know anything about cars, etc…
So collectively, as a group, we can’t vote on these things.
Not only can you not constantly ask a society to collectively vote on every decision (simply because you would just spend your entire day voting on a million things and never actually doing anything), but you can’t vote because you don’t know enough about most of the topics to make any kind of actual decision
And he kind of touches on this but at the end of the day he’s like, “trust the experts”
But experts don’t always agree and all they can do is tell you what they think is best and then you have to choose between the options they give you but some of you will know more than others about the subject (not enough to be an expert but also more than your neighbor) and your society will roughly be split among the choices… and that’s assuming this is one of the things they let you vote on. Again, you can’t vote on everything, you’d be so busy voting you couldn’t get any work done. So most of the time the experts make decisions for you and the rest of the time you have to choose between only the options the experts give you and half the people voting are going to be moronic on the subject
Any of this starting to sound familiar?
He tries to get around this by saying that these people don’t have any real power because today we’re voting on options for a road given to us by engineers and tomorrow it’s options given to us by Doctors, but this ignores that situations are usually not that clear cut and even they were, while that may very well be a better system of government, it’s still a system of government
You wake up one day and the doctors held a vote without you (because you don’t have time to vote on everything) that says sugary drinks are bad and you can’t have them any more. The city planners got with the doctors and decided to tear down three houses and put a road there because it’s better for emergency vehicles and the anthropologists voted without you that it would be best if there were cameras on every street corner
I dunno, am not an economist 🤷
sounds like you need an economist to represent you
How are you going to choose which economist represents you?
Trough consensus based direct democracy.
Roshambo? As effective as any economist living
Jewish Rambo?
j/k
↑↑↑
actually a good question. From my understanding it’s the wronged party and they present it to their local community. Or you advocate for people who are being overlooked.
The model is for smaller communities so that if justice is done poorly then people interjecting can correct it
And whose the guy put all these rules and systems in place?
The collective will decide how to run things
Can you point to 1 example of this working?
This is how we organized for most of our existence
So you don’t have evidence, ok just double checking.
https://aeon.co/essays/for-97-of-human-history-equality-was-the-norm-what-happened
This is an opinion piece, no citations.
Who is the authority that controls the network your bittorrent client uses? Who is the authority that forces you to share? Who is the authority that keeps bad actors from ruining it for everyone else? There isn’t one. Authority and violence are not the only models for providing systems. The fact that you can’t even conceive of consentual systems is kind of scary, like there’s an important piece of your mind missing.
I feel bad for you, you don’t know how to admit your wrong. There are people that manage which code gets in there and doesn’t. The fact you can’t admit that is sad. Gl in life fr
You don’t know how to think do you? Bittorrent is a hub created and maintained by someone. Just like lemmy has mods. Please really think before speak.
No, it’s a peer-to-peer protocol that does not depend on a “hub” or central server. Like, very famously. Trackers exist to facilitate peer discovery, but the protocol allows clients to discover each other through DHT, “distributed lookup network,” with no central server. Maybe you’re too young to remember gnutella but BitTorrent was created to be invulnerable to disruption by doing away with all central servers. Fucking ask an AI before you start insulting people’s intelligence, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
What about tor? What about i2p? What about gnutella? What about mojonation? What about the federation of Lemmy servers, who is in charge of that? What about FreeNet? What about Bitcoin? What about Ethereum? Bro, do you even code???
Finding your thesis convincing requires you to be utterly ignorant of the world you are living in, blinded by your own baggage and bullshit and too cowardly to be curious.
I don’t need to code, who is the authority that codes that hub? Who updates it maintains it please use your brain