Philosophically I'm an anarchist, but I'm not delusional, I don't see any schools of anarchism becoming viable options in our current situation.

Every form of proposed social ordering is going to have its share of short-commings, flaws, and contradictions, there's really no way around it.

I think people have very little compassion, they see being selfless and kind as being weak, they feel entitled to their high standard of living and are willing to keep 2/3 of the planet in poverty to maintain it, people are more materialistic, bitter, xenophobic, and selfish than I have seen for quite some time, and sadly you see this reflected in things like Donald trump's numbers in the polls...

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.- jimi hendrix

-eg

^ gee, ya make meritocracy seem so ........awful.

I don't get the relation between I said and meritocracy...

It's a system where your place in it is determined by your abilities and qualifications, no?

I'm not sure that the first world is as such because they were the most qualified to be so...

It also doesn't help that when a country begins to develop the world bank or international monetary fund will send a "financial hit man" to said country, this "hit-man" will do everything in his power to get the developing country to accept a loan with crooked interest rates, the developing country always accepts, and generally pays off the initial loan, but is in mass amounts of debt due to the interest rates, and when the developing country is unable to pay the owed interest, the world bank takes their lands natural resources instead ...so, the country never develops and the world bank gets their natural resources...the third world is as such due to manipulative banking strategies and crooked politics of other sorts which I won't get into here, and isn't as such because they lacked any kind merit or qualifications...

But then again I'm not sure what you meant by the remark in the first place....


-eg

of course the current system is corrupt beyond comprehension.
the answer isnt to socialize everyone to equality.
even the russians and chinese barely buy into communism anymore.
and,
anarchy just means the utilities go off till a warlord turns them back on.

the real answer is for the downtrodden is to get tough and rise to a higher standard.
hence meritocracy, there will be winners and losers, but isnt there always?

That'd be great if people were actually judged on merit, but in a society as riddled with racism, sexism, classism, etc, you're probably not actually being judged on your merit, so much as you are by the random jumble of associations, biases, and prejudices the gatekeepers to success (or the police) have cobbled together from what they've been taught (often by other racist, sexist, or classist teachers). Our supposed meritocracy is a great way to justify the fact that minorities and other socially disfavored groups continue to end up at the bottom of the heap. Instead of doing the work to figure out how the system is biased in favor of some and against others, you can just was your hands and say "well, if they worked harder, they'd get it."

Also, meritocracy doesn't tell us how resources are allocated. I assume you're suggesting some kind of anarcho-capitalist system in which the most ruthless rises to control the global money supply?

Blessings
~ND

That's not what anarchy means...

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies with voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, but several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.-Wikipedia

There's really nothing unreasonable volantary institutions, autonomy, and self governance, there's no reason why the utilities would need to go off or why there would be battling warlords...

Thinking of human existence in terms of "winning" and "losing" is part of the problem, I'm sure you enjoy your priviliged position because you were born into it, not because of toughness, hard work, merit, or qualification, and I'm sure that had you been born in Somalia your opinions on the justness of the held priviliged positions may be some what different...thinking of these people as "losers" is the type of dehumalization that allows tyrants to sleep soundly, "it's not that these people are the victim of an unjust, unbalanced and unfair global system, they are just losers".....Obviously things are far more complex than "these people are lazy losers who just never managed to get their stuff together"

As explained before regarding the world bank / international monetary fund and how they put developing nations in debt, then strip their natural resources as payment, it's not the third world's fault they are in that position, there are elements of the first world that work very hard to maintain their position while ensuring no others are able to develop enough power to challenge it, these people have been systematically exploited and oppressed, they have been intentionally put in an impoverished and powerless position by underhanded and unethical tactics employed by the first world, what are these people to do? They have no hard currency, they don't have an advanced standing army, and at no fault of their own.

they are playing in a game that's rigged against them, it's not a matter of getting tough and getting their act together, people living in third world nations such as these are actually the most hard working people on the planet...judging by merit I seriously doubt those who comprise the first world would remain there, most of the first world is greedy, lazy, entitled, selfish and shows no compassion for any other being, they barely show gratitude for their position of privilege...

...I think they only way these priviliged and entitled people are able to sleep at night is to hold this Ayn rand style philosophy that it's the impoverished people's own fault for their situation, and that not only should you not offer help or sympathy to a person in poverty, but that to even smile at these people in poverty is enough to set the world on a path of apocalptic destruction...

I still believe in love, compassion, and peace. I feel it's essential that we learn to cooperate as a species, the world's resources need to be carefully managed as a species and as a whole, we can't be satisfied with looting the future and depriving the majority of the globe, we must find balance...balance between populations and each other as well as populations and resources and nature...if we don't find this cooperation as a whole species our resources will be depleted and everything thing that has been built up in civilization will have collapsed and been for nothing...our star has a finite life, even if some form if humanity survived resource depletion they would still go extinct when the sun supernovas...interstellar travel or facing extinciion seem to be the only two ends this "human life on earth" thing has...and there is no interstellar travel without cooperation as a species to save the species.

I believe that at heart all people are capable of love and compassion for one another, that people will be able to recognize right and wrong and perhaps even sacrifice some of their luxurys to benefit their species is as a whole, perhaps people will recognize that despite what ever social, political, geograghical, religious, or racial differences there may be between us that we are all human.

-eg

well someone does usually start a fire and gather water.
then everyone stands around the fire and debates if anarchy is " on " or not.
but essentially , for practical purposes ,
its dark ages till the warlords turn it all back on.

trust me on this,
ive been around the world 3x

im taking a passive POV on this,
as ive been to east africa, and across SE asia.
i understand lawlessness from living it.
anarchy , doesnt really exist IMO........

im just super practical.
never was big on ayn rand.
always thought she was weak actually.

“What civilization is, is 6 billion people trying to make themselves happy by standing on each other’s shoulders and kicking each other’s teeth in. It’s not a pleasant situation. And yet, you can stand back and look at this planet and see that we have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us – the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary – we are led by the least among us – and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.

Culture is not your friend.

Culture is for other people’s convenience and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes – what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It dis-empowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture. Yet we glorify the creative potential of the individual, the rights of the individual. We understand the felt-presence of experience is what is most important. But the culture is a perversion. It fetishizes objects, creates consumer mania, it preaches endless forms of false happiness, endless forms of false understanding in the form of squirrelly religions and silly cults. It invites people to diminish themselves and dehumanize themselves by behaving like machines – meme processors of memes passed down from Madison Avenue and Hollywood and what have you.
-Terence McKenna

i just say "were all locked in the trunk of a fireworks powered clown car."

there is no good answer.
at least none i can type here.

this sums up why im endorsing the guy who will FIRE everyone in sight.

What do you think of tribal peoples? Is this not anarcho living? (A living example of anarcho-primitivism?)

Tribal cultures are far from perfect, and some are very structured in a male dominant, sexist, or oppressive manner, but they are free of institutions except for the voluntary, they are self governing, and they are stateless...

Anarchism is possible, people act as if institutional governance and government is the glue that holds civilization together, when in reality it is the people themselves, we could destroy the state as well as institutions, and govern ourselves without the destruction of the civilized world...

But again, I'm only philosophically an anarchist, as a person participating in real world politics i find that I must ensure that peace, love, compassion, freedom, justice, and equality have a voice in our currant system. knee-jerk fear based reactionary politics are gaining firm footing, people feel we must harden our hearts and build walls and drop bombs...even the mainstream religions are in a state of regression to violence and warfare...

Your not going to put out a fire by dumping more fire and fuel on it, more violence, greed, selfishness, fear, warfare, hate, and lack of love and compassion are not the answer...

Only love can save us...

So while philosophically I'm an anarchist my real politics are the politics of peace and love and freedom.

-eg

Still sounds like anarchy

ive been around tribals in mindano.
they lack statism and bureaucratic zeal,
but they definitely have a social structure!

the smart realize the rewards are in peace and stability.
not everyone shares that vision.

id offer the WW2 was the ultimate gas on the fire,
and ,it thinned out the worst of the social abuses for a good 75 yrs.
people forget of course.

war is never " good" ,........
ive been in war zones, at best its stoned , dangerous and sometimes profitable.
( even when your used to the smell)
but, when the noise stops, ( the smell never does)
if the obvious bad guys are silent, it isnt an absolute loss.

Anarchism doesn't seek to negate social structure...

hierarchy ≠ structure

I think people have a deep seeded need for a leader. If all men were set free today we'd have a king by tomorrow.

Not necessarily a leader, but an authoritative figure. You don't ask a random joe if you want to solve a medical or technical problem. A king or god is unnecessary imo. A doctor, technician, chemist etc. however isn't.


Network topology is comprised of nodes and branches. So are neural networks. Politics should be about maximizing network efficacy. Because who wants a dysfunctional brain? Or a dysfunctional social structure?

I agree, though "anarchy" is a word which is plaugued negative connotations...It's so much easier to say that I believe in love, and peace, and unity and compassion, and freedom.

When I say "freedom" I mean that "so long as you are not hurting, victimizing or bothering anybody, you should be able to do what ever you want", which again is anarchism, because the second you hurt, victimize, or bother a person, you are infringing on their free right to peaceful existance...


People try to make the situation, which is a complex mess, seem like the only solutions to it must be equally complex and messy, when in reality it's simple...

Promote love, compassion, and happiness, and the solutions will follow.

I do more than say these things though, I live it, I confront hate with love every day in my life, regardless of what anybody may think about it.

I see the worst of people every day, I see ignorance, hate, mistreitment of others, etc...every day, and it seems I'm the only one who will stand up and say "STOP! What's wrong with you? We all have the right to exist in peace" I see people who will go after people who dress different, or practice different spirituality, or have novel and unique ideas about life, politics, spirituality, etc...and it seems I'm the only one who stands up for these people, which is why I say while philosophically I'm an anarchist, in real world action, behavior and politics all that matters is compassion, peace and love...

From daily interactions to national politics it all comes down to love...

It's funny how when you act honest and do what's right people say "that was a good thing you did" and all I can think is did you just praise me for acting like a decent human and acting out of peace and love?...my behavior should be the norm, people should be surprised if your not treating others this way...

Again I'm getting too far off topic...

Peace, love, unity, compassion, this is the answer, simple as that, you must live these principles in your daily life as well as incorporate them into your politics, if every person did this institutions and state would become obsolete, and all sentient beings would be able to know happiness, love, peace and freedom.

(If a person is happy they do not lash out at others, they are less likely to spread hate and negativity, happiness is the key, I pray that all beings find happiness so that they may know and show love, while living and letting others live in peace.



-eg

i can endorse the whole peace and love thing.


that said , ive met some seriously dangerous humans............
not every pitbull can be coddled.

Yes, as I said before, tribal cultures are far from perfect, and are often very structured, often in a male-dominant or sexist way, but it is free from state and institution, and trust me, if the leader of a tribe is not keeping the people happy they will replace said leader, the people control their own governance and power structures, it is working anarchism...

...it also seems the natural way for humans to exist in harmony with the earth and each other, modern civilization is unnatural.

...of coarse our resources are finite as is our stars life, so humans must eventually devise a means of finding new resources and new stars, we essentially would need to develop interstellar travel or face extinction with the resources or star... (maybe we were meant to...)

-eg

The divine protects me.

Though I have been in a spiritual bind regarding my views on self-defense, I've always figured that if a person threatens your peaceful existance with violence, you have the right to defend yourself, even if it means taking a life to save your own, I've always saw it as their own fault, if a person attacks you and you eliminate them as a threat, it's their own fault, they should have acted peacefully, I still carry several weapons on me, but only for self-defense...Though in the larger picture, hate only breeds more hate, war only breeds more war, and from individual interaction to international warfare, I feel I must only act in peace... should I turn the other cheek and allow an attacker o take my life as I forgive them, or should I eliminate the threat in self-defense? It's an issue that will take much deep contemplation, and as I consult with my spiritual teachers, take entheogens, and pray, the answer will come...

While I promote peace and love I was also a fierce believer in self defense, I thought that if someone or something is threatening your right to peaceful existance, you are obligated to eliminate it...

Though I'm beginning to see this is not a spiritually correct view....

it's how you go about this "elimination" that's makes the difference...sometimes you must remove yourself from a threat that can not be confronted peacefully, even if it means making sacrifice...when that doesn't work all you can do is say to your attackers "I forgive you" as they take your land or life, their ignorance and hatred is no excuse to abandon what is right, by responding with violence and hate you are doing exactly what they expect and want you to do....

Here's a terence mckenna quote that provides some insight on the issue:

think that what we have to say is that we must win by example. You know, the I Ching says you must never confront evil directly, because then it learns how to defend itself. The hippies were certainly no threat to the government as a military force, but as an example, as a model for others to follow, I think they scared them to death. They were probably very happy to see them all turn into Weathermen and begin hurling molotov cocktails. *That* they understood. They could relate to that. But flowers in the barrels of their guns spelled ruin and defeat, and they knew it.-terence mckenna


...look at Tibet, the Tibetan people were committed to peace, and when unjustly attacked and robbed of their homeland, all they said was "we forgive the Chinese, and pray for their happiness"...no peaceful solution was possible, so they simply left, and lived by their peaceful example, they chose not to let hate and ignorance breed more hate and ignorance, they understood land and possessions are impermanent any way, they understood that when a person attacks you and you respond as they expect, the attacker is in control, when you respond with love it confounds them, their dominator logic can't process responding to hate with love...
...plus while watching video of the Tibetans leaving for exile in India I did not see people who were sad and in despair, I saw smiles, happiness, and positive attitudes, their happiness is not generated by anything that can be taken from them, and they did not let outside negative forces rob them of this happiness.

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you -jesus ( Matt 5:44 )

I'm a spiritual man, I'm on a holy path, and I follow the laws of the divine, I consume marijuana and entheogens, and I practice peace, love, and compassion, no matter what, I refuse to let negative forces manipulate me into being as negative and miserable as they are, they can not shake my commitment to positivity, peace or love, they can not change my happiness and all the love that I have found through the practice of peace...and they will know that I forgive them...



-eg

offer them peace , love, prosperity ,community and compassion.
when they refuse, offer them dirt.
its a hostess obligation.

i try and keep it simplistic.