Capitalism would work if everyone played fair and all members of society were able to make informed decisions. Unfortunately businesses are always allowed to lie and cheat their way to success because they hold the power through capital.
Comminism would work if everyone played fair and all members of society were able to make informed decisions. Unfortunately the communist party is always allowed to lie and cheat their way to success because they hold the power through purity tests.
Most systems would work a lot better if they didn’t require all participation to be in good faith.
You don’t require universal good faith if those working in bad faith are unable to amass any substantial power.
No, but it is a trade off from substantial power over a larger group for a lot of small time bad faith actors having an easier time affecting a smaller group. Like how a small town sheriff can be malicious on their own without needing an organized state level party to enact their abuses of power.
I’m not sure which is better or worse overall, but definitely agree that too much centralization ends up with opportunities to do far more damage to a larger population in a shorter period of time.
The left wing ideologies referred to by the original commentator don’t just have small scale hierarchies, they reject hierarchies and authorities in general. No sheriff.
It’s fundamentally different, and there are many examples of societies like that in history.
Lynchings were society enforcing their will collectively without an authoritarian structure. Lynchings were often (but not always) opposed by authorities who wanted a trial, even if the trial was likely to be a sham.
Black Panthers were the opposite, a community defense that was organized as a response to the abuses of those with authority. Basically the opposite of the groups that committed lynchings.
Being decentralized doesn’t solve the problems of centralized authority without being a tradeoff for the problems of a lack of authority. Both require a society that stands behind whichever approach is chosen and holds people accountable for abusing the social contract. Decentralized might even be better, but it isn’t a panacea.
What historical societies had little to no authority without running into issues with malicious actors?
I don’t disagree with your core point, but it’s useful to imagine and learn from other ways. We need to organize, we need to exist amongst each other, if all systems are corruptible we may as well choose ones that empower individuals, orient towards collective well-being, and ideologically oppose oppression.
![[Sarah Andersen] Capitalism](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/da4ea8ac-7425-4260-b766-1d484fade657.jpeg){kind=link}
Capitalism would work if everyone played fair and all members of society were able to make informed decisions. Unfortunately businesses are always allowed to lie and cheat their way to success because they hold the power through capital.
Comminism would work if everyone played fair and all members of society were able to make informed decisions. Unfortunately the communist party is always allowed to lie and cheat their way to success because they hold the power through purity tests.
Most systems would work a lot better if they didn’t require all participation to be in good faith.
Obviously it’s the point you’re making, but this is pretty reductive
Bad faith participation disappears pretty rapidly if there’s nothing to gain from it.
Centralised power structures are fundamentally a big part of most of our problems.
You don’t require universal good faith if those working in bad faith are unable to amass any substantial power.
There’s plenty of flavours of left-wing ideology built around decentralised power structures
No, but it is a trade off from substantial power over a larger group for a lot of small time bad faith actors having an easier time affecting a smaller group. Like how a small town sheriff can be malicious on their own without needing an organized state level party to enact their abuses of power.
I’m not sure which is better or worse overall, but definitely agree that too much centralization ends up with opportunities to do far more damage to a larger population in a shorter period of time.
The left wing ideologies referred to by the original commentator don’t just have small scale hierarchies, they reject hierarchies and authorities in general. No sheriff.
Woohoo! Vigilante justice!
No, still not getting it. You’re imagining today’s society without authority.
That’s like thinking veganism is when you’re eating a bun with lettuce and no burger.
It’s fundamentally different, and there are many examples of societies like that in history.
Your caricature is only showing the limits of your imagination and your lack of knowledge
Lynchings were society enforcing their will collectively without an authoritarian structure. Lynchings were often (but not always) opposed by authorities who wanted a trial, even if the trial was likely to be a sham.
Black Panthers were the opposite, a community defense that was organized as a response to the abuses of those with authority. Basically the opposite of the groups that committed lynchings.
Being decentralized doesn’t solve the problems of centralized authority without being a tradeoff for the problems of a lack of authority. Both require a society that stands behind whichever approach is chosen and holds people accountable for abusing the social contract. Decentralized might even be better, but it isn’t a panacea.
What historical societies had little to no authority without running into issues with malicious actors?
I don’t disagree with your core point, but it’s useful to imagine and learn from other ways. We need to organize, we need to exist amongst each other, if all systems are corruptible we may as well choose ones that empower individuals, orient towards collective well-being, and ideologically oppose oppression.
As for examples
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution