Fascism is Heroarchy

[MithrandirOlorin]

When in reality of course there is a reason why all of that ended and we tried to adopt something else. That's he elephant in the room to everyone who covets the past, isn't it?

No, not really. That's a common approach by those who try to defend the hopeless excuse of a world we've got now, to accuse those looking backwards of viewing it through rose-tinted spectacles when they're donig the same with the present.

There are ideas and aspects of the past that quite rightly appeal. Quite often that isn't so much an inaccurate view of the past so much as a selective one. And thus lamenting the upsides that have been lost is entirely fair enough. Putting forward some idealised fictional vision of the past as a goal to aim for is just as valid as putting forward some vision of the future, which is fundamentally fictional since it's not actually happened at all.

I see no problem with both cheering on having got rid of past crap and lamenting lost good at the same time (and IMO a veyr large chunk of "progress" in the last century has added sweet FA worth having - it's made some very good changes where it's got rid of stuff that should stay in the past, but added bugger all, and caused a lot of collateral damage in the process).

That all said, and more to the point of the thread, any form of hierarchy is inevitable. In all but the smallest, most basic, subsistence societies (which I doubt any of us would ideally like to live in) you'll end up with a small number of people working out what needs to be done and a lot actually doing it, simply because it only requires a small number of the former and a large of the latter.

That on it's own isn't Heirarchy though, Anarchist philosopher even acknowledge the validity of deferring to people with more experience. The issue is how much actual Power the decision makers have.

[Madner Kami]

That question is really easy to answer: As much as the mass of people are willing to give up. Ultimately, no autocrat can get into power against the expressed wishes and wants of his subjects. It's not the actions of the autocrat that get him into power, it's the cooperation and toleration of the people he lords over. And it's the exact same for every form of government.

[Riedquat]

That on it's own isn't Heirarchy though, Anarchist philosopher even acknowledge the validity of deferring to people with more experience. The issue is how much actual Power the decision makers have.

Why isn't that a hierarchy?

[MithrandirOlorin]

Because firuing out what to do can easily just be a Job.

That question is really easy to answer: As much as the mass of people are willing to give up. Ultimately, no autocrat can get into power against the expressed wishes and wants of his subjects. It's not the actions of the autocrat that get him into power, it's the cooperation and toleration of the people he lords over. And it's the exact same for every form of government.

That's literally how Giovani Gentile justified claiming Fascism was true Democracy.

[Riedquat]

Because firuing out what to do can easily just be a Job.[quote="Madner Kami" post_id=127998

?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That on it's own isn't Heirarchy though, Anarchist philosopher even acknowledge the validity of deferring to people with more experience. The issue is how much actual Power the decision makers have.

Why isn't that a hierarchy?

Because lots of sectors of society can be considered crucial, not just the governing part. There’s a clear distinction of power and control that overwhelms the accountability aspect that would apply to most any sector.

The ussr distinctly gave it to the working class, which is reciprocal but just as problematic in democratic terms.

[hammerofglass]

You end up with the same problem that always happens; once you have specialists whoever specializes in violence siezes power almost immediately. It's an inherent flaw in human nature and I've yet to see an anarchist or communist proposal that really addresses it.

[clearspira]

You end up with the same problem that always happens; once you have specialists whoever specializes in violence siezes power almost immediately. It's an inherent flaw in human nature and I've yet to see an anarchist or communist proposal that really addresses it.

Artificial Intelligence is the only way any of these more idealistic non-capitalist ideas will ever happen. Take the decision making out of the hands of humans. Once again, its how The Culture series by Iain M Banks does it. (yeah I know, I go on about the series a lot, but it really is that good.)

This is a different discussion, but y'know, there have been so many people bleating about the dangers of AI in the news recently. But I say... why is the coming AI controlled world something to be automatically feared? What is it about the world that we humans have created that is so great? This world of inequality, war, abuse, murder and torture? AI doesn't have to be our end when it could be our beginning.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

You end up with the same problem that always happens; once you have specialists whoever specializes in violence siezes power almost immediately. It's an inherent flaw in human nature and I've yet to see an anarchist or communist proposal that really addresses it.

This is a different discussion, but y'know, there have been so many people bleating about the dangers of AI in the news recently. But I say... why is the coming AI controlled world something to be automatically feared? What is it about the world that we humans have created that is so great? This world of inequality, war, abuse, murder and torture? AI doesn't have to be our end when it could be our beginning.

I’ve never seen a nuanced discussion on this, but I’d imagine that the fear of terminal decisions being carried out through protocol seems to be a critical factor.

In the same manner that new eyes might give key insight, subjective eyes are regarded as crucial.

[Madner Kami]

You end up with the same problem that always happens; once you have specialists whoever specializes in violence siezes power almost immediately. It's an inherent flaw in human nature and I've yet to see an anarchist or communist proposal that really addresses it.

Artificial Intelligence is the only way any of these more idealistic non-capitalist ideas will ever happen. Take the decision making out of the hands of humans.

Except you've just given the power and authority to just a different entity, which now lords over everyone else and we've already tried that and found dictatorships wanting (unless you are from the far right or far left).

Besides, an AI is not automatically impartial and even if it were, impartiality is not always a good thing, particularly when ethics are involved.