[deleted]

You're really just doubling down on the myth of self-reliance. I am all for using resources at your disposal and doing what you can on your own but pretending that you aren't reliant on society, the productivity of others, or the knowledge that others have previously gained is just not reality.

If you have a problem and use the internet to find out how to solve it, then you are relying on others to provide your electricity (or the things that you are using to make it), relying on others to run an internet connection to you or put a satellite in space, someone to design and make your computer, someone else to have the knowledge to fix your problem and put the answer on the internet. That's really not even a complete list.

From the reformer G. K. Chesterton, 1929

Who said this?

I have to agree with this 100%

Best advice my father gave me: at the of the each day, look in the mirror, and if you can love that person you have made it.

>Hierarchies are the exception in nature, not the norm

Hierarchies exist all over nature. In all social animals, in food chains, etc.

>To frame horizontal structures as unrealistic is to claim that reality is unrealistic.

You've lost me, I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

>You mean like the specialization of Aristotle, who did philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and other subjects? Or do you mean the mathematician, philosopher, and scientist that was Isaac Newton?

Both of those guys lived in advanced hierarchical societies where they could specialize in studying. They didn't have to split time between learning and hunting for food each day. They didn't have to make their own clothing, a specialist (tailor) made them. They didn't have to build their own home, specialists (carpenters and builders) did. Specialization and division of labor is something a society can only do if it organizes. Anarchism doesn't allow for this.

>This is based on the idea that because you observe capitalist behavior under capitalism that this means that capitalist behavior is "human nature"

Did greed and ambition not exist in humans before capitalism?

>And criticism from the right of feminism is that it's a utopian fantasy about putting women in charge. Criticism from the same towards environmentalism is that it's a utopian fantasy that nature above humans. How is your critique different from this?

Well, mainly that feminism and environmentalism exist and function. A successful modern anarchist society does not.

>All of these are frameworks which approach problems from a particular lens. Feminism from power relations between men and women. Environmentalism from power relations between humans and non-humans. Marxism from power relations between owners and workers. Anarchism from power relations between the government and the governed.

Indeed, I'm glad to see that we can agree that anarchism is purely a fun theoretical framework and little more. Good thought experiment, terrible real life idea.

I've heard it described like this:

A contrarian does the opposite of whatever is mainstream, but a true rebel does whatever they think is good or right, without regard for what is mainstream or not.

> In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

> This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Ok. Saying nature is nothing BUT strength dominating weakness is slightly hyperbolic. But only slightly. My retort to the author survives.

Reading the essay helped me a bit when I was feeling down, and it certainly is a great encouragement when you've lost faith in yourself. However, I feel that it could certainly radicalize some audiences, and amplify existing biases.

I don't know what this means.

> It doesn't scale and so isn't really workable in the modern world where we need systems that account for millions of people at a time.

The thing about horizontal power structures is that, unlike hierarchical structures, they don't scale. Scaling happens when a system grows and it becomes more difficult to centrally plan and manage. Natural systems like the universe itself can be as small or large as they like for this reason. Same with animal populations. Of course such a manmade system wouldn't resemble what we have now, but that doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist. Hierarchies are the exception in nature, not the norm. To frame horizontal structures as unrealistic is to claim that reality is unrealistic.

> Science is a great example of something a tribal communist/anarchist society could not have. Science requires allowing for specialization, which means one less person working towards the survival of the group.

You mean like the specialization of Aristotle, who did philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and other subjects? Or do you mean the mathematician, philosopher, and scientist that was Isaac Newton? Perhaps you are referring to the specialization of Albert Einstein, who was a philosopher, a mathematician, and a scientist. Also a socialist.

The greatest contributors to the advancement of human knowledge rarely resemble the hyper-specialist we see under capitalism and more closely resemble the holistic thinkers of broadly talented people like Leonardo deVinci. Some degree of specialization is necessary, even in the primitive societies you're referring to, but too much specialization and there are no longer any advancements.

In fact, the factory method of industry was in part designed to keep workers so specialized that they'd never command a better wage or grow into potential competition. Like anything, specialization is not always beneficial at all levels of extremity.

> Communism is impossible, not because every society who's tried it failed, it's impossible because it fails to account for human nature. Communism can only work if everyone always buys into the shared collective efforts of the group. But there will always be people who seek to take advantage of situations to gain advantages for themselves over the group, which is exactly what happened every single time it's been tried.

This is based on the idea that because you observe capitalist behavior under capitalism that this means that capitalist behavior is "human nature". It's a common fallacy to assume that your era or culture represents the sum total of human capacity. In reality, communism represents one potential path among many that people can take. A great example of everyday communism is the household. Some households are feudal in structure where the income earner controls everything and dictates everything. More commonly, though, families in a household pool their resources and share for the benefit of the family. This is especially true in poor families that cannot afford the more authoritarian alternative. The fact that both of these kinds of households exist, though, demonstrates the amazing plasticity of so-called "human nature".

> It gives ownership of capital to those who work it rather than those who own it.

The workers use what they own and keep what they produce, the factory is no longer capital (someone else's private property) and the product is no longer capital (someone else's private property). Communism as defined by Marx takes this a step further and removes money and the state as well.

> An interesting thought experiment perhaps, but certainly nothing to actually take seriously. Unlike environmentalism and feminism, which can and do exist.

And criticism from the right of feminism is that it's a utopian fantasy about putting women in charge. Criticism from the same towards environmentalism is that it's a utopian fantasy that nature above humans. How is your critique different from this? Ultimately not. Like with the others, it's born from a misunderstanding of the subject.

All of these are frameworks which approach problems from a particular lens. Feminism from power relations between men and women. Environmentalism from power relations between humans and non-humans. Marxism from power relations between owners and workers. Anarchism from power relations between the government and the governed. None of these are proposed utopias.

You’re still abiding by someone’s or somethings rules

There is a lot of real, useful information available on the internet, regardless of the way it is provided. If you want to be independent and self reliant you need to use all the resources at your disposal, people aren't born self reliant, it is something you learn. If you need to fix something or make something, you can probably find out how to on the internet.

You've never seen a nature show about clownfish and sea anemones? Mycorrhizas, nitrogen fixing bacteria, or pollinators? No cleaner fish, probiotics, or even just a coral reef?

Ironically he has become the prophet of the masses in many ways for people who see him almost as a spiritual guide rather than a philosopher. For many he is one of the first philosophers to read due to his popularity while they aren't yet familiarised with philosophical ideas and the history of previous thought systems to help one better understand his ideas in the context of his time. Your remark about exploring philosophy in its variety to avoid remaining stuck at this level is accurate since many seem reluctant in discovering new ideas once they find what they perceive as an all encompassing narrative with explanatory power in a system of thought. Well written article.

Wat?

"Massimo Pigliucci adds that the categories of good and evil are unhelpful because they create a sharp distinction where there is actually a lot of nuance. They are also pernicious because they encourage us to think of ourselves as good and write off our opposition as evil, prompting us to act in a way that is uncharitable and uncaring." Funny that Pigliucci is guilty of doing both these things nore than once.

Tradition is also a bad reason to not follow tradition.

I have a suspicion that an AI might have written this article. it's platitudes followed by platitudes in a formulaic structure.

[deleted]

>The untold thousands of years of primitive communism

Reddit anarchists have the strangest obsession with hunter gatherer societies as some sort of aspirational mod for society which I don't think I'll ever truly understand. Even taking into account the problem of having a small group of unspecialized individuals (no doctors, engineers, etc, as all members of the group have to work towards the survival of the group), even in its best case scenario it would only work for 20-50 people in a polity. It doesn't scale and so isn't really workable in the modern world where we need systems that account for millions of people at a time.

>I like to use science as a good example of a cooperative free exchange that betters humanity, and contributes one of the greatest successes of the human race

Science is a great example of something a tribal communist/anarchist society could not have. Science requires allowing for specialization, which means one less person working towards the survival of the group. It requires equipment and material that also calls for specialists somewhere to produce; otherwise what you can do with science is limited to stuff we have long since mastered.

>This is an overly simplistic understanding of what people mean by communism. You might be thinking specifically of the USSR, which was not structured as a communist (or even socialist) society, but an attempt to eventually evolve into one.

Communism is impossible, not because every society who's tried it failed, it's impossible because it fails to account for human nature. Communism can only work if everyone always buys into the shared collective efforts of the group. But there will always be people who seek to take advantage of situations to gain advantages for themselves over the group, which is exactly what happened every single time it's been tried. Power loves a vacuum, and communism by definition is a sustained power vacuum. As long as greed or ambition are human traits, communism (beyond a small tight knit group of 20-50) is impossible. History supports this.

>It does demonstrate the difficulty in taking a feudal society and trying to make it communist in a capitalist world, but it does not prove that communism is impossible.

If communism cannot exist unless every society everywhere is also communist, then it fails because it can't compete. Democracy and capitalism were able to be born and thrive in a mostly autocratic feudal world precisely because they were preferable and competitive models; such resilience is a prerequisite for a desirable and effective economic model. Because it is neither resilient nor particularly appealing, communism fails.

>Socialism is not capitalist as it doesn't have capital.

Methinks you should brush up on your Marx. Socialism is explicitly the end-state of capitalism; a model that Marx agreed with. His gripe was merely with who owned the capital, a small class of owners or the workers themselves. But a socialist world is still essentially a capitalist one.

>Socialism abolishes capital

Again, incorrect. It gives ownership of capital to those who work it rather than those who own it. It does not remove the factory or the value that factory creates. You're thinking of communism.

>Anarchism isn't a hypothetical utopian fantasy.

It is quite simply nothing more and nothing less than a hypothetical utopian fantasy. An interesting thought experiment perhaps, but certainly nothing to actually take seriously. Unlike environmentalism and feminism, which can and do exist.

It’s a hit piece towards (young) people who, according to him, have insufficiently considered the complexity and nuance of Nietzsche. This, based on the fact a generation of people post buzzwords and catchphrases to social media - itself inherently a place where catchphrases and buzzwords are the expected levels of discourse - and concluding that the absence of full throated discourse proves that an adequate understanding has not been achieved. The conclusion doesn’t even come close to answering the questions outlined in the premise.

We’re not all Nietzsche experts. And his writing does leave a lot of room for interpretation. So why is the author discounting the valid opinions (“Oh my god, Nietzsche is like, my favorite philosopher.”) of people based on the fact that they’re reading, whether elementary or advanced, may be different than yours?

*Uneducated people can't be trusted. Trained and educated people can. In high level cadres, trust is the foundation. Eg. Special forces.