For the perfect state just mix Libertarianism, Communism, Anarchism, ...?

[neptop]

Okay, now for a moment please forget about what you think about all the -isms and look at the facts.

After the revolution in Span in 1936, there for a short time has been what most people call collectivist anarchism. Which basically is a mix of various isms, with none of them being too extreme and basically "just let people make". The result of this has been a society that made everything from the hair cutter to weapon construction had enormous increases in efficiency. Women were for the first time able to have abortions, everyone was happy, with lots of rights, free love and stuff.

All of this is just what the average leftist, liberal, communist, libertarian, anarchist wants and everyone else dreams of, even when they might call it an unreachable utopia.

Basically it has been killed by people who at least say they follow some ism. Since I'd consider them extremist I really wouldn't call them communist or whatever. There always are the people who actually want to live have and something and others that either abuse it or just cry for revolution and never are happy with anything.

So, if we have something that seems at least close to an utopia (nothing is absolutely perfect), has some elements from all kinds of utopias and you can learn in history that it did already work, even if it certainly wasn't the best time, then why not give it a try and work from there?

To me it sounds like people should just stop arguing about the differences, about how things should be exactly and just do it. I mean it's the same state that you have right after every revolution and everyone is fine, because there are no classes and people just work together. See what happened in North Africa while and shortly after the revolution. One just needs to prevent anyone from gaining grip again. The best thing would be to look at history, tons of examples and just see it is like that.

Have a look at these sources. It just sounds awesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#1936_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution

Also it is kinda what's going on here anyway. People, being socialists, anarchist, libertarians, communists or whatever are just happy with Bitcoin, working together, not thinking too much about what ideology it is. It also shows that it's just about people not forcing each other. Be it your boss, Stalin or the US president, be it this one or any of the past ones.

[1715661911]

1715661911

[1715661911]

1715661911

[1715661911]

1715661911

[1715661911]

1715661911

[myrkul]

As long as all voluntary interactions are accepted, and coercion rejected, I would have no objections with the resulting social order, whatever it is.

[neptop]

As long as all voluntary interactions are accepted, and coercion rejected, I would have no objections with the resulting social order, whatever it is.

It's basically why I don't believe stuff that people call anarchistic revolution. If you really want something like that the only way is showing and telling people it works better. That's why I wrote this. The goals are always the same, really. If I talk to a communist and I mean not the guy that is part of the Chinese Communist Party, but someone who just wants a society where people are considered equal he has absolutely the same goals as the liberal capitalist and here I don't think about the leader of a party, the head of a bloodthirsty cooperation like Nestle or a big banker, manager or whatever, but the ordinary liberal who believes in people that are truly free, because they are well informed and while they may compete in one form or the other they never be idiots then both of them have the same dream as the anarchist, libertarian, socialist or whoever. After all man are social and caring beings and are absolutely able to get along really well without anyone telling them what to do. There are billions of examples.

[Realpra]

In positivist technocracy the idea at least is that you just look at what works and not the ideology bs.

I see bitcoin as a technological fix to a social/political problem for instance.

[neptop]

Just want to say that all of this is not like an advertisement for the stuff above. I am not a collectivist or anything. I just found it and wanted to share, see what other think about that. So the things I say below are personal opinion and not necessarily related to that stuff. I don't really know much about it, but it sounded really good and isn't a theory, but actually existed and didn't seem to cause anything bad.

Tell me please -- how in your perfect "mixed" society
do you suppose to solve the "shit problem" ?!

I.e who and why exactly will clean up shit in your perfect world for free ?

Don't know why call it "mine". It's an excerpt of history from a time, long before I lived.

But to answer your question: Because history shows us that it obviously worked pretty well.

On positivist technocracy: I think it's naive and unrealistic in the sense that it is made for robots or insects or whatever, but not for a human being without what one calls mental problem. The problem is that the quality that brought us where we are is irrationality. It's the thing that makes societies imperfect, the thing that makes us doing completely unproductive, inefficient thing, but also the thing that makes us create "nonsense", be it art or an iPhone or whatever in first place. If you think rationally you would come to the conclusion that it all doesn't really make sense in first place. There is no rational reason for doing anything. When I look at the concepts of a positivist technocracy it looks like a way that leads to either recognizing this (so rather depressive) or not recognizing it and just going on like an insect or a machine, loosing that irrationalism, but not caring about how or why you do anything.

It's a bit what socialists and communists often think about capitalism and what they often mean when they use this word. It's an interpretation that most people here won't share, but it is like the capital is autotelic. So you make money (or any other form of capital) just to make even more of it. I think it what often corrupts people with power/money. It's basically like every other addiction.

[myrkul]

This article is extremely relevant to this discussion:

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarian-anticapitalism/

In a truly free market, what we think of as "capitalism" would be completely different, if not entirely nonexistent.

[herzmeister]

I'd also like to see a "mixed" society in a strongly decentralized fashion, then everbody can join their respective communities and stop complaining about the system. 

Some people are naturally collectivists and like to freely share with others (especially artists), while some are naturally individualists and would prefer a performance-oriented environment.

My concern is only that there will be battles for resources between these communities (first on firemost land).

[neptop]

Hey, thanks for the article myrkul.

herzmeister:

I don't think individualism and collectivism are mutually exclusive. You can have a collectivist society that strongly supports individualism and is very individualist, even if it doesn't look like that. Especially when work is voluntary. Maybe think about Wikipedia and have a look at various user sites. They are extremely different, have completely different opinions. There are no strongly enforced rules and still everything appears to work pretty well. I am saying this as someone who isn't really a Wikipedian and also criticized it a lot, even though (or actually because) I like it.

About land/resource struggle. I think that is actually more a cultural thing. One can't really explain borders and stuff with territories. No sane person considers the borders of his country his territory. That's just something that comes from nationalistic thinking cause by rulers that hungered for power and considered the size of their country something important.

As a matter of fact a bigger movement could solve most of the problems, be it energy (see a random fair for new technologies waiting to be implemented. There are so many different ways, that just haven't been tried yet. A few countries, like Japan work on space based solar systems, there is technology ready to use bare land to produce oil from algae and these are not the things I meant when I talked about fairs) or food (currently (that's a fact. Check the WHO I think it was) we could feed the world population thrice if we'd organize it optimally, so even if we don't do it perfectly we could easily prevent people from starving). If we do some of these things, together there would be no more need for resource wars. There is just too much unused potential. A lot of it possibly isn't really in use cause it doesn't really allow you to make a lot of money, but instead solve a problem in a way that prevents you from making money. No, I am not talking about conspiracies here. There is no need for one. People just don't use it commercially yet. I give you a completely different example. Memristors are a new way to store data. They only have benefits and are pretty much completely researched (in the sense of production ready, not like "we are done with research in that area" of course). The reason we don't have them yet is that companies (HP I think) are yet trying to figure out the marketing, doing lots of marketing research. So they'll (if not overtrumped by some other technology) come in this decade (HP plans 2014 IIRC). Something similar is the case for many, many technologies to solve big problems. However, no country is willing to take the risk of trying it first unless they really need to (space based solar systems in Japan).

So we are are really stuck by the lack of will and by the risk of investing capital. Big projects just cost a shit ton of money. Cold war made countries invest that money, but it sucks if money only gets invested for military in first place. It's maybe the reason the US does so well, despite sucking in so many ways. They invest so into military like no other country. Even China that has a way bigger money, actual reason to invest, etc. doesn't invest that much. That's btw. even true for percentage of the income. Besides that the US society is trained to be anti-socialist, so they kinda use military investment to secretly still have a form socialism (investing in companies, and people (veterans, etc), make jobs, ...). But hey, that's a secret.