LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Ardoki]

How can technocracy be implemented to increase the efficiency of the state to achieve progress?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

How can technocracy be implemented to increase the efficiency of the state to achieve progress?

IMO, technocracy would likely lead to social alienation, not progress. Real people have empathy. Even the most advanced computer does not.

[Pasong Tirad]

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

Electing a hierarch sounds like it pretty much forsakes the idea of anarchism.

As far as I'm aware, anarchism delineates between unjust and just/necessary hierarchies. Like how you'd no doubt prefer the captain of a ship to be the man with the most experience.

[Firaxin]

How can technocracy be implemented to increase the efficiency of the state to achieve progress?

IMO, technocracy would likely lead to social alienation, not progress. Real people have empathy. Even the most advanced computer does not.

People are biological computers, checkmate.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I mean, a person could also be chosen democratically to organize things without forsaking the whole idea of Anarchism.

I agree that the person should be chosen democratically.

Theoretically possible, but it would take unusual amounts of willpower and singular ideological commitment in the chosen and their supporters for them to refrain from scheming to expand the length and depth of their mandate and from seeking simple majority solutions instead of consensus decisions. This would be particularly true in times of genuine economic, political, social or military emergency, but leaders can and will often manufacture themselves a crisis to justify expanding their control.

I think the pure form of ardently requiring consensus and overthrowing those who look like they may be seeking to bypass this would inhibit leadership to the point where political paralysis and indecision would be a regular occurrence and risks better-organised outsiders sweeping in and taking control through force.

The idea of local decision making and organic communities is a desirable one, but I think that the efficiency issue and the fact that anarchism requires the vast majority of people and leaders to be good and selfless all of the time are very big problems given the sheer diversity of human psychology.

[Ardoki]

How can technocracy be implemented to increase the efficiency of the state to achieve progress?

IMO, technocracy would likely lead to social alienation, not progress. Real people have empathy. Even the most advanced computer does not.

That is why ideally psychiatrists and psychologists would help develop policies and programs to battle alienation.

[Dumb Ideologies]

How can technocracy be implemented to increase the efficiency of the state to achieve progress?

IMO, technocracy would likely lead to social alienation, not progress. Real people have empathy. Even the most advanced computer does not.

Weeeh, I guess I'm an NPC then.

Would you like to buy some potions?

[Ardoki]

Or we could just have chemists create drugs to make people loyal and content citizens.

[Uxupox]

How can technocracy be implemented to increase the efficiency of the state to achieve progress?

IMO, technocracy would likely lead to social alienation, not progress. Real people have empathy. Even the most advanced computer does not.

What's a "real person"?

[Uxupox]

Electing a hierarch sounds like it pretty much forsakes the idea of anarchism.

There are different leadership styles. A leader who implements the wishes of the democratic majority is not a hierarch (at least as I would define a hierarch).

It still one of the many aspects of a hierarchy. It's called a democratic organizational structuring.

[The New California Republic]

IMO, technocracy would likely lead to social alienation, not progress. Real people have empathy. Even the most advanced computer does not.

Weeeh, I guess I'm an NPC then.

Would you like to buy some potions?

I am actually looking for lamp oil, rope, and bombs. Sorry.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Weeeh, I guess I'm an NPC then.

Would you like to buy some potions?

I am actually looking for lamp oil, rope, and bombs. Sorry.

While you're here, would you like some minimal-reward local flavour quests or to flog some low-quality items that you crafted solely to grind up your levels, clearing out my shop's entire funds in the process?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I do dislike that about left-anarchism, precisely because it's literally not anarchism. How can you abolish coercion and also prohibit private employment. I mean, pick one.

And the Left-anarchist will, with exactly that level of certainty, reply "How can you ave private employment and abolish coercion at the same time tho? pick one!"

True, except I think I'm right, and they think they're right.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I do dislike that about left-anarchism, precisely because it's literally not anarchism. How can you abolish coercion and also prohibit private employment. I mean, pick one.

Sure it is, insofar as it was kinda the big thing for the guys who first called themselves anarchism. Like, their biggest thing. It's the thing they most cared and wrote about. It was one of the main defining features of anarchism before the right wing sorts over a century later.

That's why I don't understand left-anarchism in general.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Organize things, suggest how things can be done, suggest what roles people can do, look for volunteers for certain efforts, setting an example for the community, and so on. Leadership's not just bossing around the nearest person.

Fair enough, I was being dumb there.

B-But... they generally avoid majority votes. It says it right there ;~;

Emphasis on "generally."

Well, firstly, actually, if a given person is directly participating in and benefitting from a community in an Anarchist society, then the implication of that is that they're consenting to and promising to abide by the rules that the community democratically agrees on. Technically speaking, if they wish to continue voluntarily participating within the community, then they have to follow the rules they agreed to and decided on with the rest of their community. Since they also have a say in the decision-making process of developing rules, including the development and change of the initially-proposed rule so that the community can reach a consensus, then it's already a rule they more or less agreed to anyway, barring cases of majority votes. Essentially, they've already agreed to do what the community says is acceptable and to avoid what isn't on the basis of voluntarily participating in the community and the self-governance of it.

In regards to leaders, that's an iffier situation, but understandable why someone can refuse to listen to/follow them: if the leader, assuming an Anarchist community decides to have one, tries to coerce or force someone to do something, that is essentially the creation of an unjust hierarchy. Since Anarchists are against unjust hierarchies, the person being forced/coerced has every right in such a society to deny consent. Now, on the other hand, the leader has every right themselves to ask a fellow community member to do a certain task or something else that'd fall in a leader's purview, and in that scenario (I base this part wholly off evidence of Anarchist leadership in action as seen by George Orwell in Spain as written in Homage to Catalonia) then, it's unlikely such a leader would find someone unwilling to volunteer themselves for such a task; all the same, the importance and recognition of consent is still there, so it's ultimately the choice of the community member - not the leader - as to what they'll do.

That kinda sounds like social contract, theory. Like that of a state. You can't assume that just because someone is active in the community, they automatically consent to any rule or guideline one could throw at them.

[Genivaria]

This is why I'm a left-libertarian, not any kind of 'anarchist'.
I don't bother myself with silly notions of 'abolishing coercion'.

[Liriena]

Now for something completely different

[Liriena]

Also, where's my Gritty gang? Show yourselves, comrades!

[Mardla]

This is why I'm a left-libertarian, not any kind of 'anarchist'.
I don't bother myself with silly notions of 'abolishing coercion'.

Libertarian is innately anti-authoritarian, though.

[The Grene Knyght]

Also, where's my Gritty gang? Show yourselves, comrades!

(Image)

(Image)

Gritty is the greatest leftwing icon since Pingu

[Mardla]

Also, where's my Gritty gang? Show yourselves, comrades!

(Image)

(Image)

The
Left Can't
Meme

[Liriena]

Also, where's my Gritty gang? Show yourselves, comrades!

(Image)

(Image)

Gritty is the greatest leftwing icon since Pingu

Pingu is a total tankie, but Gritty? Gritty is a true libertarian!

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Now for something completely different

(Image)

This guy can't be real!

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

This is why I'm a left-libertarian, not any kind of 'anarchist'.
I don't bother myself with silly notions of 'abolishing coercion'.

Libertarian is innately anti-authoritarian, though.

You can want to minimize the presence of coercion in a society wthout wanting to abolish it entirely.

[Mardla]

Libertarian is innately anti-authoritarian, though.

You can want to minimize the presence of coercion in a society wthout wanting to abolish it entirely.

How much coercion a society needs depends on the society, there is no universal rule. Although obviously at the basis every society must have a ruling power which has the right to kill people in cold blood.