Originally Posted by Seminomad

Help me out here: what exactly have the Greens been doing since 2001 (other than trying to run for president again in 2004)?

Neither Ralph Nader nor any of the other Greens seem to try to have really been making themselves known or seen since E2K (with the possible exception of the aftermath of the 2004 election).

The 2000 election was a PR disaster of the noisy "Naderite" faction of the Green party, which is why the Greens didn't nominate Nader in 2004. Nader's ego led him to go run as an independent anyway

The Greens, Libretarians, and the other fringers are going to get stomped by the pragmatists. 3/2 odds on the GOP as we know it dying in the next 20 years, to be replaced by a split in the Dems (DLC vs Firedoglake, et al). This is still a center-right country recovering from an extreme right relapse.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

The Greens, Libretarians, and the other fringers are going to get stomped by the pragmatists. 3/2 odds on the GOP as we know it dying in the next 20 years, to be replaced by a split in the Dems (DLC vs Firedoglake, et al). This is still a center-right country recovering from an extreme right relapse.

Indded, it is more likely that the structure of the system wil remain unchainged, a mild 4T, which is my personal preference, would guarentee that it will. Nevertheless,the next 20 years will be interesting however it turns out.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Hmmm... Man is a social animal and evolved from other social animals. I don't think government was really invented, but rather it evolved out of the sort of society one can observe in other great apes. Anarcy would be an exception among social animals, rather than the norm.

Sorry bob, but anarchy is rather the rule as opposed to exception. Simply put, anarchy equates to consesus-based decision making in a non hierarchical setting. Most hunter-gatherer societies were essentially anarchistic and, many horticultural and early agrarian societies as well. As such, if you are willing to set aside "classical" thinking for a minute, it can be seen as the seed of democracy.........think one-man-one-vote.

It's been with us a long time and still exists in many forms in many places today. Think about buyers clubs, community supported agriculture projects, mutual insurance companies, utility co-ops, and any other organized effort that relies on consensus based decision making with no executive fiat.

As a matter of fact, during the American Revolution there was a military unit called the Free Associators that had no rank and elected their commander on a regular basis. Seems after the war, the landed gentry moved quickly to disband and disarm the Free Associators because they didn't want to acknowledge authority.

America's modern "understanding" of anarchist thinking comes in large part from the twisted propaganda spread by fearful governments coupled with the bad deeds of a few bad actors......I.E. radical bomb throwing anarchists. However, if you look past these influences you'll see the other side.

But then, I've never heard much about of the Sex Pistols other than the name, and do not recognize that they rule over me. I don't really think you understand what government and rulership is about.

Such condecending speech is dismissive and shows you cleanly missed the point.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Sorry bob, but anarchy is rather the rule as opposed to exception. Simply put, anarchy equates to consesus-based decision making in a non hierarchical setting. Most hunter-gatherer societies were essentially anarchistic and, many horticultural and early agrarian societies as well. As such, if you are willing to set aside "classical" thinking for a minute, it can be seen as the seed of democracy.........think one-man-one-vote.

It's been with us a long time and still exists in many forms in many places today. Think about buyers clubs, community supported agriculture projects, mutual insurance companies, utility co-ops, and any other organized effort that relies on consensus based decision making with no executive fiat.

As a matter of fact, during the American Revolution there was a military unit called the Free Associators that had no rank and elected their commander on a regular basis. Seems after the war, the landed gentry moved quickly to disband and disarm the Free Associators because they didn't want to acknowledge authority.

America's modern "understanding" of anarchist thinking comes in large part from the twisted propaganda spread by fearful governments coupled with the bad deeds of a few bad actors......I.E. radical bomb throwing anarchists. However, if you look past these influences you'll see the other side.





Such condecending speech is dismissive and shows you cleanly missed the point.

"Consensus-based decision making in a non hierarchical setting" is perfectly fine and dandy in small societies where everyone knows everyone (anthropologists and sociologists claim we can know up to 150 people personally), but that just doesn't work in societies made up of millions of people exect within the smallest communities in that society, it would lead to anarchy in the negative sense of the term, and that leads to warlordism and enserfment, just as it did in the Dark Ages.

Originally Posted by Seminomad

Help me out here: what exactly have the Greens been doing since 2001 (other than trying to run for president again in 2004)?

One thing's for sure -- they haven't been killing wogs. Or agitating for the killing of wogs.

That gets them some marks, AFAIAK.

Originally Posted by Odin

"Consensus-based decision making in a non hierarchical setting" is perfectly fine and dandy in small societies where everyone knows everyone (anthropologists and sociologists claim we can know up to 150 people personally), but that just doesn't work in societies made up of millions of people exect within the smallest communities in that society, it would lead to anarchy in the negative sense of the term...

Preach it, O All-Knowing One!

For your next feat, why don't you go ahead and clear up that whole Grand Unifying Force issue?
I mean, since you're the knowledgeable one here and all...

Tool.

Originally Posted by Odin

"Consensus-based decision making in a non hierarchical setting" is perfectly fine and dandy in small societies where everyone knows everyone (anthropologists and sociologists claim we can know up to 150 people personally),

Jee then I must be well ahead of the game! I could say I know at least twice that many well enough to engage in a consensus based decision process with them. As a matter of fact, there’s a CSA in our area that has close to 500 members and its completely consensus based including every decision from what will be planted to what a share size will be to when and where the pick up sites will be. Also, mutual insurance groups, electrical co-ops, buyers clubs and other such organizations have easily more than 1,000 people, yet they seem to get on just fine. What I’m saying is if the participants are all on the same page and have a clear understanding of the “contract” then these things work quite well.

but that just doesn't work in societies made up of millions of people exect within the smallest communities in that society, it would lead to anarchy in the negative sense of the term, and that leads to warlordism and enserfment, just as it did in the Dark Ages.

I’m sure you’re right, and, I’m sure most anarchists would agree with you on exactly that point! That however, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Just because my car can’t double as a tractor and a freight hauling truck doesn’t mean my car is worthless does it? The point being, consensus based, non hierarchical decision making systems can be PART OF THE SOLUTION, and should be employed whenever possible. They reduce bureaucracy, reduce the need for regulation (self-regulating) and are very attuned to market based environments. The argument that you can’t run of nation of 300 million people as an anarchist collective and so therefore it’s not worth considering at all is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Such arguments are based on the premise that bigger is always better; that only one system can exist (“the one best way”). Really though, these consensus based models function quite well at problem solving………as opposed to our current models for such things as utility distribution, zoning, township governance, etc. because they are solution oriented. “one best way” thinking is system oriented with the goal being the preservation of the system, not solving the problems.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Help me out here: what exactly would the Coke Party or the Pepsi Party have been doing if today's restrictive ballot access laws had been around back when they first appeared?

-I guess the question is "How could a 3rd party get ahead nowadays?"

True, AJ & the Democrats came out in 1824 in a different environment.

Between 1854-1860 (late 3T/early 4T), the Republican party was not allowed on the ballot in 8 slave states. Their strategy was to stick to states were they were wanted, and gain slight majorities there. They accepted defeat in the presidential election of 1856, but built up credibility, plus seats in the House and Senate. When Lincoln won in 1860, he already had a congressional plurality to work with.

The Republicans didn't come out of nowhere; they were built on the Free Soil Party (a 3rd party), and the wreckege of the northern wings of the Whig and American (AKA "Know Nothing") parties.

I guess the modern equivalent would be to take a currently active 3rd party (like the Free Soilers), and then attract voters from one of the major parties (Whigs), and at least one other 3rd party (Know Nothings), based on what others might think are trivial wedge issues (slavery in the territories, et al).

Of course, the result in 1860 was the ACW, but better luck next time...

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think of anarchy as a social ideal, which can never be completely achieved in a huge society, but should nonetheless be strived (striven??) for whenever possible.

So..........you're basically saying the same thing: if it can't be achieved in totality, it doesn't count, it's impractical, it's "just an ideal".

Seems to be a collective blind spot brought about by believing that "there is a one best way to live". Simply believing that something must be designed to work at the "completely achieved in a huge society" in order to be useful, effective, good, etc. is the problem!

composite systems are the reality and will be increasingly so as we move into the 4T.

So..........someone takes you to a car lot and shows you a hybrid vehicle that is a great means of commuting from home to work. Your friend says, "isn't this thing great? I get great mileage, it fits our whole family comfortably and it's helping the environment!"

Your answer is. "wow, it's a great idea, but, you'll never fit the whole country in it"

......odd.

That's funny, because I thought Rani said exactly what you did (or whoever that poster was), just with fewer words.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

I’m sure you’re right, and, I’m sure most anarchists would agree with you on exactly that point! That however, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Just because my car can’t double as a tractor and a freight hauling truck doesn’t mean my car is worthless does it? The point being, consensus based, non hierarchical decision making systems can be PART OF THE SOLUTION, and should be employed whenever possible. They reduce bureaucracy, reduce the need for regulation (self-regulating) and are very attuned to market based environments. The argument that you can’t run of nation of 300 million people as an anarchist collective and so therefore it’s not worth considering at all is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Such arguments are based on the premise that bigger is always better; that only one system can exist (“the one best way”). Really though, these consensus based models function quite well at problem solving………as opposed to our current models for such things as utility distribution, zoning, township governance, etc. because they are solution oriented. “one best way” thinking is system oriented with the goal being the preservation of the system, not solving the problems.

I never said anarchist-based solutions can't be used, I was just saying you can't base a large, complex society solely on such solutions.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Jee then I must be well ahead of the game! I could say I know at least twice that many well enough to engage in a consensus based decision process with them. As a matter of fact, there’s a CSA in our area that has close to 500 members and its completely consensus based including every decision from what will be planted to what a share size will be to when and where the pick up sites will be. Also, mutual insurance groups, electrical co-ops, buyers clubs and other such organizations have easily more than 1,000 people, yet they seem to get on just fine. What I’m saying is if the participants are all on the same page and have a clear understanding of the “contract” then these things work quite well.

This is the wrong approach to take, I think, Skabungus. When orthodox statists go off about Dunbar's number and its various implications for human social organization, I just point to phenomena like eBay (with its reputation management tools) or Wikipedia (with its peer-review and open editing) and ask how many of their users know one another personally. Then, when they completely miss my point, I explain that technological prosthesis extends human capabilities beyond their organic limits. That is, in fact, the entire point of technology.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

This is the wrong approach to take, I think, Skabungus. When orthodox statists go off about Dunbar's number and its various implications for human social organization, I just point to phenomena like eBay (with its reputation management tools) or Wikipedia (with its peer-review and open editing) and ask how many of their users know one another personally. Then, when they completely miss my point, I explain that technological prosthesis extends human capabilities beyond their organic limits. That is, in fact, the entire point of technology.

Agreed. The point I was making is that the number is low. Yes, technology makes it entirely possible to exercise nonhierarchial consensus based decision making strategies on problems/at levels never before dreamed of. Recent (past 15 years) tech developments make anarcho-syndicalist approaches much more possible, even preferable to most strategies employed in past eras. I didn't mention it in my post because, well..........I forgot.

The Rani, et al. The point I'm making is anarchist strategies HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH running nations or managing macro issues. They're inherently small and specialized. Small communities, single issues, etc. If numerous groups are linked together at all, it's out of a consensus based agreement on a particular issue not because there is a management strategy for bringing them together and controlling their input~output.

The argument "it will never work on a large scale" should not be an argument against employing it. I think in fact, it's precisely what a lot of anarchists are saying about most all models of governance. THEY DONT WORK ON A LARGE SCALE! Certainly, our LARGE SCALE models serve to support that assertion. Some anarchists would say, start small, stay small deal locally and practically with your issues and leave it at that. Large scale never enters the picture. So, when someone says "it will never work on a large scale", the anarchists usually answer with "duuh!"

So, I guess what I'm saying is. duuh.

What I feel is most important:

~ Non-hierarchical consensus-based decision-making strategies (NHCBDMS) or, anarchist models, are more achievable now than ever before. Technology is available to make them practical and people are psychologically ready for them. People want to be empowered.

~ Problems in nearly all quadrants of public life are proving unmanagable under current systems. Blame can be placed on antiquated systems, bad actors, etc. but that's not important. What's important to see is that mega systems (multi-national corps, Big Government, etc.) are not working to solve the problems, but rather are working to maintain the problems that provide their cash/control.

~ Solutions are important. As we move into the 4T, solutions will need, and have the support of consensus. Anarchist models provide an ease to consensus and action. Not global solutions to Peak Oil (or global Peak Fish), but small practical solutions that help communities, localities or affinity groups deal with Peak Oil. Think of the multitude of current issues that can be handled well locally with the benefit of technology and cooperation. I'll bet we see a lot more groups "opting out" of the larger systems in favor of locally based systems.

~ Connectedness is important. One of the things I've learned with Community Supported Agriculture, buyers clubs and even our YAR canoe shop is this. People may come together to solve a practical problem, but they stay together when they are involved in the process. Participants in these projects routinely say they stay because they feel their involvement is valued, purposeful and enjoyable. "Bottom line" models don't put any emphasis on this, but it counts for a lot. It will count for more in the 4T. People do want to feel they're involved in something larger than themselves: that they're contributing to a big victory......even if it's a big victory over a small issue.

The Rani. You are in an ideal situation to see some of this happen. YAR are the perfect storm, and possibly the perfect building blocks for consensus-based models.

Isn't anarcho-syndicalism an oxymoron? I'm well aware of what it means, but from what I can tell, the "setup" is not anarchistic at all.

syndicalism, shmindicalism.....

Anarchy has been equated (chiefly in our modern culture) with chaos, NO GOVERNMENT, no law, nihilism, etc. so as to place it as far as possible off the menu of choices. The reason for this is simple. It threatens state and corporate power.

Anarchy does not mean no organization. What it means is non-hierarchical consensus-based decision-making. Within that you can (and do) have leaders, bureaus, commitees, working groups, and other organizational bodies. Leadership, structure, etc. are in existance as long as there is a consensus that they should be.....no longer. Consensus is a lot different from full majority or simple majority vote.

If you are drawing your conclusion from an anarcho-syndicalist web site, or from wikipedia, be aware that there is a significant difference between the "party line" and what's applied.

Here are some examples of Anarchy applied.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ntraffic04.xml

Originally Posted by Skabungus

syndicalism, shmindicalism.....

Anarchy has been equated (chiefly in our modern culture) with chaos, NO GOVERNMENT, no law, nihilism, etc. so as to place it as far as possible off the menu of choices. The reason for this is simple. It threatens state and corporate power.

Anarchy does not mean no organization. What it means is non-hierarchical consensus-based decision-making. Within that you can (and do) have leaders, bureaus, commitees, working groups, and other organizational bodies. Leadership, structure, etc. are in existance as long as there is a consensus that they should be.....no longer. Consensus is a lot different from full majority or simple majority vote.

If you are drawing your conclusion from an anarcho-syndicalist web site, or from wikipedia, be aware that there is a significant difference between the "party line" and what's applied.

Here are some examples of Anarchy applied.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ntraffic04.xml

I already understand what you are saying. I don't know much about anarcho-syndicalism, and I'm genuinely curious.

Within anarcho-syndicalism itself, are all actions voluntary?

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Anarchy has been equated (chiefly in our modern culture) with chaos, NO GOVERNMENT, no law, nihilism, etc. so as to place it as far as possible off the menu of choices. The reason for this is simple. It threatens state and corporate power.

Shh! Skabungus, come on, man. Everybody knows that elites don't actually manipulate the culture to reinforce their privilege. That's Marxian nonsense.

Leadership, structure, etc. are in existence as long as there is a consensus that they should be.....no longer.

But doesn't liberal democracy represent the End of History? It's the final human society, after all (no, seriously, the Romans thought the Principate was hot shit, but this is for real)...a fact that ironically makes democracy superfluous, as all the important decisions about how to order human affairs have already been made. The rest is just managerial details, the domain of insulated technocratic bureaucracies.

Consensus is a lot different from full majority or simple majority vote.

People should be made to agree. Otherwise, they might feel tyrannized by the other 51%.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Within anarcho-syndicalism itself, are all actions voluntary?

Eh, I guess you could say that. I end up an anarcho-syndicalist whenever I take a poll or test or some instrument designed to peg my political/philosophical stance, but, I've never been a card carrying member of any political party anarcho or otherwise. My right-wing friends call me a pinko, my left-wing friends call me a libertarian, go figure.

With most strains of anarchist thinking the are in general, the "laws" which include:

~ the right to free association,
~ consensus-based decision making (contracts)
~ mutual aid or sometimes called mutual improvement
~ enforcement,/non-coercive/coercive.

As you can imagine there are a plentitude of views on all of these issues among anarchist intellectuals. Much "coffeehouse debate" that I find largely uninteresting. I tend to be more interested in the actual application of the principles just to see what comes about.

Sometime I'll write up a ditty on "the Artifactory" which was a collective/cooperative I put together with some fellow artists. Its a good study on what works, and what doesn't.

What would you have if you developed an organization with the following organizing principles?

~ Participation in the organization must be open to all relevant and affected parties.

~ Power and function must be distributive to the maximum degree.

~ Decisions must be made by bodies and methods representing all parties, yet dominated by none.

~ It must seamlessly, harmoniously blend both cooperation and competition.

~ It must be durable in purpose and principle while infinitely malleable in form and function.

~ It must release the human spirit and human ingenuity.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

What would you have if you developed an organization with the following organizing principles?

~ Participation in the organization must be open to all relevant and affected parties.

~ Power and function must be distributive to the maximum degree.

~ Decisions must be made by bodies and methods representing all parties, yet dominated by none.

~ It must seamlessly, harmoniously blend both cooperation and competition.

~ It must be durable in purpose and principle while infinitely malleable in form and function.

~ It must release the human spirit and human ingenuity.

A market. Specifically, the free variety. Which is not the same as capitalism.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

A market. Specifically, the free variety. Which is not the same as capitalism.

In fact, arguably an environment to which capitalism is strongly opposed.

....as in (existing) capitalism being a misnomer or contradiction?

Or am I way off here?

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

A market. Specifically, the free variety. Which is not the same as capitalism.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

In fact, arguably an environment to which capitalism is strongly opposed.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

....as in (existing) capitalism being a misnomer or contradiction?

Or am I way off here?

How many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb?




None, the free market causes the lightbulb to change itself when demand for a changed lightbulb gets high enough. :

Originally Posted by Skabungus

syndicalism, shmindicalism.....

Anarchy has been equated (chiefly in our modern culture) with chaos, NO GOVERNMENT, no law, nihilism, etc. so as to place it as far as possible off the menu of choices. The reason for this is simple. It threatens state and corporate power.

Anarchy does not mean no organization. What it means is non-hierarchical consensus-based decision-making. Within that you can (and do) have leaders, bureaus, commitees, working groups, and other organizational bodies. Leadership, structure, etc. are in existance as long as there is a consensus that they should be.....no longer. Consensus is a lot different from full majority or simple majority vote.

If you are drawing your conclusion from an anarcho-syndicalist web site, or from wikipedia, be aware that there is a significant difference between the "party line" and what's applied.

Here are some examples of Anarchy applied.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ntraffic04.xml

State power and corporate power and, for that matter the powers-that-be are always to be preferred to the power of the uneducated unwashed rabble, who can easily be persuaded by a demagogue to do evil things or may just not give a damn about running the whatever-civic-structure- have-you. The elite generally know what they are doing and they have experience at running things. This is best done in a monarchy that has a privileged aristocracy and nobility. The hereditary classes are raised for the job from birth. This means that when they get the job, they will know the limitations and the duties and responsibilities and rights and privileges that accrue to the office. This is a significant advantage over elected officials who may have no clue what job it is they're running for, but would love to have power. Look at Bush for the pitfalls of elected officials.