RE: Why Protesting Usually Doesn't Work, and What Does
I think I see your point more clearly now, thanks for the response!
I think that even if you have a purely economic movement, which I completely agree is possible, leaders (individuals and institutions) naturally emerge from a decentralised situation. Human nature and socialisation that has developed over the course of our history, I feel, will naturally determine that those with the greatest skill/knowledge/will to power will either be selected as leaders or take leadership for themselves. You gave the example of the end of feudalism, but after feudalism came capitalism!
I think as long as there are human societies, people will naturally form hierarchies or systems of governance where leadership emerges. Even if it is not in the form of a nation-state with a fully functioning government, other tyrannical, extreme, or oppressive forms of localised governance may emerge. In the case of decentralised currencies, there are still sharks and minnows! As more people with little knowledge of the system (like myself!) start to join the revolution, we will naturally look to certain people to guide us, and those people will definitely emerge as the top players if they see an opportunity for an increase in status. Personally I can't think of an example where this hasn't been the case, but I could be wrong as the future hasn't played itself out yet!
I don't think we can talk of economic movements while removing human agency. I think certain market players may introduce changes like cryptocurrencies to reduce chances of unfair play and to make the economy more egalitarian, but I think that human nature will always find a way to capitalise. (or something like that????)
You have some great points of view, you don't get to have this kind of discussion every day! x
Yep, and as a capitalist, I think that's awesome!
I agree with you, but I think it is possible to eliminate coercive hierarchies in favor of voluntary hierarchies. Economic hierarchies tend to be voluntary--meaning that certain actors or providers will rise to the top of a market because people voluntarily pay them for their products/services. In non-coercive systems, leaders emerge because they have some knowledge, skill set, or personality attributes that inspire admiration/cooperation, OR, people voluntarily accept their authority because they're getting something in return, like a paycheck. Conversely, state hierarchies are always coercive by design, and can be no other way. People subjected to state hierarchies are not free to negotiate the terms of their relationship with the state, and are not free to leave without basically buying their freedom, and even then they have to submit to the coercive authority of another state in order to live in the world.
But this, again, is a voluntary situation for all involved.
Yes! And it's wonderful. All the word "capitalize" means is to grow and improve what one already has, in order to improve one's life. State coercion is designed to stifle individuals' efforts to capitalize on the resources and opportunities of life, while decentralized systems tend to increase opportunity and enable the kind of innovation that leads to greater levels of economic equality--without any force required.
Appreciate the discussion!