RE: Why Protesting Usually Doesn't Work, and What Does
A very thoughtful piece. I agree with you that the majority of the time protests don't work - as a history PhD student I can think of countless examples of failed protests to throw against the relatively few successes!
Building the alternative doesn't always work either, but I agree that it's a much more effective way to bring change faster, rather than trying to force the existing system to adopt and accommodate you. In countries where successful revolutions have taken place, they are almost always because an alternative that benefited the oppressed many was posited, rather than because a few people at the margins staged a few protests. I often think about this with the situation in the UK - instead of expecting existing parties to change their fundamental core structure or message, why not organise an alternative, protest party, instead of just sporadically protesting?
You still need a strong leader though, and I think this is almost more pivotal than whether you're staging a protest or reorganising society. If you have no strong leadership at the centre, you're doomed to fail in any case.
Thanks for a nice long morning read! x
In the political process, you do. But in the economic process, it is possible to have a decentralized movement that is not led by a single individual or organization. I think that all social and political problems can be solved economically, when markets produce solutions that succeed through mass appeal to replace the old, bad systems of control. Often, it happens behind the scenes so that subsequent academic analyses of events can easily miss the economic impetus of positive social change.
For instance:
There are lots of other examples in history, and nearly all of them are accompanied by protests and demonstrations. My argument is that the revolutions with an economic component generally effect greater change than the purely social ones.
Thanks for the comment, @edij!
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!
(also btw I keep trying to upvote the main post but it's not letting me?? I'll try again but I've upvoted your comment for now!)
It's probably a bandwidth issue...a (I think) stupid new initiative to try and keep down bot activity on Steemit. It's unfairly affecting ppl with low SP.
OK, I think I saw someone else complaining about bandwidth issues yesterday too! As always, I'll have to do more searching/reading to understand what's going on lol
@edij as someone who is mainly in agreement with @lesliestarrohara , I see this sentence gets obfuscated quite often by people who don't see things the way we see them.
The easiest way to see the difference in my opinion is looking at how a football quarterback has to be a leader for his teammates to trust him. If he falters, the team won't have his back, so it's imperative he is a good actor.
With coercive hierarchies there is no incentive to do good. Your team can't quit regardless how shitty the QB is. You have no say in the matter.
It essentially boils down to...Do I have the option of saying, NO?
If not, then it's coercive. If so, it's voluntary.
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't really confused about the meaning of the different types of hierarchies, I just don't agree that that's how they work. Appreciate the comment though!
Hey @edij... I got to thinking about all these topics and decided they deserved their own post, so I wrote one, and shouted you out for asking the question that inspired me. Thanks!
Statism is the New Feudalism
Amazing thanks so much! I will check it out shortly