RE: What would you do if you feel that someone treated you unfairly on steemit? How to protest and reinstate your dignity
LOL, elect one authoritarian to replace another, same as the mindset of the mainstream populace when they go to the voting booth. It's like doing the same thing and expecting a different result; it just ain't gonna happen.
Every digital currency project starts off centralized, and that's probably a good thing so it can get off the ground. At what point does the community have enough understanding to take control? How well have the creators explained their vision to accommodate such a transfer?
Been studying a new alternative approach to hierarchical management structures called Octologues and Holomats by Bob Podolsky which I think has strong merit. He was recently interviewed for the 2nd time on Anarchast. The idea seems to be gaining momentum in the anarchy community down in Acapulco. Read more about this on Bob's website, or listen to Berwick's interviews here (excerpt), here or here.
Interesting, I read a bit of Bob's website. Though he seems to dispute the existence of "God" (though it's really a semantic dance), his idea of "ethics" is not far off the biblical definition of love as seen in the new testament, most famously espoused in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (I just picked a random site for this). That and the scared geometry on the home page lead me to suspect Bob is very well versed in religious and spiritual philosophy, and his idea of HoloMats seems to be a collection of some of the best of that, but geared towards the individualistic society of today (he's against collectivism, not sure how anarchists are with him on that one). I also find the idea of quantifying creativity, using equations, etc. to be in the tradition of numerology and sacred / cult mathematics. Some of it a good tradition, but strange none the less. In sum, I'd be concerned with the angle of it.
In any case thanks for posting about it, it would be cool to see a whole article about your thoughts on it. Followed in case you do 😁
Not sure? isn't it obvious? Anarchism is the opposite of collectivism, so it would be unusual if anarchists weren't OK with him in general.
However you pose a perfect example of the very type of question Bob defines as ill conceived. The terms anarchists and collectivists are both collective groupings and it isn't fair to assume all members of either group will view Bob's material the same way, good bad or indifferent. So the answer to the question How are anarchists with Bob's view of collectivism? is just like a true or false answer to Is there a God? in the link you provided.
Fair enough 😅 by that definition it is ill conceived, as are most questions I would hazard. A bit of a straw man, as I did not ask that question or any other, I stated my confusion as to how anarchists would agree to the statement:
But I have to admit your main objection is correct, there is collectivist anarchism and individualist anarchism, I was wrong to assume collectivism was intrinsically included in anarchism.
I'd have to take issue though with your assertion that "anarchism is the opposite of collectivism", it just isn't true. And I think it would be fair to say that early anarchism was in fact collectivist anarchism, so you can understand my confusion there. From what I read while researching my answer here, I see now that I was thinking along the lines of a classic critique of individualist anarchism:
But "individualism" with respect to anarchism seems to be in conflict with common sense definitions, and I found this article in the Anarchist Library useful to understand that.
Otherwise, I would be interested to see a more details response instead of just picking your favourite easy target side note however 😌
Correct, you didn't ask a question so indeed it was a strawman. As to whether "most questions are ill conceived", that is your subjective judgment and I tend to agree with it. Those who don't understand the difference between subjective and objective might take issue with it however.
To clarify, I didn't say "collective anarchism" exists. In thinking it over, I can see such a concept is not ipsofacto invalid, though it's an imprecise phrase that strikes me as misleading. It is similar in meaning to the phrase, "a group of anarchists", which says nothing about the group's governance per se.
It does however imply a commonality of purpose or commonality of the individuals that comprise the group (they all are anarchists). Commonality is in contradiction to individualism and that's where the ambiguity arises. The definition of anarchism is "without ruleRS". Being a member of a group carries the implication they are being "ruled by the group", or at least conforming to the "rules" that define the group. It's contradictory when you break the phrase down into its constituent elements. How do you distinguish the 2 forms mentioned? How do you define "collective anarchism"?
I was making that statement based on the aspect of anarchy that promotes individual freedom of choice. In my mind "collectivist anarchism" is a bit of an oxymoron. Perhaps I was hasty and the assertion fails under specific conditions, which you didn't provide. However, your claim that "it just isn't true" is not an argument. I would be interested in seeing one if you can provide it.
Since comments can only be nested 6 deep I'll post my reply to your comment below as an edit to the above.
I never said it was "without rules", that is the common misconception. Perhaps your bias is showing on that point. Go back & reread my reply and you'll see I said the definition was "without ruleRS". Your definition adds hierarchy, which is perhaps implied but absent from the definitions I've seen.
My lengthy explanation included the rationale of why it strikes me as misleading and contradictory, aspects you didn't address, however you did add some new info. I have not studied the reference you supplied so I will not comment on whether I find it credible or persuasive. I do find your distinction between "collectivist" and collective" a very minor point and essentially irrelevant. Perhaps you could explain why it is substantive. Collective is the root word and is equivalent to "a group". My understanding of the suffix "ism" means "in the manor of a group" and "ist" is similar which means "of a group". Those understandings may not be precisely correct, but they work as adequate approximations if not.
Anyway, thanks for the replies. I'm off to join friends to celebrate and I wish you a very good evening and a enlightening new year!
You've misinterpreted most of what I said I'm afraid, and that hinges on you reading "collectivist anarchism" with "collective anarchism". In not one place did I use the word "collective". When you were actually talking on topic to respond to me, you say you think "collectivist anarchism" is a bit of an oxymoron.
I don't need to make a detailed argument for why anarchism is not the opposite of collectivism, it's well known that collectivist anarchism at the very least exists and has existed for nearly 200 years. Mikhail Bakunin an early and influential anarchist, founded "collectivist anarchism" in anarchist thought. Though you may disagree with it as an anarchist school of thought, you can't rewrite history. Anarchism thus cannot be the opposite of collectivism, as we have a long history of a real world synergy between the two ideas.
As a side note, anarchism is not "without rules", it is without hierarchical power structures. You may be thinking of "without rulers", which is more like it. Being a member of a group in no ways implies being ruled by the group. I think you have a very basic misunderstanding of what anarchists are actually like and the traditional of anarchist thought. I'd recommend some reading.
It's a pity we can only comment with this many threads, but perhaps it's to keep exchanges like this on the shorter side!
Sorry for misreading ruleRS, I found the way you wrote that confusing. So yes, without rulers, but most definitions would frame this in terms of hierarchy, so I'm not sure what bias I may be showing here.
I feel that I did address your points, but to clarify, it's absurd to be so suspicious of being in a group. From my perspective anarchism is not against grouping, but rather in fixed, top down power relationship, i.e. a hierarchy. A ruler cannot existed without the ruled, so whether or not you choose to term it that, the idea of hierarchy is applicable here. Anarchists group together all the time to get things done.
It's not really a minor distinction between "collectivist" and "collective", because they have different meaning. "ism"s are invariably more than their literal "in the manor of a group" meaning. Anarcho-collectivism, aka collective anarchism, has a very specific meaning, there's no point in going over it any further, it is well documented and I'll leave it at that.
In sum, I think you might have gotten the wrong end of the stick with it, but I think this shows your bias, as probably an ancap (anarcho-capitalist) and not interested in class struggle, etc. That's a pretty big can of worms though!
Enjoy the new year festivities! I hope you took our debate here in the spirit of friendly challenge I meant it as. ✌️