Does Steemit Support Oligarchy More Than Anarchism? Does Real Anarchy Lead to World Peace? How WIll Steemit Evolve?
The idea of true anarchy is an attractive one to many - despite the propaganda that claims that anarchy is simply a chaotic and dangerous situation, the reality is that it simply means 'no rulers'. Having no rulers is a REQUIREMENT for balance and thus also world peace, since being remotely controlled by others is inherently disturbing to internal peace! Steemit/Steem's ideological roots in anarcho-capitalism automatically wins points with many of us, but can it be evolved to be more supportive of anarchy than it is already?
Anarchy leads to world peace? What about the smashed shop windows and burning car tires?
Firstly, I am not 'an anarchist' - for several reasons, not least because I know that I am a co-creator of reality and I must remain as open as possible in my definitions of myself to be truly free. I engineer software, but I am not defined BY that and I do not internally define myself as a software engineer. This is more than just semantics since by our definitions we are either opening or closing both our minds and our destiny.
I am clear that anarchist values are good ones, for a very simple reason which is based on an equation and understanding:
Balance = No part or aspect is overpowering any other.
This simplicity is key and is evidenced all around us, yet is not commonly appreciated by humans currently.
Balance produces peaceful interactions that feel good and that create optimal outcomes for all involved. Therefore, balance is essential for our survival and enjoyment of life. The idea of 'Rulers' controlling the actions of others is inherently out of balance.
The biggest challenge we face in creating true and deep balance is that our minds have commonly disconnected from our feelings and so both are now out of balance and they cannot come into balance until we heal internally. This is a reality that is far from imbalanced people's minds, since the emotions that would guide them to this realisation are being denied habitually. The result has been that many hold thoughts that are psychopathic and lacking in an emotional wisdom and compassion - plus many also hold emotions that are out of balance, since they lack the guidance from balanced thought. Therefore, we see many who yearn for freedom but are unaware of how to cause it in their lives and thus their unbalanced emotions and thoughts 'act out' in a variety of forms - including physical acts of destruction and through to less obvious and subtle acts which take many forms.
In a world that is almost totally controlled financially by those who are without a deeply felt loving intention, it is not surprising that any option for breaking free from that control will be taken and one obvious option is to release some anger by smashing some shop windows. Shops are the front line of the capitalist system that seeks to always empower the minority of alleged 'winners', with no inherent care for (or even respect for) anyone else - they don't fight back, so they are easy targets.
Is Anarcho-capitalism an Oxymoron?
An oxymoron is created where the existence of a thing is self contradictory and reveals a paradox. In other words, the 'thing' or idea contains elements which contradict each other and which when we look into it more deeply, we learn powerful truths.
Why do I suggest that maybe Anarchism and Capitalism are contradictory and not complimentary?
Well, capitalism is a way of living which involves private ownership of resources on Earth and also the use of those resources to for personal 'profit'. Inherent in that, therefore, is the potential for empire building, control and the building up of power. Each individual has an inherent amount of power and there is no natural division of power among people that involves resources, therefore capitalist division of resources is unnatural, which is to say it requires a created structure to support it. Currently, that structure is government, facilitated by money - though that could change. People appear to have more power than others mostly only because the others have given their power to them - either knowingly or unconsciously.
Automatically then, capitalism introduces imbalances of several forms, not least that resources are not distributed evenly under a capitalist ideology and, in fact, their distribution is primarily based on the ability of the individuals involved to adapt or exploit the system that manages the entire situation - aka government. Fundamentally, this form of capitalism is flawed in the sense that it is imbalanced and thus can never result in world peace.
"It is not that world peace is impossible, but that capitalism is pervasive and capitalism prevents world peace."
So does Anarchy introduce a balance point that can fix capitalism?
Many claim that anarcho-capitalism is the only fair way to live - but let's not forget that those who support other ideologies also claim the same thing! Just like world religions who claim to be 'the correct religion', the various ideologies cannot all be correct!
The removal of rulers (aka anarchism) does increase balance in a social system, I have no doubt of that - since conflicts can be resolved by the individuals involved and that empowers the individuals to learn and be motivated to continue to learn, rather than always delegating their own destiny to a hierarchy of 'elected individuals'.
"What value does an elected individual have if those who elected them don't have the lived experience needed to make wise decisions, since they themselves don't even make the decisions in their own lives?"
However, there is no way around the problem of the capitalism involved in anarcho-capitalism. Even without rulers, the inherent idea that some will have more than others due to ... * insert justification here * - will always result in imbalance and an undercurrent feeling of dis-satisfaction from those who have less.
How does this play out in Steemit's Architecture?
Steemit is excellent in many ways and genius in many ways too. Besides it's delivery of an evolution to online interactions, it also helps us to explore the dynamics of economic systems in direct and practical ways. One such exploration that is obvious and useful is that of 'how do I get more followers and higher payouts?'. It becomes obvious that since Steemit allows those with higher resources to, in turn, boost ideas and content within the system - it is also true that those with the most resources will be able to promote ideas that keeps them in a position of having the most resources and they can even (via downvoting) suppress the ideas that might result in them losing resources - even when those ideas might also result in us collectively moving towards balance and even world peace!
Those with more money outside of Steemit are inherently helped by the rules of the system to gain more money, followers and resources - so there is not much of an inherent balancing mechanism within the system as a whole, but there is to SOME extent! It IS possible for the diligent among us to gain Steem Power and thus resources just through our own excellence and dedication/creativity.
So we have a kind of ideological standoff - where freedom loving anarchists face off with power seeking capitalists and they seek to come to internal and external agreement about how to play nicely. And here's the kicker...
Real anarchism seeks balance and real capitalism really seeks oligarchy.
Oligarchy is essentially 'rule by a small group' - so where democracy is allegedly 'rule by the majority' and commonly involves voting using equally weighted votes, oligarchy is the result of a pooling of power in the hands of the few - pretty much as occurs in Steemit due to the vote weighting mechanisms.
Anyone who is truly invested in capitalism can get caught up in the fear and neurotic thinking that turns 'business men' into psychopathic money obsessives who even after amassing billions will continue to only focus on getting ever more money. Money is only really a symbolic reflection of 'power' and so in truth, a capitalist is a power hunter and the ultimate extension of such hunting is to the the apex predator of the money/power world - an oligarch.
I am not aware of any mechanisms within Steemit that prevent total oligarchic domination, since if individuals have trillions of dollars, they can literally by up the top spots on all the hot lists and trending lists - thus also receive the majority of the payout pool, resulting in everyone else being left only with the crumbs from the system.
Or am I mistaken? I don't claim to know all the fine points of the algorithms involved in Steem - is there a design feature that prevents oligarchic domination?
The future of Steemit
In my recent SWOT analysis of Steemit I started looking at the future of the platform from the perspective of potential threats and opportunities and this is very much connected to the dynamics discussed in today's post here.
Our technology is only ever a reflection of our internal reality and so it follows that our websites will evolve along with us and so we need to make the decisions that shape our outer realities. In that sense, all of this comes down to one thing only - WHAT DO YOU WANT IN LIFE?
I recently watched the original creator of Steemit (@dan) - give his presentation about the new blockchain technology he is developing called Eos. Eos actually includes the mechanisms for dispute resolution that I previously highlighted as being missing in my post about downvote censorship - so it seems that he has thought carefully about the issues I have been raising here. Maybe Eos will be the platform that really takes off and changes the world - let's see!
Got Comments? Leave Them In The Comments Section Below
Do you have any inspired comments on this age old debate? I'd love to hear them - thanks!
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Steemit T-shirts, Hoodies and Many Other Steemit Inspired Products are On Sale Now
Buy your "Steemit, Dreamit, Memeit, Teamit" T-Shirts, Gifts & Other Clothing Here.
I really appreciate the distinction you made concerning the differences between anarchism and capitalism. I especially like your point about how capitalism leads to oligarchy.
But what I think really clicked for me is your explanation of the conflict between anarchism and capitalism. This is an important distinction for people who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" to consider. Life is not about the accumulation of things, that's what capitalism is about. Life is about relating to other people.
Anarchism is to me, another way for us to get along with each other. The difference to me, on a personal level is like this:
Capitalism allows me to accumulate power to delegate tasks and authority to other people. I can dictate the terms of my relations with others based on the amount of money I have.
Anarchism says, I'm just a facilitator. I use my resources to keep the peace and seek collaboration and cooperation. I am not in the business of accumulating possessions. I am in the business of relating to other people and maintaining those relations voluntarily.
Upvoted and resteemed.
Thanks for your post.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have followed you here! :)
I think staunch anarcho-capitalists will say that it's up to the individual to determine their destiny and if they don't like the terms of an agreement they shouldn't make the agreement. That is true up to a point, but when the 'wealthier' individuals involved can literally 'own' nearly everything and even hire paid thugs and mercenaries to enforce their 'wealth' on others - which they can do with or without government - the situation becomes one of de facto enslavement and where people have little choice left but to agree to less than they need just to survive. It is true that violence might be used with or without money, but the money acts as a kind of 'grease' that is used to compromise people's thought processes to some extent. If the underlying principle is one of co-creative collaboration instead of competition, then most issues end.
As a person who is pretty much one of the "anarcho-capitalists" I'd say capitalism is what improves the condition of a society (anarchy or no anarchy) through the process of consuming less than what is produced and saving the difference.
Anarchy will not bring us space travel but capitalism will. Governments will get in the way of free market capitalism but anarchy won't. Anarchy and Capitalism together is simply the holiest of all marriages bringing out the best in each other.
As an engineer and artist I can say 100% that it is not capitalism that improves conditions in society, it is desire for improvement that underlies the improvement. From correct intentions comes improvement. In fact, I can say from experience that capitalism holds up serious barriers for creativity on this planet - so it can be frustrating to hear people claiming that capitalism 'solves muh problems'. Many of the problems on Earth exist as a direct result of the consciousness that also creates capitalist ideas and philosophic agendas. When people say that 'capitalism made poor people rich' (paraphrasing), they often neglect to point out that the reason why the poor people were poor was because of capitalist actions in history which left them disempowered.
I will also point out that just because someone is against the premise of capitalism, does not mean they are communist - there are more than 2 options available within infinity.
Anarchy is ONLY the absence of rulers - so you are saying that in your reality, it is not possible to travel in space without an artificial hierarchy in place. I think you are saying that mostly because you have never experienced creativity occurring in a different dynamic.
Thanks, I've been trying to figure this out for over 60 years now. Apparently a lot of people disagree with this statement, but they will give as little support to their opinion as you do. Apparently, there's a LOT of people in the world who firmly believe life's about killing anyone who disagrees with what they say and/or do. I can't find anything in any coherent presentation of anarchy that addresses this effectively, without simply adding to the carnage.
I don't know if I'm an anarchist yet, but I think I lean that way. I have a prime directive that I follow: err on the side of peace, always. As I learn more about anarchists, I get that sense about them.
As to the support for my statement, I can point to numerous sources, but probably the best resource, particularly in the context of human relations is, "Raising Human Beings", by Dr. Ross W. Greene. I would also like to point out that isolation is one of the most painful of human conditions, hence the use of solitary confinement in prisons. And then there is the Castaway with a volleyball named Wilson.
So, yeah, my original statement may have lacked context and support. Thanks for pointing that out. :)
I was being a little snarky in my comment, but truth be told, many of my generation were wont to mix Marxist and anarchic philosophies (hypocritically, I came to think and continue to think) at their convenience as some polymorphous justification for contrarian violence and self-gratification of various forms- and I was part of that for some time before I forced a change in my own thinking.
A strange twist is that many of us later made a bizarre self-motivated transition to dabbling in libertarian projects of various forms- and few registered on the cognitive dissonance as anything but perfectly reasonable. Chronic use of lots of drugs and alcohol can do that to you, if they don't simply stupefy you to complete inactivity.
Some of require terribly intense programming to learn (and unlearn) what is important: I LOVE your prime directive, I'm not going to be foolish enough to assume universal acceptance of such an excellent higher principle is remotely likely in this world, but would pray for it.
I'm an optimist. I follow that prime directive not because that is how the world is. I follow it because that is how I want the world to be. :)
Spot on, hard to have capitalism and anarchism on the same place at same time. I feel the same too on the issue of down voting as often a times those downvoted just have a different, albeit radical to the view of the downvoter. Thanks for sharing :)
I have been a member of the 'compassionate anarchy' group on facebook for a while and seen the endless 'debate' between 'anarcho capitalists' and 'anarcho communists' - whereby they just bounce off of each other all day long. The whole thing is ended by pointing out that they are both poles of the same enslavement system - but even after having gone into great depth with some of them to explain why the exclusion of Earth's resources from economic models, for example, is a problem - the most that usually occurs is either an insult or silence. :/
anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. Communism is coercive by nature and based on force and violation of the Non Aggression Principle. It takes a retard to be an anarcho-communist.
Whenever someone enters into the insult mode in a discussion or debate, just know the person is out of facts to rationally push his or her point across.
Yes, I am aware of that - amusingly, yesterday I was informed that I was essentially underqualified to know the truth of nutritional health by someone who claimed to hold a biology degree. When I highlighted that post under which he was commenting contained testimony from the world's best known, leading nutritional doctors and researchers - he simply insulted me for disrespecting his degree. lol.
Here is something for you to read: https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis
https://mises.org/library/marxism-unmasked-delusion-destruction
Enjoy your facts!
Did you read my previous post where I stated that there exists a common misconception that there is only a choice between 'capitalism' and socialism?
To RE-quote the beginning of my above quote: There are basically only two ways in which economic life can be organized. The first is by the voluntary choice of families and individuals and by voluntary cooperation. This arrangement has come to be known as the free market. The other is by the orders of a dictator. This is a command economy. In its more extreme form, when an organized state expropriates the means of production, it is called socialism or communism. Economic life must be primarily organized by one system or the other.
It can, of course, be a mixture, as it unfortunately is in most nations today. But the mixture tends to be unstable. If it is a mixture of a free and a coerced economy the coerced section tends constantly to increase.
Capitalism and Socialism are polar opposites. One is based on the Non Aggression Principal and the other based on pure violation of it. Pure socialism self destructs and when mixed with capitalism you get most of the things (If not all) that's wrong with current state of global economy.
There is a thing as coma (or zombie if you like that) between life and death; it's not a positive thing.
You should read Ludwig Von Misess. It'll save me lots of explaining. You'll learn lots of valuable things. Most importantly you'll know the works greatest economist ever. Anyone who significantly deviates from Misess is simply an idiot. There is no putting it gently.
I am already familiar with the Austrian School of economics and already debated the basics of this to some extent with one of the leading Professors of Economics in Germany. He, like you, assumed I didn't have anything to possibly add to the situation - when in truth, I do.
Thanks @ura-soul I just upvoted this post as I found it to be a very good read and although I don't have the answer it did provoke thought and that is important. The figure jumped from $3.62 to $16.27 ??? I know it's a good post but my upvotes are worth $0.10 at most. I think it must have been a refresh, but it seemed impressive!
Perhaps
When we co-create reality using advanced techniques; I.Q.C (Intentional Quantum Collapse) of events; - a phrase I coined to describe the conscious application of positive visualising intent) which is particularly effective when consciousness is aimed at subtly altering random outcome variables in electronic systems, we can literally change the world. We're (all) doing it all day long anyway so if steemit is to evolve, the desires of the minnows will eventually be felt in the system.
@ura-soul is actually from Alpha-Centauri
hehe - the payout jumped because I used the @booster service and got a high percentage from the vote in that round. ;)
Yes, I am aware of the non-physical origins of the manifestation of physical reality via intentions, desires and will. ;)
It all starts in the heart, which is part of why I named my own social network, the Earth Heart Community :)
Alpha-Centauri - well, yes and no ;)
according to bleeding edge research about half of the atoms that we (everything) is made of on planet Earth came from other galaxies.. which means * A Long time ago in a Galaxy far far away* I am part hoth beast and you're from a lot further away than our nearest stars.. I mean 1 million light years away.. Which I reckon must imply that our atoms have been involved in numerous advanced civilisations. If there is such a thing as sub atomic memory then we're playing out a recycling of consciousness, ideas, technology from super advanced aliens who got wiped out by a supernova ! or something like that..
it was your co-creating reality statement that hooked me in. You're either a sleepwalker or a skywalker ! and you're definitely wide awake :)
hehe. well, my mayan dreamspell signature is 'red lunar skywalker' ;)
Yes, actually, ALL IS ONE. So we are both literally and holographically 'everything'. At least, that's what I understand and have also experienced many things which show me that that is true in a practically useful way too.
When i used the word 'holographic' it was not meant to imply 'simulation' or 'fake'. A holographic reality is simply one where the essence of the totality can be found everywhere within the reality. Another way to describe this is to say that 'god is in everything alive'.
And then some...
That sounds like a fractal to me, too. Everything is self-similar and connected. But I would expand on that to say that God is everything, and everything is conscious.
One day, not too long ago, I read that mathematicians figured out that if man has free will, he got it from matter. Since then, I have started to consider the idea that the Universe is an organism, not a thing.
Yes, I agree. Matter = Mother. ;)
well in that case you should read my dead post on "is reality a simulation".. to cut a very long story short, it was in response to Tony Stark (ElonM) recent remarks that it must be.. My own rebuke was that his world may indeed be a holographic projection of it's own massive ego, but this world is real and it's all we've got. It seems very irresponsible / dangerous to assume it's all running on a big graphics card in another dimension, considering the current plight of the world it's animals, plants and ... people
@outerground, I think that IQC is a very fancy term for "collaboration". :)
@digitalfirehouse IQC is my own personal conjecture (a term) based on years of study and investigation. It specifically refers to a very particular visualising intent or focusing of consciousnness to subtly alter the outcome of quantum events, in particular through practice with electronic systems . The co-creation of reality or "collaborative" consciousness is the bigger picture of how these individual thoughts and intent my everyone produces the reality which we live in. we can talk more about this if you like. I'm open to ideas & discussion.
Makes me wonder if you have heard about ong.social and what you think about it? Thanks for the cool article!
Is ong about anarchy?
You are welcome. What in particular about the article draws your mind to the site you linked?
Ong is an improved version of articles.hey will implement algorithm that will vrerify the validity of articles . People will get payed for honest legit content. It will also be censor free like Steemit.
Anarchy means "no rule", as in no law, as much as it means "no rulers".
For the sake of proper understanding (yours, and anyone you attempt to communicate with) you need to state that at the outset of your argument and then qualify your terms more explicitly (which anarcho-capitalism does.)
Yes the poster should have clarified what he meant by Anarchy. Anarchy is said to mean lack of rulers. "An" meaning "none" and "archy" meaning "rulers". But the common meaning to the common individual is lack of rules. Capitalism has "thou shalt not steal" and money makes the rules. I am convinced you can have rules without governments but you can't have peace without rules.
Anarchy is a logically negative term whether you take one definition or the other. It seems to be on purely abstract concept that falls away as soon as some power is strong enough to impose its own rule on others. You can have anarchy if no power does this, but by what mechanism can we keep some power from doing this? In terms of international affairs for now there is some degree of anarchy but many powers are unbalanced.
greetings. this is why my own definition of anarchy (that can work) is "the agreement to live peacefully without rulers". therefore, this requires a degree of personal, voluntary alignment (which could be said to include some rules), such that enlightened, personal responsibility results in the needed balance. This is the only way to anything approaching a utopia.
I need to make it obvious I DON'T espouse, but completely reject, anarcho-capitalism. I agree with you completely that unbridled free-market capitalism is simply a carte-blanche for those already possessing the money.
The word 'anarchy' literally means "without leader":
I also used to say that anarchy meant without rules too, but after being in an active anarchy group and seeing all manner of discussions on it, I conclude that it actually does most precisely mean 'no rulers'. If I make a rule for myself about how I will live, such as - for example - "I won't go to bed later than 11pm" - I am not violating the principle of anarchy.
Since we could hypothetically operate a society without leaders, yet still have binding laws (I know, ridiculous prima facia, but hypothetically) I could not call that anarchy, but apparently you could. Is this correct?
In other words, my understanding of anarchy would reject any formal social contract.
Thus my objections, because any internal rules are purely internal; we're thus relieved from even agreeing on a common language (to take it to the extreme).
rules can exist by agreement in anarchy, they are though voluntary as opposed to mandatory. they can also end in any moment since they are not enforced by an external ruler. this exposes the reality of 'laws' because 'laws', in truth, are that which CANNOT be broken - so therefore the 'laws' that humans currently try to enforce are only 'rules' that have been artificially upgraded to be 'laws'.
'rule' is a word that relates to 'measure' and as such a 'rule' is just that, a guide.. and not a punishable 'crime' when exceeded. it's good to have a guide when driving on a road, otherwise you can find you are travelling at 150mph into a winding village and die!
Precisely my thoughts! Friggin' uncanny......Although, as a cause, I've dwindled it down to about 4-6 cosmologies that are still somewhat viable in 2017, at least in my mind....
Ya know, those naughty Gnostic Archons.....
Greetings - maybe I've lost the thread here, but what is the effect that you are pointing at possible causes for here?
Hi, I understood the thread to be talking about archons/rulers; that power structures in existence today created oligopolies. I call the actors involved oligarchic casino owners who have established a trans-national corporate plutocracy. Now, if we analyze this from a modern point of view consciousness assuming a materialist ontology then we'll conclude these actors to be sociopaths and what not.
I'm suggesting it's not the only way to view this phenomenon, but we have to be willing to consider various idealist positions. One of those is that Archons are not human in the materialist sense and are timeless beings who 'own' these dimensions. Perhaps The Merovingian in The Matrix movie is an example of such a being although if what I'm suggesting is possible then they look and act all too human.
Implicit within this line of thought is the idea of an Architect or Demiurge......
Ultimately we are all eternal beings - spirits. So there is no need to artificially separate us into 'bad immortals' and 'good mortals'. There is basically just heartlessness and heart - with the empire builders being primarily the former.
That's fine with me if you want to believe that but it's completely religious in its assertion. I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment but modernity and rationality would come to a different conclusion: that we are meaningless atoms-- from there we get The Social Darwinism that you discussed in the article.
Because spirit is untestable we have to conclude that we don't know what it is if it exists at all. The Archons I speak of are not bad immortals. They are what they are and morality doesn't enter the equation, and certainly, I wouldn't describe humans as inherently good. I see humanity as inherently flawed, ignorant and arrogant; a rather problematic combination.
There is no religion in my words. Spirit is not untestable, you simply need to be opened to your own higher frequencies of being (light/spirit) - this is one of the aims of correct yoga.
Ah, you see, as much as I can agree with your rather correct assessment of anarchism and its problematic relationship to capitalism I find myself having to part ways with you on matters of metaphysics. No biggie really and certainly nothing new.
But first allow me my quibbles: you are asserting religion no matter how much you deny it. From what I can assess you are asserting one of the many schools of Hindu or Buddhist thought. Perhaps Advaita? This is one of the oldest RELIGIONS on the planet and to assert it isn't a religion is frankly, duplicitous. But one would only need to allow for a small shift in approach for me to be okay with it and perhaps philosophically agree as a 'spiritual hypothesis'.
If one were to say, it's my opinion..... Or, this is my personal belief about spirituality, but I have no way to prove it.... Or, any number of qualifications that made it clear that this metaphysics is a matter of personal experience and preference......As it is, though, you seem to be espousing spiritual dogmatism alongside some accurate assessments of anarchy.....
BTW: I am suggesting in various blogs that universities start setting up 'spiritual' departments so as to verify or falsify innumerable conflicting religious and spiritual claims. To my knowledge, after 500 years of science studying spiritual claims, we have only verified the limited efficacy of meditation and yoga. But again. I'm 100% behind any initiative which wants to study, empirically, spiritual claims in more depth........
Whether a religious group agrees with me or not is irrelevant to whether or not what I am saying contains religion. Neither I, nor my words are aligned with any particular religion and there is no religion on Earth that agrees with what I know to be correct now.
If a religious group says that a day is 24 hours long, I will not claim that you are being religious if you say the same ;)
Very good post
Thanks!
This post has received a 13.18 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @ura-soul.
This submission has made it on the @MutuWhale MutuList!
Hey @ura-soul , I have started a podcast recently where I interview other entrepreneurs.
The podcast is on my youtube channel, and here is the playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5CpCNPna6p95oJfKPew0N3ZT0k-khdgg
We talk about what you are currently doing in life, your business as well as your journey and any lessons or advice you want the world to know.
A casual conversation about entrepreneurship, and, about you.