Many of your points are neither possible or desirable. If there was no hierarchy or fungible medium of exchange, for instance, they would immediately be created.
I agree that there seems to be a human tendency towards some seeking hierarchy - although there have been ways different groups throughout history have successfully dealt with this - sometimes for long periods among large populations & as far as currency goes that’s a relatively recent invention in human history - my feudal peasant ancestors of a few hundred years ago would have never seen any money in their lifetime - yet they made up the majority of the population of the time.
It depends what you mean by as large scale - hierarchyless civilisations have happened at the scale of millions of people - over the area of several combined countries if we take the example of the Indus Valley civilisation or Zomia.
As Gall’s law says, every complex system that works evolved from a simple system that worked. I wouldn’t characterise the current world’s system as working well- if it all - for the majority of the people under it. But for me it is as much a moral question - what entitles, justifies or qualifies someone to rule over someone else?
To your last point, it is to actually value and pursue the good of every creature in their jurisdiction. What do you think of the necessity, sufficiency, checks, balances, and legitimacy of LFS?
The challenge with checks and balances is the question of who has the right to select them and enforce them. I don’t disagree with the need for voluntary agreements for safety, but I do disagree with power being imposed from the top down.
I’ve read your Libertarian Socialist Fascist ideals now a couple of times & as I’ve said before I’m not convinced they are Libertarian or Socialist unless we redefine those words to be the opposite of what they usually mean.
But maybe it is a failure of imagination on my part to see how your system would work - do you know of any historical examples of anything similar working?
I don't know of anything similar in any context. But i mention it now particularly in relation to scale, and how world -level issues can only be solved with world-level government, and the absolute necessity for reduction in scale of all things in order to enable more egalitarian options at all. And the inherent legitimacy that comes with necessary management districts.
Also, i don't acknowledge Zomia or any civilization to be non-heirarchical, only horizontally disbursed. Even an egalitarian council of heads of household, which is a functional minimum, is a heirarchical system. But perhaps you intend something more about central planning?
There are many admirable aims, but it isn’t very specific on how they are to be achieved.
The website confusingly says - ‘The human social system shall be structured according to what the science says, not any past ideology.’ Is that what the founder says the science says or what general scientific consensus says it is? What if others who are part of the project disagree on what the science says or means or how it should be applied?
In what way does science determine ideology? Either there is hierarchy or there isn’t, either there is worker management or there isn’t, either there is privatised property or there isn’t, either it is centralised or it isn’t. If it is or isn’t any one of these things then it fits into one ideology or another.
I hope people find this interesting. It wasn't planned, but I was surprised by how many thoughts I had on this book I've been reading, I wanted to share these before my next planned article, and I thought it would be a good distraction from the election. Hope you like it!
Many of your points are neither possible or desirable. If there was no hierarchy or fungible medium of exchange, for instance, they would immediately be created.
Most of your other points, mostly reasonable, they are addressed here: https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/the-mandate-of-libertarian-fascist
I agree that there seems to be a human tendency towards some seeking hierarchy - although there have been ways different groups throughout history have successfully dealt with this - sometimes for long periods among large populations & as far as currency goes that’s a relatively recent invention in human history - my feudal peasant ancestors of a few hundred years ago would have never seen any money in their lifetime - yet they made up the majority of the population of the time.
All such ideas are potentially possible at small scale but utterly impossible at large ones.
It depends what you mean by as large scale - hierarchyless civilisations have happened at the scale of millions of people - over the area of several combined countries if we take the example of the Indus Valley civilisation or Zomia.
As Gall’s law says, every complex system that works evolved from a simple system that worked. I wouldn’t characterise the current world’s system as working well- if it all - for the majority of the people under it. But for me it is as much a moral question - what entitles, justifies or qualifies someone to rule over someone else?
To your last point, it is to actually value and pursue the good of every creature in their jurisdiction. What do you think of the necessity, sufficiency, checks, balances, and legitimacy of LFS?
The challenge with checks and balances is the question of who has the right to select them and enforce them. I don’t disagree with the need for voluntary agreements for safety, but I do disagree with power being imposed from the top down.
I’ve read your Libertarian Socialist Fascist ideals now a couple of times & as I’ve said before I’m not convinced they are Libertarian or Socialist unless we redefine those words to be the opposite of what they usually mean.
But maybe it is a failure of imagination on my part to see how your system would work - do you know of any historical examples of anything similar working?
I don't know of anything similar in any context. But i mention it now particularly in relation to scale, and how world -level issues can only be solved with world-level government, and the absolute necessity for reduction in scale of all things in order to enable more egalitarian options at all. And the inherent legitimacy that comes with necessary management districts.
Also, i don't acknowledge Zomia or any civilization to be non-heirarchical, only horizontally disbursed. Even an egalitarian council of heads of household, which is a functional minimum, is a heirarchical system. But perhaps you intend something more about central planning?
https://open.substack.com/pub/christophermeestoerato/p/time-for-a-pocketbook-revolution?r=12utpl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
check out thevenusproject.com
There are many admirable aims, but it isn’t very specific on how they are to be achieved.
The website confusingly says - ‘The human social system shall be structured according to what the science says, not any past ideology.’ Is that what the founder says the science says or what general scientific consensus says it is? What if others who are part of the project disagree on what the science says or means or how it should be applied?
In what way does science determine ideology? Either there is hierarchy or there isn’t, either there is worker management or there isn’t, either there is privatised property or there isn’t, either it is centralised or it isn’t. If it is or isn’t any one of these things then it fits into one ideology or another.
...besides which, science has spoken in opposition to some of those requirements.
Excellent post. I agree very much with you about what a real utopia would be. Let's get on with it!
Reality rethunk.
I hope people find this interesting. It wasn't planned, but I was surprised by how many thoughts I had on this book I've been reading, I wanted to share these before my next planned article, and I thought it would be a good distraction from the election. Hope you like it!