Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mara's avatar

What many anarchists seem to forget is that we are already in a state of anarchy. The government is just a crime syndicate that has brainwashed and stockholm syndromed the masses into believing in their legitimacy.

As for left versus right, a group is defined not by what it claims to be, but by the qualities of its membership.

If a country is full of smart culturally similar people, then it's government and atmosphere will reflect it.

If it's full of antagonistic morons, it will be a hell on earth no matter what system is used.

Moreover, the terms have no material significance. Many of the supposedly opposing views lead to the same outcomes. Example:

Communism is where the state absorbs all the corporations and becomes a central authority.

Fascism is where the state and the corporations unite to become a central authority.

Both lead to a military dictatorship of the most popular demagogue.

Many take this to mean we should support centrism to avoid dictatorship. But corporations are indistinguishable from constitutional monarchy in any case. Even without the printing press, the radio, and television, their influence on both education and the average workplace environment would allow them to control popular sentiment.

In a democracy the demagogues win and lose favour within a handful of years unable to deliver on any of their promises even if they wanted to.

In effect, it is just an accelerated perpetual war taking place inside the country against itself instead of against other countries. Thus nothing is accomplished, and a gradual weakening continues until it is destroyed by external influences.

Thus no matter which system is chosen, the nature of the resulting society is a product of the people in it.

What many seem to miss is that the real reason why native americans could have a society without money, and the communists couldn't, is that money is a replacement for trust and that the communists didn't trust eachother so a dominance hierarchy formed.

Real trust is symmetric and earned over a long period of time often between family. But they were too mentally ill for this, so they worshipped a chosen leader as an idol like the biblical heretics using popularity and fear as the only acceptable forms of wealth.

In summary, any group composed of trustless mentally ill people will inevitably establish an atrocious system, become a living nightmare for all involved and ultimately fail.

Whereas any group of sane, trustworthy people, possessing keen insight and wisdom, would form a better system and avoid catastrophe.

Expand full comment
ebear's avatar

If Nevermore were a university course I'm convinced I'd get a failing grade. Why? Because I simply can't keep up with the amount of reading material! These are very dense subjects you're introducing here which requires background that many reader probably don't have. I definitely feel the impulse to abandon the study for lack of time, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that. It's frustrating because the material is first rate, and as you've seen, prompts me to at least try and participate, but again, can I afford to devote as much time to the subject as the author(s) who are clearly devoting most if not all of theirs to the endeavour?

One of the things Peter Duke is undertaking holds great promise I believe. Peter is taking dense 1000 page academic books on complex subjects and using ChatGPT to extract the basic arguments and present them in a form that a grade 12 high school student can understand. The result is usually about 200 pages of material that makes the subject matter far more accessible.

Keep in mind, most of the serious works on history, anthropology and other disciplines were not written for a general audience. They were academic works, often thesis material, aimed at one's peers. Some authors have addressed this limitation, notably Stuart Chase who condensed Alfred Korzybski's work into something far more readable (The Tyranny of Words) that retained all of the basic concepts. Another example is Joseph Plummer's 'Tragedy and Hope 101' which boiled Carroll Quigley's 'Tragedy and Hope' down to its essential points, but these are just outliers. A more generalized approach is what Peter is advocating, as well as leading by example.

https://thedukereport.com/about/

Peter is just starting down this road, and I support his efforts fully as it supports my own work in communications theory which I believe is essential to getting one's point across, whatever that might be. As such, I try not to pick sides or engage in polemics on the various sites I frequent as part of my research, and it's encouraging that I haven't run into this problem here.

That said, there's a common thread that runs through most substacks and other similar sites in that they tend to bury the reader in detail the authors assume the reader has some knowledge of. When I see a post where the reading time is in triple digits I often put it aside never to return. I don't want to do that, but I have no choice as like everyone else, I have to prioritize my time.

Another thing I run afoul of is paywalls. Nothing puts me off more than a 7-day trial prompt to continue reading an article I'm interested in. Fortunately that hasn't happened here. I don't charge for my site and never will, and while I realize people want to get paid for their work, their expectations in many cases are simply unrealistic, at least for someone like me whose research takes them to dozens of sites, with new ones appearing almost daily. Apart from the time involved, I simply don't have the money for it. Well, actually I do, but if I pay $1000/year to access material (it adds up quickly) is it money better spent than using it to aid earthquake victims and refugees?

Going a bit off topic now, but I think Substack has missed the boat in some regards, their animus towards advertising being one of them. Why not let the authors decide if they want to carry ads, and let them chose which ones? It would help both revenue streams without impacting the reader overly much, and might even be welcome when done properly. Consider a site about hiking the great trails of the world. Would ads for mountaineering gear or specialized travel agents be a burden? I don't think so. Likewise, I'd be happy to host one or two ads per post on my site if they were music related, such as for Korg, Fender or Roland. I plan to bring this up with Substack as it looks like they're in a tight corner. One of the things I do besides music and media studies is financial analysis, and based on what I've seen (they're private so not as transparent as a public co.) I'm concerned that Substack may soon run out of money unless they try a new approach. When you get right down to it, All communications are advertising. It's just a question of what product you're promoting and how well it's presented.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts