You could build all the guillotines you want, you won't be able to change human nature. Until we can force people out of the validation casino that is social media, the Tech world or the next vampiric capitalistic cliche will just step in.
this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
53 points (98.2% liked)
Anarchism
2065 readers
32 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Human nature is flexibility and empathy . We can totally change how humans act by having a different system that doesn't promote sociopathy
having a different system that doesn't promote sociopathy
Do you believe this can be brought about? If so, how?
yes, with anarchist praxis. I.e. prefiguration through direct action for mutual aid.
Sorry I don't understand any of what you said. Could you rephrase in simple terms?
This is not a simple concept. Maybe this will help
Maybe this will help
OK, read that, seems pretty simple to me.
How do you propose preconfiguring in a way that doesn't promote sociopathy? To quote the page you linked to:
Prefigurative communities often struggle with financial sustainability, external pressures such as state repression and conflictual internal dynamics, such as tension between those who want to do prefiguration and those who want to engage with existing power structures.
What is the difference in kind between "prefigurative communities" and the general wider society we have now, that means the base desire for social status and greed ("sociopathy") will not be promoted? How do you propose eliminating the "conflictual internal dynamics" that arise from those desires? The page you linked gives no information about that.
It seems to me that the "conflictual internal dynamics" are simply a reflection of the conflict inherent in all human social groups, at all levels. In other words, that "prefigurative communities" suffer from the same problems as wider society and that there is, in fact, no difference in kind between them. Therefore, "prefigurative communities" will necessarily always fail to change wider society because the flawed, base people comprising those communities are no different from the flawed, base people comprising wider society.
The opposite really, practical cases show that when such groups are created they are unbelievable stable and don't collapse outside of external pressure (i.e. capitalist reaction to destroy them).
What is the difference in kind between "prefigurative communities" and the general wider society we have now, that means the base desire for social status and greed ("sociopathy") will not be promoted? How do you propose eliminating the "conflictual internal dynamics" that arise from those desires?
Very simply that there is no "reward" to be had for asocial behavior. When there is no hierarchical power or wealth accumulation to be had, acting in a way that alienates those around you doesn't provide any benefits.
The page you linked gives no information about that.
You seem to have a lot of questions about anarchism. Perhaps you should read an anarchist FAQ which exists is precicely for this purpose? Unfortunately, I cannot keep elaborating deeper and deeper.
practical cases show that when such groups are created they are unbelievable stable and don't collapse
This seems odd. If such groups are extant now on planet Earth and have proven to be unbelievably stable then where are the sociopathy-less societies that they have fostered? If there are no sociopathy-less societies, then the idea that prefigurative communities can be effective would appear to be false.
outside of external pressure
This seems to be key. There will never be an absence of outside pressure which, again, implies that preconfigurative communities cannot be effective.
Very simply that there is no "reward" to be had for asocial behavior. When there is no hierarchical power or wealth accumulation to be had, acting in a way that alienates those around you doesn't provide any benefits.
This is just a regress. How can one create a community without reward for asocial behaviour? In other words, how can one create a human social group without benefits for getting ahead of one's peers? How can one avoid getting ahead of one's peers at the skilled endeavour of not getting ahead of one's peers?
As I understand it, that's not how human social groups work. We inherently and necessarily create hierarchy. It's built in. It's how we've evolved. Like chimpansees.
I've been (peripherally) involved in organisations that superficially espoused non-hierarchical ideals but in practice had those who drove the group forward and whose opinions were given more weight than others. Unsurprisingly because it's built in for people to be like this when they're in a group. There's even a specialised part of the mind whose sole purpose is to attempt to construct other people's opinions of us so that we can be better at gaining social standing.
These kinds of behaviours and social structures are instinctive and stem from our evolution. We can't get rid of them. We can't create a human society without hierarchy any more than we can create a human society without breathing.
You seem to have a lot of questions about anarchism
Not really, your comment just piqued my interest. I'm curious if you actually have a practical plan for bringing about such a society or whether it's just an exercise in "wouldn't it be nice if.." like Marxism and the Venus Project.
This seems odd. If such groups are extant now on planet Earth and have proven to be unbelievably stable then where are the sociopathy-less societies that they have fostered? If there are no sociopathy-less societies, then the idea that prefigurative communities can be effective would appear to be false.
This is the typical argument of "it can't exist because it doesn't exist yet". It's facetious. By this argument one could argue 500 years ago that liberal democracies are impossible just as well.
This seems to be key. There will never be an absence of outside pressure which, again, implies that preconfigurative communities cannot be effective.
There's no certainty that they would fail by every type of external pressure.
Not really, your comment just piqued my interest.
Cool but I don't think you have any actual honest interest to understand and are just being a debatelord wasting my time, so I'm bowing out now.
This is the typical argument of "it can't exist because it doesn't exist yet". It's facetious.
By the same token, if there's no practical evidence of prefigurative communities being effective in fostering wider sociopathy-less societies then your/the proposition is solely theoretical and adherence to the ideal is a matter of faith.
By this argument one could argue 500 years ago that liberal democracies are impossible just as well.
Nobody set out with liberal democracies in mind 500 years ago. The societies we have now have evolved very slowly and are a mish-mash of different ideas and influcences, often conflicting, both over time historically and together now in its current state.
I don't think you have any actual honest interest to understand
I did, I'm just extremely skeptical. I feel I do have a better understanding now though and to be honest, in light of that limited understanding I'm not feeling motivated to seek more.
I'm bowing out now
Fair enough.
By the same token, if there's no practical evidence of prefigurative communities being effective in fostering wider sociopathy-less societies then your/the proposition is solely theoretical and adherence to the ideal is a matter of faith.
There is evidence. The article I linked to even mentions some.
Nobody set out with liberal democracies in mind 500 years ago. The societies we have now have evolved very slowly and are a mish-mash of different ideas and influcences, often conflicting, both over time historically and together now in its current state.
So would anarchism. The ideas we have now about what a future society would like, are about as idealistic as the early liberal revolutions. Like them, we're just imagining something better than the current system.
You keep dragging me in with these bad takes which I feel I have to counter. Very annoying.
That's just not the case. Humans engage in social contracts because they have a benefit to themselves. If acting selfishly causes more gain than acting socially, people overwhelmingly act selfishly. It's one of the reasons the original Dark Sector in The Division horrified psychologists.
You're literally reinforcing what I just said.
I'm curious to read about the psychologists take on Dark Sector, happen to have an article? Apparently I'm bad at searching.
Well, we're years removed but I'll try and find it. It might just be easier to research a psychologist's take on the Dark Zones. I misnamed them.
Do you mean the recent book by Sarah Wynn-Williams?
Yes but per the instance rules we don't allow direct links to pirate content (too risky) . Please edit to link to the tld of Ana's archives instead or something
tld means what?
Top level domain
Makes sense, but I'd never have guessed it.
Like any acronym.
TLA is pretty obvious: Three-Letter Acronym.
Oh. I thought it meant "this lacks anderstanding" lol
Back in the day I had a "WTF" T-shit, and run into someone who didn't know what it means. Granted they were in Greece, but still, they were only in their 20s :)
...Where's The Fruit?