deleted by creator

For some oligarchs in Russia? Great. They are now being rewarded with resources in eastern Ukraine. This is probably one of the main reasons for the war. Yes, it’s very bad for ordinary Russians. But those on top are certainly very pleased with the situation. And for American and European capitalists, the reconstruction of Ukraine will bring great business opportunities as well. Big Capital is happy.

Oh sweet child

We do not have infinite resources, but we certainly have far more than we need to cover at least the basic necessities of life for everyone. Capitalism, due to its internal mechanisms, will always lead to scarcity. And this is not socialist folklore, but the consequence of how the system works. The entire structure of capital as private property, owned only by a small fraction of all of humanity, means that the capitalists get most of the wealth generated through the economic activity of the overwhelming majority of people. This alone creates scarcity, because a large amount of resources ends up in the hands of a very small number of people. But that’s only one side of the coin. The scarcity created by capitalism is completely irrational in many respects (even if it is perfectly rational from the capitalists’ point of view). A few examples:

• Destroying perfectly good products to prevent them from being used for free. A well-known example is the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which saw a huge destruction of food to ensure prices remained stable for fruit and vegetables; 60% of withdrawn food was destroyed
• Planned or artificial obsolesce. A wonderful current example is Microsoft’s update policy. If it weren’t for Linux, I would have been forced to throw away my current PC because there are no more security updates for Windows 10, but Windows 11 doesn’t run on it.
• Environmental destruction. One of the clearest examples of artificial scarcity is how capital is significantly damaging the environment, for instance by polluting fresh water, which creates investment opportunities for capital to come in and clean up the mess, rebuild water infrastructure, and so on.
• Time. Despite all the new technology and labour-saving devices in our lives, we still work long hours, spending more time working than a mediaeval peasant. The scarcity of time is a major factor in many people’s lives.

Moreover, scarcity is a necessary precondition for making profit (since things that are abundant cannot properly embody much exchange value). Take housing, for example. Here in Germany, and certainly everywhere else, rents are rising. The neoliberal government’s solution lies in the private sector. But this sector will never build enough to eliminate the scarcity. Because without it rents would fall (which would be good for us), meaning that the investment would yield no or less profit (which would be bad for the capitalists). Scarcity is the prerequisite for profits and that’s precisely why it will always exist in capitalism. No matter how efficient or productive we get or how much we work. It is at the heart of one of the basic contradictions of the capitalist system: that what is irrational to us is completely rational from the point of view of the capitalist class.

The consequence for us, however, is that we are now forced to compete for scarce resources. From an individual perspective, it is then disadvantageous to cooperate with others, as they pose a threat to us. Suddenly, what you represent, namely a need for hierarchies, becomes at least a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hopefully, we can agree that under such circumstances, we cannot really say whether this behavior is natural or not. My experience shows that in situations without hardship, people are much more inclined to treat their fellow human beings (and, frankly, other living beings) well and show no need to dominate others.

I think the mistake in your thinking lies in a naturalistic fallacy. You start from the status quo and draw conclusions about the natural state. Hierarchies, society, and scarcity then become something we cannot change. The result is a legitimisation of the status quo through naturalness. And I would say that this is the result of many decades to centuries of capitalist ideology, to which we are all exposed at almost every moment of our lives.

I don’t think we can agree on this. But I want to encourage you to at least consider that what we have learned and taken for granted throughout our lives could be, as Marx put it, more appearance than reality.

people have three natural postures regarding hierarchy in their group: To compete for leadership/status, To follow the leader, Apathy.

What makes you think that? And don’t start with the monkeys again.

The reality is that we can’t really say anything about human nature. Analogies to other animals or idealising the status quo as a natural state don’t help either. We live in a capitalist society that makes it necessary to compete with others for resources. Therefore, we must also expect this behavior to manifest itself. Of course, this tells us nothing about human nature, apart from the fact that humans tend to adapt to their circumstances.

What does the social behavior of mandrills have to do with that of humans? There is a reason why zoology and sociology are two very different fields of study. If I want to know something about humans, I have to look at humans and not draw conclusions about humans from non-humans. People who equate the two are, at best, essentialist in their reasoning and, at worst, social darwinists. In any case, it contradicts empirical evidence, which speaks much more in favor of contingency as a fundamental social principle. If I want to derive a biological statement from this, then at best it is that humans seem to be adaptable.

I stand by it: most people neither want to be dominated nor dominate others. Such things are a result of circumstances such as the scarcity of resources or the ideologies that are hegemonic in a society. As evidence, I refer to the countless human communities that have no hierarchy whatsoever and would not function with one.

There is no such instinct.

I would say that almost no mammal does that if it has alternatives. Especially when resources are distributed in such a way that there is enough for everyone. Cows in a pasture don’t attack each other. Why should they? But this applies above all to humans, who are capable of reason. That’s why we have created systems such as democracy, which are enormously de-hierarchical. That is also why there is no right-wing democratic tradition. They will always attack democracy because it creates equality where, in their view, hierarchy actually belongs.

What kind of dominance exists in normal circles of friends? Do people fight over who gets the most pasta? Of course not, because they prefer to be considerate of everyone else. Circles of friends do not function according to a logic of dominance. They function through negotiation, empathy, and mutual recognition. Why not build society in the same way?

Violence, subordination, and rigid hierarchies are not laws of nature, but rather the result of social circumstances. They usually occur where there is scarcity, which today is mostly artificially created, or where inequality is ideologically justified. Where people experience firsthand that cooperation works better than competition (like in friendships), the logic of dominance loses its appeal. And that is precisely what authoritarian ideologies fear.

Discussions about human nature are always fruitless, as humans cannot exist in a natural state. They are always culturally integrated and completely shaped by their culture. Hannah Arendt once said, “Anyone who says ‘human nature’ is lying.”

“Every fool,” as Emma Goldman put it, “from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?”

Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism “stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” For ”freedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.” (Red Emma Speaks p. 73)

Someone who is extremely intelligent and educated gains a lot of social status. But that has nothing to do with hierarchies. At least not necessarily. For example, I don’t think anyone feels subordinate to Eminem just because he has a lot of social status.

This is surely how they argued in the Middle Ages when it came to justifying the different estates.

I don’t believe that hierarchies are something inherently human. You don’t seek out hierarchies in your normal environment. Very few people do. And those who do are usually not very popular. You don’t want to subordinate yourself or dominate others. We are all only human, after all. It’s just that we live in a society that is hierarchical, and therefore it seems normal to us. In fact, however, this order can and is only maintained through violence. That cannot be natural.

Some groups are hierarchical and others are not. My group of friends, for example, is not hierarchical. My partnership is not hierarchical either. So human social groups cannot be described as inherently hierarchical. Perhaps it is necessary to entrust people with tasks. But temporary, democratic delegation of responsibility is something different from social hierarchy. For example in cooperatives there is usually an elected chairperson. Nevertheless, most cooperatives are not hierarchical.

This applies to economic hierarchies such as those between the working class and the owner class, but also to social hierarchies, for example through patriarchy, racism, and other forms of discrimination. If you believe that hierarchy between people is natural and therefore worth stabilizing, for example, that men should call the shots in relationships and in society, or that it is right for the majority of society to work, while a small minority does not work but becomes rich from the labor of the majority, you are advocating a right-wing view of society.

Left and right are misleading terms that originate from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly. Roughly speaking, left and right can be distinguished by the fact that those on the right approve of social hierarchies and want to maintain them, while those on the left want to abolish them. A supposed middle position would be “only some hierarchies are good.” But that is also just a right-wing position.

That is why there is no “middle ground” in anarchism. Either you want a system in which everyone benefits equally, or one with a clear capitalist hierarchy. Either everyone has one vote, or the weight of the vote depends on wealth. Either we consider the freedom of all to be important, or only that of those who have enough capital. Either no one is dominated, or only those who have to sell their labor.

There is only either/or here. Those who do not consider all people to be of equal value consider some to be more valuable. This is not a spectrum; rather, the difference lies in very fundamental normative decisions.

I keep reading posts like this, but as a daily Firefox user, I wonder where you encounter AI there? Apart from these posts, I haven’t noticed anything at all so far. What does AI do in Firefox? And what’s the problem with it?

Didn’t know that, thanks!

Thanks, yes, that’s helpful. Although not exactly what I’m looking for :)

Thank you, this looks promising!

Significantly more likely if you live in the USA. Not so much in big parts of the rest of the world.

Seems to be successful advertising when articles are written about it.

Idealizing billionaires is cringe. Eat them all. Just because he’s not a complete asshole like all the other parasites doesn’t make him a good person. He’s still a parasite.