Anarchism, Sociology, And Conflict Theory.

In sociology there is this thing known as conflict theory that roughly states how all society revolves around power and the tyrannical subjugation that follows. The direct opposite of course being functionalism that tries to legitimate that institutional form of power by a variety of insidious methods or validations.

Now, within sociology it goes on to state that Capitalism being the primary apparatus in which this subjugation occurs being that sociology simultaneously is dominated by all kinds of socialist leftists of every political stripe.

Indeed, in the greater anarchist community we find the same philosophical-political atmosphere as we would with sociologists.

I of course elsewhere within the forum have stated that there really is no difference between crony capitalism or crony socialism. This of course hasn’t gained me any traction within the anarchist community over the years as one myself.

Going back to the issue at hand sociology is correct in asserting this conflicting dynamic of power to which tyranny and subjugation hails from.

What I think a lot of anarchists and even sociologists themselves fail to understand is that government is not the sole cause of this tyrannical subjugation element.

Government is a problem but not the sole one.

A government can only exist with the legitimacy of a permissible public. In other words, government is not the sole antagonizer of everything concerning conflict where instead we all are.

As usual I often enough criticize other anarchists to which I criticize mainstream sociology also for failing in undertaking to actually take a deeper analysis of human nature.

We’re all responsible for creating this insufferable environment of tyrannical subjugation not just government alone and the reason for this lies deep within unresolved portions of our own human nature.

Until that happens nothing will change.

Yes, this is absolutely true. The fact that most people couldn’t give a damn to make up their minds themselves, or even investigate is the only reason a government is needed. It is this group that simply ‘follows’ and that gives governments their power. The group that is willing to think and investigate for themselves therefore is a danger to governments. As a result, people who did investigate and think about some things, but have a bloated ego will try to get into this power of the uninterested majority and become eve more corrupted by that power.

I agree.

Basically, this seems to say that anyone who actually does “give a damn” and “make up their minds themselves” doesn’t need government. And that if everyone did these things government would be totally superfluous. i’ll be frank and say that strikes me as naive wishful thinking that completely disregards clearly evident facts concerning human nature and society. Can you back up your assertion?

No, it means the the rule of law hold those who actually work things out for themselves back and is in the way of spiritual, intellectual and emotional growth.

The ONLY function of an ethical government is arbitration, not dictation. When people cannot decide for themselves and a means for arbitration has been established, the governing body merely applies the arbitration. When that “arbitration” becomes, “we above you have decided how all of you are to behave”, it is no longer an ethical government, but a tyranny, no matter the disguise.

Also quite true.

And “crony capitalism” and “Socialism” are the same thing.

Hm. i’d say that without rule of law, people who “work things out for themselves” (whatever that means) would be too busy dodging bullets and foraging for their next meal to grow spiritually, intellectually or emotionally.

The first thing that gets “worked out” is the basic ground rules for conflict. Shooting each other is seldom the proposed resolution. The arbitration would be that if shooting began, it would be stopped. The arbitration that says, "because someone might do something wrong somewhere on the planet, you may only do exactly what we say when we say", is NOT an ethical government, but rather an insidious crony plotter.

That’s a false dichotomy (arbitration vs dictation) and not one that is really useful for understanding the role of government in society. Each invariably involves the other. In a fair system, government is involved in both, as is everyone else. Society, including all of us within society, decides how we are to behave - that’s a function of culture and politics. Tyranny is only when a small elite (be it governmental or religious or whathaveyou) or even a single individual (monarch, dictator) determines how people ought behave in spite of the workings of culture and politics. Unlike arbitration and dictation, those are two very different things. What does not, has not, and never will exist is a society where each individual decides for themselves how they ought behave.

It is not one that you like, but it is the one that is used to trick people into signing their lives away and becoming nothing but a fleshy drone.

I think this is IN the rule of law.
No other reason for it than competition.

Which is why the rule of law does not work. In an anarchistic situation, people are forced to work out the ethical issues by themselves. Which is why children learn these things; and if not learnt as a child, adults seldomly catch on later in life. It is because the older one gets, the more one is controlled by the rule of law and forced into a certain behavior; enter ressentiment.

Teach people how to decide for themselves (after you learn how yourself), and a governing body is only an enforcement of arbitration tool, nothing else is required at any time. There is a rational way of doing that, but as pointed out on another thread, there are far too few rationalists … currently.

Arbitration is not necessary in an ideal situation; because no one will have a reason to be dishonest and will therefore want to honestly resolve a situation.

Two people drive up to a four-way stop intersection. Who goes first?

The rule that “he on the right has the right of way” is an arbitrating guide. But how did that rule become commonly used? Someone had to decide on it. And that is arbitration, the point to any governance. How it takes place is critical (thus the distinction above concerning tyranny).

In a situation without law, neither one will care because there is no false reason to hurry. Either one might want to rush due to a medical emergency maybe, but then surely the other one has no reason to hurry.

Your ideas are maturing.

Yes this is always the case. Blame can be attributed and pointed to any individual struggling to acquire more power within a society. Men and women both do this, every individual. A state forms through the various means each individual takes, to acquire power. For example, one child grows up and becomes a policeman. Another grows up and becomes a lawyer. Another grows up and becomes a politician. Another grows up and becomes an engineer.

Each of these children are attempting to acquire social-state power, but through different means. But each are paying into, and playing the same system.

It doesn’t matter if they care. The point is that if there is no arbitration method, they run into each other or dance back and forth to an eventual stand still. It’s silly, they merely need an arbitrating guide. They are in trouble if they refuse to establish one, mostly because that will enable someone to force one upon them and dominate them entirely (as is going on right now).

Government only exists because of the majority’s consent and the reason this consent exists is because of the complete flaws of human nature.

The war of anarchists isn’t just against the state which is just a symptom of these flawed human nature social dynamics but rather is against the majority of the human population’s nature in general that allows the state to rule and more importantly rule over others.

As of yet there really hasn’t been any breach, analysis, or critique of human nature by anarchists that tend to view human social interaction within the lens of socialism and even capitalism.

Of course nothing ever gets resolved because both socialism and capitalism have faulty narrative perceivement gaps on the subject of human nature in general.

As usual until the crux of human nature is analyzed within an unbiased manner nothing critical will ever be reached.

I believe sociology is close to giving us answers into human nature but it has very far to go in losing a majority of its own biases namely by the number of socialist thinkers that dominate it now.

And of course capitalists aren’t any better.

We need to come to terms that we live in a post socialist and capitalist world where neither ideologies do anything in grasping human nature or the very conflict that stems from it.

Government is superfluous and irrelevant.

I have yet to find any rational need for government.

Most of the problems that exist which government manages are the very ones it itself has created.

Even more, it ongoingly still creates to this day overtime.

I would argue arbitration leads to dictation inevitably.

Why thank you for the compliment.

It seems with age my philosophy is maturing and the more I am refining it.

It’s been awhile since I’ve made threads on ILP and as I’ve pointed out elsewhere I’m not the same person I was say five years ago in my youth. Although I’m still very rebellious to which that will never change so long as I live.

Yes, it is society’s collective greed, apathy, competition, and general indifference that feeds into this government system to which its power derives from.