Vietnam to collect biometrics – even DNA – for new ID cards(theregister.com)
theregister.com
Vietnam to collect biometrics – even DNA – for new ID cards
https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/20/vietnam_id_cards_dna/
9 comments
The sad thing is, it does not have to be this way. Estonia has biometry-based identity, information sharing between agencies etc. and, I assure you, is not a dystopian hellhole because the way these things have been set up. You biometry, for example, is captured and used by one agency for one purpose only - to issue physical and electronic identity documents. Nobody else gets access. I helped build some of these things, have done research on how and why it functions. AMA.
The issue is that once the information exists, it will be used. Every infant in Sweden has had to supply a blood test for research since 1975. Then a murder happened and suddenly the police gained access to the database. Then a rape happened and the police requested access again. A few years ago politicians discussed opening it up for all "serious" crimes. Now they are changing the constitution to limit what one is allowed to say, extending what constitutes a crime.
I'm all for limitations to stop famous cases of one person having 50 identities but the current path is not without risks. The data we collect today might be used differently in 30 or 50 years and then there's no turning back.
I'm all for limitations to stop famous cases of one person having 50 identities but the current path is not without risks. The data we collect today might be used differently in 30 or 50 years and then there's no turning back.
this talk was pretty interesting and scary at ccc https://media.ccc.de/v/37c3-12004-please_identify_yourself
Privacy was only one of the issues mentioned in that talk alongside
exclusion/lockout, racism, compulsion or choice. The subtext seemed
to be that the Indian project was reckless, violated multiple rights,
and revealed multiple problems, whereas the European version observed
UDHR and ECHR definitions of "right to privacy" and much more. In
summary the Euro ID schedule is much more cautious.
Resilience is a real problem in my view. When these systems go tits-up - and they will go spectacularly tits-up as biosciences and AI advance - the lack of alternatives like RFID cards, papers, trusted notaries etc will have a colossal impact. The danger is not the idea of legibility for digital governance (we already have that) but the blind, gushing enthusiasm to build one centralised system around singular technologies.
Resilience is a real problem in my view. When these systems go tits-up - and they will go spectacularly tits-up as biosciences and AI advance - the lack of alternatives like RFID cards, papers, trusted notaries etc will have a colossal impact. The danger is not the idea of legibility for digital governance (we already have that) but the blind, gushing enthusiasm to build one centralised system around singular technologies.
Yeah.
> Vietnam’s future identity cards will incorporate the functions of health insurance cards, social insurance books, driver's licenses, birth certificates, and marriage certificates, as defined by the amendment.
The project of digital file-sharing across administrations, all being tied to a single social security number, became a scandal and was made illegal for a reason !
> Vietnam’s future identity cards will incorporate the functions of health insurance cards, social insurance books, driver's licenses, birth certificates, and marriage certificates, as defined by the amendment.
The project of digital file-sharing across administrations, all being tied to a single social security number, became a scandal and was made illegal for a reason !
When privacy is criminalized, only criminals will have privacy.
Cant be bothered to search for who said that to give credit.
Phrase still stands
Cant be bothered to search for who said that to give credit.
Phrase still stands
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phil_Zimmermann
Creator of PGP
Creator of PGP
This is a very American and by extension Western civilization point of view. One not shared in other societies.
One survey that I found really interesting (can’t find it now) was one done in Singapore.
A vast majority 70%+ agreed with the statement “a stable society is more important than adhering to democratic principles”.
So all this commentary in the West about Singapore being a flawed democracy doesn’t register with Singaporeans. They are more than happy to give up democratic rights as long as the government delivers as promised.
It’s a view that is quite prevalent across Asia (including Vietnam).
One survey that I found really interesting (can’t find it now) was one done in Singapore.
A vast majority 70%+ agreed with the statement “a stable society is more important than adhering to democratic principles”.
So all this commentary in the West about Singapore being a flawed democracy doesn’t register with Singaporeans. They are more than happy to give up democratic rights as long as the government delivers as promised.
It’s a view that is quite prevalent across Asia (including Vietnam).
I would say it’s a western point of view, and by extension, an American one. Not the other way around, America isn’t the prospector or even a very good exemplar of democratic ideals. On the other hand, much of Asia, especially east Asia’s focus on stability over democratic principles is very much a product of China’s dominate role in that region.
> much of Asia, especially east Asia’s focus on stability over democratic principles is very much a product of China’s dominate role in that region
Not really. Giving up democracy for stability is increasingly a theme in South Asia, too. The West had their turn at it, too, in the 1940s; Asians don't have a monopoly over less-democratic governments. In fact I daresay the stereotypical nondemocratic example that comes to mind is Nazi Germany, which is distinctly Western.
People have a tendency to give up democracy for stability and improved quality of life when they've been trampled over, told they are inferior to other people with reduced melanin production, and generally not given opportunities to thrive.
Both China and India have massive inferiority complexes, and not without reason—they want a say in the world stage, and they'll get it by hook or crook. Together they have nearly two-fifths of the world population.
Not really. Giving up democracy for stability is increasingly a theme in South Asia, too. The West had their turn at it, too, in the 1940s; Asians don't have a monopoly over less-democratic governments. In fact I daresay the stereotypical nondemocratic example that comes to mind is Nazi Germany, which is distinctly Western.
People have a tendency to give up democracy for stability and improved quality of life when they've been trampled over, told they are inferior to other people with reduced melanin production, and generally not given opportunities to thrive.
Both China and India have massive inferiority complexes, and not without reason—they want a say in the world stage, and they'll get it by hook or crook. Together they have nearly two-fifths of the world population.
Democracy is a long developed ideal in the west, from when the Greeks invented it. Yes, Europe goes through spates of authoritarianism and was under autocratic rule for much of its history, but the direction is clear, Germany and Italy had no cultural problem in snapping back to democracy after WW2, and Portugal and Spain saw little value in continuing dictatorships after Franco and Salazar either.
I find skin tone to be a much bigger deal among the elites of India and China than in the west. It’s clear that classism plays a huge role in those countries, where the elites rule with little regard for the common people.
I find skin tone to be a much bigger deal among the elites of India and China than in the west. It’s clear that classism plays a huge role in those countries, where the elites rule with little regard for the common people.
Human rights (like privacy) are fundamental and not cultural, racial etc.
Obviously.
Obviously.
It's interesting how in the US people rail against government moves like this in Vietnam while giving a pass to private companies doing the same thing. Ostensibly, it's OK because the companies don't have the law to enforce participation, but practically speaking there are lots of ways to coerce people into giving up their privacy by making the consequences of not giving it up such that they are effectively excluded from economic life. Of course these companies do sell the data, and they sell it to governments, so the end result is the same. The extra step allows the middleman to turn a profit, so in western neoliberal economics it's not only permissible, it's laudable.
People rail against it all the time. They just don't walk the walk.
I will say though. Theoretically you can still "opt-out" of it. Visit with old people and see how you don't need to live with all these services lol
I will say though. Theoretically you can still "opt-out" of it. Visit with old people and see how you don't need to live with all these services lol
When privacy is the price of a hamburger, those who hold their privacy dear will cook for themselves.
When privacy is the price of participation in society, those who hold their privacy dear will live in a tent under a bridge or as an off-the-grid hermit in the woods.
Employment, credit, medical care, access to shelter, transportation, utilities are all hard-gated behind 'voluntarily' giving up your personal information to firms that will either sell, or share, or leak it.
(I just got a notification that Delta Dental is very sorry it lost mine, I guess I should add dental care to that list.)
In the US the political zeitgeist is to rail against any kind of government overreach, while closing both eyes and plugging both ears to overreach or abuse done by anyone who has a profit motive.
Employment, credit, medical care, access to shelter, transportation, utilities are all hard-gated behind 'voluntarily' giving up your personal information to firms that will either sell, or share, or leak it.
(I just got a notification that Delta Dental is very sorry it lost mine, I guess I should add dental care to that list.)
In the US the political zeitgeist is to rail against any kind of government overreach, while closing both eyes and plugging both ears to overreach or abuse done by anyone who has a profit motive.
It's interesting to see people rail against China's social credit score which seems quite similar in function to the what we in the US just call a credit score. People really miss the forest for the trees.
I also tell people who support strong immigration enforcement that this sort of ID scheme would be quite fundamental to identifying citizens, but most people don't seem to want to hear it.
I also tell people who support strong immigration enforcement that this sort of ID scheme would be quite fundamental to identifying citizens, but most people don't seem to want to hear it.
China's social credit score has a much broader application, though. In US, you do have some creep beyond the original intent of approving/denying credit (e.g. I've seen leases gated on credit score checks), but it's still much more limited. And since it's not government-mandated, you can still rent from a different place that won't do it.
That said, yes, it's absolutely a problem in US as well, and people have been making explicit comparisons between the likely eventual state of our system and what China already has.
> people who support strong immigration enforcement that this sort of ID scheme would be quite fundamental to identifying citizens
Also, voting. It's rather ironic that the same people who demand voter ID tend to oppose universal free government-issued IDs.
That said, yes, it's absolutely a problem in US as well, and people have been making explicit comparisons between the likely eventual state of our system and what China already has.
> people who support strong immigration enforcement that this sort of ID scheme would be quite fundamental to identifying citizens
Also, voting. It's rather ironic that the same people who demand voter ID tend to oppose universal free government-issued IDs.
A lease of real property is a form of granting of credit.
No it's not, you pay at the start of the month for a month of access. A newspaper subscription isn't a form of credit.
Since you can’t evict someone immediately, it has very similar (pretty much identical) risks as extending credit.
If everyone paid everything as agreed, there’d obviously be no need for credit scoring anywhere.
If everyone paid everything as agreed, there’d obviously be no need for credit scoring anywhere.
I would say there's more than "some" creep. Think about how Uber and AirBnB use ratings to punish some customers, or how algorithmic pricing works, it's using similar concepts. If the objection is that these are paid services so it's still a financial transaction, my counter would be that in the US goods and services are overwhelmingly provided by commercial interests, because that's how the socioeconomic system works here. Even most services associated with governments are outsourced or provided through public/private partnerships.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90394048/uh-oh-silicon-valley-is...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90394048/uh-oh-silicon-valley-is...
I don't think such thought-terminating clichés are useful in the modern era.
So only criminals don't file their SEC statements or their taxes? Yes. That is true. And we make it true because otherwise the injury society suffers granting such flavors of privacy is greater than the benefits society gains safeguarding such privacy. It allows bad actors too much freedom of movement in the dark if we don't enforce tax law or SEC disclosure law.
As always, privacy is a balancing act between personal integrity and public need.
So only criminals don't file their SEC statements or their taxes? Yes. That is true. And we make it true because otherwise the injury society suffers granting such flavors of privacy is greater than the benefits society gains safeguarding such privacy. It allows bad actors too much freedom of movement in the dark if we don't enforce tax law or SEC disclosure law.
As always, privacy is a balancing act between personal integrity and public need.
> because otherwise the injury society suffers granting such flavors of privacy is greater than the benefits society gains safeguarding such privacy
Ideally this statement would be true of every piece of law or regulation that reduces individual liberties, including that of privacy. However, what actually seems to happen in practice is that:
- government employees are incentivized to make things easier for themselves by expanding their own powers
- elected policymakers are incentivized to enact sweeping new laws with their name stamped on them, and are not disincentivized from or punished by engaging in government overreach
- ordinary people are not sufficiently inconvenienced by any single new breaches of privacy
It all adds up to a ratcheting mechanism that only goes in the direction of less privacy and fewer individual liberties over time, and only "crackpots" (or people principled to the point of removing themselves from everyday society, e.g. rms when it comes to free software) oppose it.
Ideally this statement would be true of every piece of law or regulation that reduces individual liberties, including that of privacy. However, what actually seems to happen in practice is that:
- government employees are incentivized to make things easier for themselves by expanding their own powers
- elected policymakers are incentivized to enact sweeping new laws with their name stamped on them, and are not disincentivized from or punished by engaging in government overreach
- ordinary people are not sufficiently inconvenienced by any single new breaches of privacy
It all adds up to a ratcheting mechanism that only goes in the direction of less privacy and fewer individual liberties over time, and only "crackpots" (or people principled to the point of removing themselves from everyday society, e.g. rms when it comes to free software) oppose it.
Given the number of people who voluntarily submit DNA to ancestry and other analysis sites, it really doesn't have much practical impact if governments collect it. Even without yours, they have enough of your relatives' to identify you. I have the same knee-jerk reaction as everyone else to government encroaching on privacy, but in the end we've all long since voluntarily given up any semblance of privacy. We're all carrying tracking devices and filling our homes with microphones and our families have given away our DNA for us. Privacy doesn't exist.
Except that Viet. gov. isn't really good at putting directive..
During Covid, Vietnam had ~20 official applications to track vaccination and half of them could give travel/move certificate. And to not stop, every city & district did manage differently "inventory" from application, google form, excel over Dropbox to hand managed paper.
To finish, I don't even imaging how it could end; IT security speaking.
During Covid, Vietnam had ~20 official applications to track vaccination and half of them could give travel/move certificate. And to not stop, every city & district did manage differently "inventory" from application, google form, excel over Dropbox to hand managed paper.
To finish, I don't even imaging how it could end; IT security speaking.
I expect someday that the entire population's full genomes will be recorded (by some government entity or otherwise) and public. It's sadly only a matter of time.
> Even without yours, they have enough of your relatives' to identify you
This is what makes me mildly irritated about “consent to collect DNA samples.” DNA is not just you, unlike other biometrics, like fingerprints—it’s your relatives too. This makes it hypothetically possible, for example, for some insurer to genetically determine you have a preexisting condition without ever consenting to give your DNA.
Of course this will never get unwound because of the enormous boon to law enforcement these mega gene databases have been.
This is what makes me mildly irritated about “consent to collect DNA samples.” DNA is not just you, unlike other biometrics, like fingerprints—it’s your relatives too. This makes it hypothetically possible, for example, for some insurer to genetically determine you have a preexisting condition without ever consenting to give your DNA.
Of course this will never get unwound because of the enormous boon to law enforcement these mega gene databases have been.
"I also care, but actually I don't" wow
>Newborn DNA Banking [in the U.S.; 2010]
https://www.aclu.org/documents/newborn-dna-banking
https://www.aclu.org/documents/newborn-dna-banking
They say in the article that it is no small feat, but in Vietnam, there is a lot of government. Even the most rural communities (where people literally have no running water or barely and electricity), they have local party officials overseeing things. If they want to get this done, it'll get done.
> where people literally have no running water or barely and electricity
It's changed rapidly in the past few years.
I've been to rural Gia Lai (a friend of mine is from there), and the amount of basic infrastructure being implemented is astounding. They are trying to use digital infra similar to what Aadhar was used for in India.
It also makes sense to lock it biometrically given that the Cambodia and Laos borders are extremely porous, and it's fairly common for smugglers or migrants to try and bribe someone for VN ID cards.
Digital infra is the fastest and most efficient way to disburse welfare without worrying about corruption or shrinkage. If that means being reducing civil liberties, so be it. You can't eat PGP or use it to send your kid to high school.
> local party officials overseeing things
They're useless (at least in Gia Lai). They messed up my friend's name on their passport and barely get anything done.
It's MPS that's taking over this, and they're competent (and scary for obvious reasons)
It's changed rapidly in the past few years.
I've been to rural Gia Lai (a friend of mine is from there), and the amount of basic infrastructure being implemented is astounding. They are trying to use digital infra similar to what Aadhar was used for in India.
It also makes sense to lock it biometrically given that the Cambodia and Laos borders are extremely porous, and it's fairly common for smugglers or migrants to try and bribe someone for VN ID cards.
Digital infra is the fastest and most efficient way to disburse welfare without worrying about corruption or shrinkage. If that means being reducing civil liberties, so be it. You can't eat PGP or use it to send your kid to high school.
> local party officials overseeing things
They're useless (at least in Gia Lai). They messed up my friend's name on their passport and barely get anything done.
It's MPS that's taking over this, and they're competent (and scary for obvious reasons)
I spent 2 years on a motorbike going all over VN/Cambodia/Laos... you go outside of the cities and it is village after village of people with very little infrastructure. Gia Lai isn't that rural. I drove AH17 and QL14c. I'm thinking more in the North. Ha Giang, Cao Bang, even out to Sapa.
ALL of the borders are porous. I literally drove over the northern border into China at some random point, and there was nobody there. It is super easy to go back and forth. I also drove a lot of the trade routes along the border cut into the forests. ID cards aren't going to stop anything.
You are definitely correct about competency. No argument there.
ALL of the borders are porous. I literally drove over the northern border into China at some random point, and there was nobody there. It is super easy to go back and forth. I also drove a lot of the trade routes along the border cut into the forests. ID cards aren't going to stop anything.
You are definitely correct about competency. No argument there.
> I'm thinking more in the North. Ha Giang, Cao Bang, even out to Sapa
Ah, the only parts of Vietnam poorer than Gia Lai.
Fair enough.
> Gia Lai isn't that rural
On QL14c and AH17 it isn't, but in between those two highways it definetly is (think dirt roads, wooden shanties like you'd see in neighboring Mondulkiri/Ratanakiri).
> ID cards aren't going to stop anything.
If you are distributing social assistant payments, you need identification.
If you leave identification to local PD (who are paid too little to care about being competent), it's not that difficult to bribe them to either add or remove you from a registry, or create multiple ghost identities in order to siphon social assistance payments (probably at the behest of the local party official).
The only true form of identification that is tamper-proof is biometric.
> ALL of the borders are porous
Agreed, but Laos and Cambodia are significantly more impoverished than Vietnam, especially the portions of Cambodia and Laos neighboring VN. It's hard for someone there to migrate to Thailand like how Cambodians in Siem Reap or Laotians around Vientiane do.
Ah, the only parts of Vietnam poorer than Gia Lai.
Fair enough.
> Gia Lai isn't that rural
On QL14c and AH17 it isn't, but in between those two highways it definetly is (think dirt roads, wooden shanties like you'd see in neighboring Mondulkiri/Ratanakiri).
> ID cards aren't going to stop anything.
If you are distributing social assistant payments, you need identification.
If you leave identification to local PD (who are paid too little to care about being competent), it's not that difficult to bribe them to either add or remove you from a registry, or create multiple ghost identities in order to siphon social assistance payments (probably at the behest of the local party official).
The only true form of identification that is tamper-proof is biometric.
> ALL of the borders are porous
Agreed, but Laos and Cambodia are significantly more impoverished than Vietnam, especially the portions of Cambodia and Laos neighboring VN. It's hard for someone there to migrate to Thailand like how Cambodians in Siem Reap or Laotians around Vientiane do.
The problem is that, in many cases, the governments that introduce those kinds of pervasive ID schemes are also the governments that lean authoritarian (or would love to).
It seems to me that, long-term, we really have three options that do not lead to a totalitarian hellscape:
1. Keep our strong centralized governments, but retain privacy (by e.g. not having biometric IDs) as a check on their ability to control citizens. Downside: governments are much less efficient. Caveat: arrangement is unstable and governments will constantly try to upset it.
2. Accept a reduction in privacy while also scaling down and decentralizing governance (libertarian municipalism, democratic confederalism etc) to the point where governments simply don't have sufficient power to get too abusive with such schemes. Downsides: reduced security. Caveat: such abuses will still happen, they'll just be more localized instead of uniform, and thus easier (but still costly) to evade when they happen.
3. Go full Amish. Downside: reduction in quality of life (some people would argue about this, but the consensus is fairly clear based on how many people choose this lifestyle today).
It seems to me that, long-term, we really have three options that do not lead to a totalitarian hellscape:
1. Keep our strong centralized governments, but retain privacy (by e.g. not having biometric IDs) as a check on their ability to control citizens. Downside: governments are much less efficient. Caveat: arrangement is unstable and governments will constantly try to upset it.
2. Accept a reduction in privacy while also scaling down and decentralizing governance (libertarian municipalism, democratic confederalism etc) to the point where governments simply don't have sufficient power to get too abusive with such schemes. Downsides: reduced security. Caveat: such abuses will still happen, they'll just be more localized instead of uniform, and thus easier (but still costly) to evade when they happen.
3. Go full Amish. Downside: reduction in quality of life (some people would argue about this, but the consensus is fairly clear based on how many people choose this lifestyle today).
If I earn less than $2 a day, I still need to eat today. Privacy be damned.
------
If civil libertarians want to be taken seriously, there needs to be an actual attempt at sympathizing with the plight of the poor, and then actually working on implementing a solution that works both ways.
Think low-tech or simplified solutions with minimal moving parts. Complexity is the enemy of privacy.
Instead, it's a bunch of blowhards who'd give their mother's SSN if an MPS type even threated to raise their hand at them.
There is always a need for identification. Go implement a low tech solution with minimal moving pieces that provides privacy and identification at the same time.
On top of that, does anonymity fall under privacy? If yes, then it's inherently impossible to implement privacy and identitification concurrently.
------
If civil libertarians want to be taken seriously, there needs to be an actual attempt at sympathizing with the plight of the poor, and then actually working on implementing a solution that works both ways.
Think low-tech or simplified solutions with minimal moving parts. Complexity is the enemy of privacy.
Instead, it's a bunch of blowhards who'd give their mother's SSN if an MPS type even threated to raise their hand at them.
There is always a need for identification. Go implement a low tech solution with minimal moving pieces that provides privacy and identification at the same time.
On top of that, does anonymity fall under privacy? If yes, then it's inherently impossible to implement privacy and identitification concurrently.
You are implying that civil libertarians are in a position to "implement a solution". They generally aren't.
But if you want to see an actual implementation of the concepts that I've mentioned, you can look at e.g. Rojava or the Chiapas.
But if you want to see an actual implementation of the concepts that I've mentioned, you can look at e.g. Rojava or the Chiapas.
> Rojava
Where the YPG indiscriminately targets civilians, just like the TAF at the exact same time [0], and also ethnically cleansed Arab and Turkmen residents of Northern Syria [1]
> Chiapas
The EZLN dissolved their "autonomous municipalities" a couple months ago [2] due to cartel violence [3]
------
If your knowledge of the world comes from Vice News I'd rather not talk with ya.
> You are implying that civil libertarians are in a position to "implement a solution". They generally aren't
We are. We know when to pick our battles, and how to lobby and implement within the system.
[0] - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/02/syria-hundred...
[1] - https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MDE242...
[2] - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/mexicos-zapatista-indigen...
[3] - https://elpais.com/mexico/2023-11-06/el-ezln-anuncia-la-desa...
Where the YPG indiscriminately targets civilians, just like the TAF at the exact same time [0], and also ethnically cleansed Arab and Turkmen residents of Northern Syria [1]
> Chiapas
The EZLN dissolved their "autonomous municipalities" a couple months ago [2] due to cartel violence [3]
------
If your knowledge of the world comes from Vice News I'd rather not talk with ya.
> You are implying that civil libertarians are in a position to "implement a solution". They generally aren't
We are. We know when to pick our battles, and how to lobby and implement within the system.
[0] - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/02/syria-hundred...
[1] - https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MDE242...
[2] - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/mexicos-zapatista-indigen...
[3] - https://elpais.com/mexico/2023-11-06/el-ezln-anuncia-la-desa...
lots of countries share data and also require you to get finger printed, iris scanned, photo taken etc which is already a lot of biometrics.. not sure for this DNA thing looks a little excessive...
What could possibly go wrong?
And state capitalists will keep defending Vietnam as "communist" because the universities offer courses in "Dialectical Materialism and Ho Chi Minh Thought", I'm sure, just as when they denounced LGBT rights protests as an American "color revolution".
It's not your DNA anymore, it's The People's DNA now.
Once again goes to show that if you try to use a state to build communism all you get is a state, which is all the more likely to slide into authoritarianism because it gets to claim it's all for the common good. If you actually want to build communism, you need to start bottom up with material conditions first. This is why anarchists keep talking about prefiguration.
It's not your DNA anymore, it's The People's DNA now.
Once again goes to show that if you try to use a state to build communism all you get is a state, which is all the more likely to slide into authoritarianism because it gets to claim it's all for the common good. If you actually want to build communism, you need to start bottom up with material conditions first. This is why anarchists keep talking about prefiguration.
I've never been convinced that communism wasn't about power, like with capitalism, it's just different people holding the sticks.
That's why I prefer the label "anarchism" even if the desired end state of anarchism fits Marx's definition of communism as a "state-less, class-less" society. To paraphrase Bakunin: I don't care if the stick I am beaten with is called The People's Stick, I want there to be no stick at all.
Vanguardism by trying to utilize the existing systems of oppression to bring about communism fails the instance it succeeds in taking over those systems because the interests of rulers are not those of those ruled over. Aspirationally communist states like the Soviet Union or Mao's China merely succeeded in abolishing the capitalist class by replacing it with the bureaucracy. But under communism there must not only be no capitalist class but also no working class because the perpetuation of a working class means there is still a class system and the oppression that comes with it.
Anarchist practice means creating federated, horizontal structures and dismantling oppressive hierarchies (i.e. the systems that enable people to exert power over others). You can still have individual bad actors but the damage a bad actor can do in a horizontal structure is negligible compared to what they can do in a hierarchy, especially one that rewards bad behavior (cf. people complaining that sociopaths make the best business people).
So at worst, yes, you will have other people holding the sticks but the sticks will be much smaller and thus easier to overcome if used against you.
Vanguardism by trying to utilize the existing systems of oppression to bring about communism fails the instance it succeeds in taking over those systems because the interests of rulers are not those of those ruled over. Aspirationally communist states like the Soviet Union or Mao's China merely succeeded in abolishing the capitalist class by replacing it with the bureaucracy. But under communism there must not only be no capitalist class but also no working class because the perpetuation of a working class means there is still a class system and the oppression that comes with it.
Anarchist practice means creating federated, horizontal structures and dismantling oppressive hierarchies (i.e. the systems that enable people to exert power over others). You can still have individual bad actors but the damage a bad actor can do in a horizontal structure is negligible compared to what they can do in a hierarchy, especially one that rewards bad behavior (cf. people complaining that sociopaths make the best business people).
So at worst, yes, you will have other people holding the sticks but the sticks will be much smaller and thus easier to overcome if used against you.
Some amount of hierarchy is unfortunately necessary if we want to tackle larger issues that necessarily require coordination (like, say, global warming - you can't mitigate it if any commune can just "opt out" because e.g. they personally aren't affected in a negative way).
I think the important thing is to always treat hierarchy as a cost. So whenever things need to be organized, you look at that cost versus the benefits to see whether it is justifiable at all; but even if it is, you still try to minimize the cost to achieve the requisite outcome. Broadly speaking, in the context of governance in general, it means loose confederations with power mostly flowing "bottom up", but with mechanisms in place that still do allow to tackle those aforementioned emergencies like AGW that require top-down enforced coordination.
I think the important thing is to always treat hierarchy as a cost. So whenever things need to be organized, you look at that cost versus the benefits to see whether it is justifiable at all; but even if it is, you still try to minimize the cost to achieve the requisite outcome. Broadly speaking, in the context of governance in general, it means loose confederations with power mostly flowing "bottom up", but with mechanisms in place that still do allow to tackle those aforementioned emergencies like AGW that require top-down enforced coordination.
I think you mean violence, not hierarchy. Engels made a similar mixup when he wrote a screed against anarchists based on a misunderstanding of "authority" to mean any form of violence.
Anarchy describes organization and cooperation within a group. There can be groups that have different interests and those differences in interests can lead to disagreements that can be resolved in different ways. That doesn't change. Even in prehistorical gift economies there is evidence for various forms of diplomacy to arrange agreements with other groups: migration, gifts, demonstrations of power, ceremonial fights or, as a last resort, war.
It's worth pointing out that this is no different today. States can make all the laws they want but if they want other states to do what they say, they need to find a different way to do so. And more often than not, this fails unless both sides can find a mutually beneficial agreement.
Anarchy describes organization and cooperation within a group. There can be groups that have different interests and those differences in interests can lead to disagreements that can be resolved in different ways. That doesn't change. Even in prehistorical gift economies there is evidence for various forms of diplomacy to arrange agreements with other groups: migration, gifts, demonstrations of power, ceremonial fights or, as a last resort, war.
It's worth pointing out that this is no different today. States can make all the laws they want but if they want other states to do what they say, they need to find a different way to do so. And more often than not, this fails unless both sides can find a mutually beneficial agreement.
I meant both. To get back to my example, groups operating completely independently would not be able to solve AGW. To solve it, you need a single coordinated plan across different groups, and people and organizations who will see it through. At that point, you have a hierarchy. Further, some groups will refuse to participate for selfish reasons, and thus it may be necessary to compel them to participate in said hierarchy.
But there are different ways to arrange those things. The problem with most hierarchies today is that they're sold as something innately good, not as necessary evil to solve a particular problem. If you're building a hierarchy with the latter perspective in mind, you add plenty of checks and balances to make sure that it does not entrench and take over other issues.
But there are different ways to arrange those things. The problem with most hierarchies today is that they're sold as something innately good, not as necessary evil to solve a particular problem. If you're building a hierarchy with the latter perspective in mind, you add plenty of checks and balances to make sure that it does not entrench and take over other issues.
Correct, and it even seems self-evident from the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" that many communist theorists adopted as descriptive of their theory.
It's worth noting that in communist theory (which you mentioned), the dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate step before communism is fully achieved, it's not the end goal.
In practice I'm not sure the proletariat ever held this power (as a class; individuals may have).
In practice I'm not sure the proletariat ever held this power (as a class; individuals may have).
And in communist thoughts, capitalism is sometimes referred to as "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." I've always taken it to mean where power relies and not in the modern sense of what we call a dictatorship.
It can be interpreted more or less literally, depending.
Thing is, while Marx is the originator of that term and concept, the source from which most people are aware of it is actually Lenin/Bolsheviks and their offshoots (Mao etc), and they were very much on the literalist side of that interpretation. But they had to be to do what they wanted - a society run by workers - because they managed to take power in Russia, a country, where 80% of the population were peasants who did not, as a rule, support Bolsheviks (the de facto Russian peasant party was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party).
Consequently, when you look at early USSR, it had gems like these in its 1924 Constitution:
"ARTICLE 9. The Congress of Soviets of the USSR is composed of representatives of the urban Soviets and of the Soviets of the urban type, on the basis of one deputy per 25,000 electors, and of representatives of the Congresses of Soviets of the rural districts on the basis of one deputy per 125,000 inhabitants."
That is, rural (peasant) votes were explicitly diluted ~1:5 wrt urban (worker) votes in the Soviet council system. Needless to say, this has very little to do with democracy, but it is a good example of taking "dictatorship of the proletariat" literally.
Thing is, while Marx is the originator of that term and concept, the source from which most people are aware of it is actually Lenin/Bolsheviks and their offshoots (Mao etc), and they were very much on the literalist side of that interpretation. But they had to be to do what they wanted - a society run by workers - because they managed to take power in Russia, a country, where 80% of the population were peasants who did not, as a rule, support Bolsheviks (the de facto Russian peasant party was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party).
Consequently, when you look at early USSR, it had gems like these in its 1924 Constitution:
"ARTICLE 9. The Congress of Soviets of the USSR is composed of representatives of the urban Soviets and of the Soviets of the urban type, on the basis of one deputy per 25,000 electors, and of representatives of the Congresses of Soviets of the rural districts on the basis of one deputy per 125,000 inhabitants."
That is, rural (peasant) votes were explicitly diluted ~1:5 wrt urban (worker) votes in the Soviet council system. Needless to say, this has very little to do with democracy, but it is a good example of taking "dictatorship of the proletariat" literally.
The Bolsheviks specifically believed in vanguardism. This meant they not only had to suppress the 80% or so that had no interest in Bolshevism at all but also the various communist, anarchist and syndicalist movements that existed alongside the Bolsheviks but did not follow the vanguardist tradition. Ironically this means one thing the "Soviets" eliminated first was the soviets, i.e. the workers councils, and the worker cooperatives. This fixation on vanguardism continued to manifest in sabotaging other communist and anarchist movements in Ukraine and even Spain where it contributed to the victory of the fascists.
If there's one thing the Bolsheviks succeeded at, it's purges. I'm just not sure if that's something to be proud of as it evidently never led to anything beyond "actually existing socialism".
It's also worth remembering that according to Marx, communism is a state-less and class-less society. A literal "dictatorship of the proletariat" by definition maintains a class system because the proletariat is defined by its exploitation (i.e. working but not owning - an owner who works for his own business, like an enfranchised peasant, is not proletarian). In practice this literal interpretation thus also meant that the state replaced the capitalist class (hence state capitalism) even if theoretically the state was under the democratic control of the proletariat (but again via a system of representation, not delegation, as the vanguard party needed to be able to overrule any democratic interests that would have been deemed counter-revolutionary).
If there's one thing the Bolsheviks succeeded at, it's purges. I'm just not sure if that's something to be proud of as it evidently never led to anything beyond "actually existing socialism".
It's also worth remembering that according to Marx, communism is a state-less and class-less society. A literal "dictatorship of the proletariat" by definition maintains a class system because the proletariat is defined by its exploitation (i.e. working but not owning - an owner who works for his own business, like an enfranchised peasant, is not proletarian). In practice this literal interpretation thus also meant that the state replaced the capitalist class (hence state capitalism) even if theoretically the state was under the democratic control of the proletariat (but again via a system of representation, not delegation, as the vanguard party needed to be able to overrule any democratic interests that would have been deemed counter-revolutionary).
Indeed. I'm actually from a region of Russia that saw one of the biggest peasant uprisings against the Bolsheviks, notable for use of chemical weapons against the rebels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion. The rebels weren't really anarchists as such, and I don't think they had any particularly well-defined ideology beyond "land to the peasants", but they were still clearly a part of the socialist tradition (leadership was mostly SR). To add insult to injury, the people who led the punitive expedition to crush said revolt were presented as heroes afterwards, and in Soviet times we had streets in the city named after them.
The thing that they eliminated first was actually the peasant councils, starting as early as 1918, as those were the ones where they rarely had a majority. Kombeds ("committees of the poor") were established largely for this purpose, and were folded into the councils once they fulfilled their function of purging the latter of undesirables. Independent worker councils and trade unions followed shortly after.
The thing that they eliminated first was actually the peasant councils, starting as early as 1918, as those were the ones where they rarely had a majority. Kombeds ("committees of the poor") were established largely for this purpose, and were folded into the councils once they fulfilled their function of purging the latter of undesirables. Independent worker councils and trade unions followed shortly after.
"Under capitalism, man oppresses man. But under socialism, it's the other way around."
I don't understand how communism can work, even in theory, without authoritarianism. If a state guarantees minimum standards, then many people would be motivated to pursue their own interests. In a communist society, who wants to be a janitor? In a capitalist society that role is filled in a very brutal fashion - clean the toilets, go find another job, or go homeless. That's nothing to be proud of, but if the choice is between that pseudo-freedom and the very real non-freedom of the government dictating you are hereby deemed a toilet cleaner, I'd much rather go for the former.
I'd also add that I only mention janitor as something more relatable. There are a tremendous number of less well known jobs where people essentially have to sacrifice their health to provide the niceties we all take for granted. For instance if you've ever been in a town with a paper mill, it smells horrible 24/7 and its effects on everybody's health are even worse. How/why would anybody ever work/live in such places in a communist system, unless forced to?
I'd also add that I only mention janitor as something more relatable. There are a tremendous number of less well known jobs where people essentially have to sacrifice their health to provide the niceties we all take for granted. For instance if you've ever been in a town with a paper mill, it smells horrible 24/7 and its effects on everybody's health are even worse. How/why would anybody ever work/live in such places in a communist system, unless forced to?
It sounds like you've described two systems where folks are forced to work at a paper mill.
I think if you ask 3 communists to define communism you get 4 answers. For one, some are anarcho-communists and some aren't.
Adn when I ask, is it okay if I have possessions, is it okay if I trade and make contracts, I think they're mostly on board with that. But then there's some boundary where they say it's not okay if I make a contract to own stake in a company. Capitalism seems to obviously work great for me cause I get paid in fiat currency to work on startups that are likely to fail, and I have no risk.
Maybe communism is like "Simple software architecture", lots of people agree they want it and it would be easy to have "if only everyone else agreed", but then they can't agree what it is, or when you go to actually implement it, there's a good reason nobody really does it.
Adn when I ask, is it okay if I have possessions, is it okay if I trade and make contracts, I think they're mostly on board with that. But then there's some boundary where they say it's not okay if I make a contract to own stake in a company. Capitalism seems to obviously work great for me cause I get paid in fiat currency to work on startups that are likely to fail, and I have no risk.
Maybe communism is like "Simple software architecture", lots of people agree they want it and it would be easy to have "if only everyone else agreed", but then they can't agree what it is, or when you go to actually implement it, there's a good reason nobody really does it.
> I think if you ask 3 communists to define communism you get 4 answers. For one, some are anarcho-communists and some aren't.
Not really. Most communists agree that communism is a "state-less, class-less society". Sometimes they also add "money-less". The differences you are thinking of are between the various ideas of how to get there. "Anarcho-communism" is also a bit of a red herring. Anarchism is by definition communist - if anything an anarchist society would be a subset of communist societies because it requires the abolition of even more hierarchies. You'll find people on the left using the word "communism" in an inflationary way the same way the modern right throws it at anything to the left of conversvatism but even the Soviet Union never claimed to have achieved communism even if it was generally called "communist". There's an obvious difference between communism (which is narrowly defined, i.e. the end state) and a communist (a person who claims to want to achieve communism some way or another).
> Capitalism seems to obviously work great for me cause I get paid in fiat currency to work on startups that are likely to fail, and I have no risk.
Capitalism means you already have all the risk by existing within the system. Everything you "own" is entirely conditional on your continued ability to pay bills. Not just rent, mortgage or debt but also all the resources you need to actually use what you have: electricity, gas, water, waste water management. And of course any food you want to eat, any costs of replacing or repairing what you have and so on. If you don't keep making money, you will run out of it.
You may have a social support network - a friend you can crash at if your house burns down, a family that will take you back and feed you if all goes wrong. But those exist despite capitalism not as part of it. And those again require you to luck into a situation where you have a loving family or dependable friends who can afford an extra mouth to feed.
As the saying goes, under capitalism, most people are "one bad week away from poverty". Especially if they don't luck into generational wealth, a high paying and stable career and good insurances (which still may not cover everything life can throw at you).
If you want strenuous software metaphors, communism is pure functional programming, capitalism is class-based OOP and most of the world right now is running C#.
Not really. Most communists agree that communism is a "state-less, class-less society". Sometimes they also add "money-less". The differences you are thinking of are between the various ideas of how to get there. "Anarcho-communism" is also a bit of a red herring. Anarchism is by definition communist - if anything an anarchist society would be a subset of communist societies because it requires the abolition of even more hierarchies. You'll find people on the left using the word "communism" in an inflationary way the same way the modern right throws it at anything to the left of conversvatism but even the Soviet Union never claimed to have achieved communism even if it was generally called "communist". There's an obvious difference between communism (which is narrowly defined, i.e. the end state) and a communist (a person who claims to want to achieve communism some way or another).
> Capitalism seems to obviously work great for me cause I get paid in fiat currency to work on startups that are likely to fail, and I have no risk.
Capitalism means you already have all the risk by existing within the system. Everything you "own" is entirely conditional on your continued ability to pay bills. Not just rent, mortgage or debt but also all the resources you need to actually use what you have: electricity, gas, water, waste water management. And of course any food you want to eat, any costs of replacing or repairing what you have and so on. If you don't keep making money, you will run out of it.
You may have a social support network - a friend you can crash at if your house burns down, a family that will take you back and feed you if all goes wrong. But those exist despite capitalism not as part of it. And those again require you to luck into a situation where you have a loving family or dependable friends who can afford an extra mouth to feed.
As the saying goes, under capitalism, most people are "one bad week away from poverty". Especially if they don't luck into generational wealth, a high paying and stable career and good insurances (which still may not cover everything life can throw at you).
If you want strenuous software metaphors, communism is pure functional programming, capitalism is class-based OOP and most of the world right now is running C#.
If I had to guess, two things:
1. Increased investment in automation for the least desirable jobs.
2. Everyone can have the basic necessities covered, but still get paid for doing extra. The least desirable, most unpleasant jobs would have to be paid considerably more than they currently are (which is theoretically supposed to be how it works in capitalism too, capitalism isn't supposed to rely on a trapped, indebted underclass that's forced to take any job at any pay). If working twenty years part time with plenty of vacation allowances as a janitor* meant that you and your children get to live what is currently considered an upper class lifestyle, people would be lining up to do their tour of duty as a janitor*.
Think of how professional sports (or union-represented trade jobs) are theoretically supposed to work: It's hard enough on your body that you can't really keep up at it all the way to 65, so you're supposedly paid enough/given good enough benefits to spend less of your life working, and live the rest of your life out on your savings.
1. Increased investment in automation for the least desirable jobs.
2. Everyone can have the basic necessities covered, but still get paid for doing extra. The least desirable, most unpleasant jobs would have to be paid considerably more than they currently are (which is theoretically supposed to be how it works in capitalism too, capitalism isn't supposed to rely on a trapped, indebted underclass that's forced to take any job at any pay). If working twenty years part time with plenty of vacation allowances as a janitor* meant that you and your children get to live what is currently considered an upper class lifestyle, people would be lining up to do their tour of duty as a janitor*.
Think of how professional sports (or union-represented trade jobs) are theoretically supposed to work: It's hard enough on your body that you can't really keep up at it all the way to 65, so you're supposedly paid enough/given good enough benefits to spend less of your life working, and live the rest of your life out on your savings.
In #2, you're 100% right - if doing a bit of janitorial work was enough to obtain an upper class lifestyle, there'd be mile long lines of people anxious to become janitors. But don't you see the problem that immediately entails? You have neither enough resources for everybody to live these sort of lifestyles nor enough jobs for this many janitors, and so paying janitors this sort of salary becomes a nonstarter.
This is why in capitalism, wages are not determined by some subjective measurement about a job (difficulty, desirability, etc) but a simple balance between supply and demand. The reason janitors are paid poorly is because there's lots of supply, but not nearly as much demand. The same's true in high skill positions. Post-docs are some of the most highly skilled individuals who often have years of specialized education in very specific fields. Yet there's lots of post-docs but not much demand, so their pay isn't that far removed from that of a janitor.
Automation feels hand-wavey to me on these topics, because it's not realistically coming anytime soon for many of these jobs. While we take janitorial work for granted, think about how absurdly difficult it would be for a robot to be able to clean an arbitrarily designed bathroom, which may be defouled in an equally arbitrary number of ways, and also possibly depending on an arbitrary selection of third party tools/replacements. In all reality I think it's extremely safe to say that's not happening in our lifetimes.
There's also an economic issue that the jobs automation replaces needs to be substantially cheaper than a human doing the same work. Stuff with moving parts breaks down and tends to need regular maintenance, while wages for most low skill work are very low. We could largely automate something like fast food production, but economically it's still cheaper to just use humans.
This is why in capitalism, wages are not determined by some subjective measurement about a job (difficulty, desirability, etc) but a simple balance between supply and demand. The reason janitors are paid poorly is because there's lots of supply, but not nearly as much demand. The same's true in high skill positions. Post-docs are some of the most highly skilled individuals who often have years of specialized education in very specific fields. Yet there's lots of post-docs but not much demand, so their pay isn't that far removed from that of a janitor.
Automation feels hand-wavey to me on these topics, because it's not realistically coming anytime soon for many of these jobs. While we take janitorial work for granted, think about how absurdly difficult it would be for a robot to be able to clean an arbitrarily designed bathroom, which may be defouled in an equally arbitrary number of ways, and also possibly depending on an arbitrary selection of third party tools/replacements. In all reality I think it's extremely safe to say that's not happening in our lifetimes.
There's also an economic issue that the jobs automation replaces needs to be substantially cheaper than a human doing the same work. Stuff with moving parts breaks down and tends to need regular maintenance, while wages for most low skill work are very low. We could largely automate something like fast food production, but economically it's still cheaper to just use humans.
So we've gone from "How are we going to get people to do shitty work" to "Now everyone wants to do the shitty work!" as our problem, which tells me that we just need to tune the pay to a middle ground somewhere between the two to get the perfect number of janitors.
Easy!
Easy!
Let's be honest, this is just navel gazing. At heart it's a simple question of ethics:
Do you prefer a system that affords a very small number of people a lifestyle of exuberant luxury and wasteful excess at the cost of exploiting the labor of the vast majority and condemning a large number of people to abject poverty to one that distributes resources based on how much every single person can contribute and how much they need and sharing the surplus, even if the luxuries this affords everyone can at best approximate the mean of the system built on exploitation?
Generally, people like democracy because they like the idea of everyone having an equal say. Generally, people like socialized healthcare because they like the idea of everyone being cared for in times of crisis. Generally, people like public services because they like the idea of everyone having access to vital infrastructure and emergency services. Generally, people like the minimum wage because they don't like to see people being taken advantage of. But the very idea of capitalism contradicts this.
Under capitalism, democracy is defined in terms of the free market. Socialized healthcare is seen as wasteful. Maintaining infrastructure beyond what is immediately necessary is inefficient. The minimum wage is seen as hindering market flexibility. All can be property and all property must be subject to the market and the market must allow for the accumulation of property in order to allow it to find a stable equilibrium over time, humans are an afterthought. Generally, people don't like this. That is why it's always wrapped in conditionals: "capitalism but in a democracy", "capitalism but regulated", "capitalism but social market economics", "capitalism but woke". But those are always contradictions and at the end of the day the market demands privatization and absolute capitalization. Capitalism tends towards "anarcho-capitalism", a minimalist state reduced to its mechanisms of enforcement but at the full control of moneyed interests where every social interaction is a market transaction.
Capitalism puts markets first. Everything is capital, every interaction transactional. Conveniently this benefits those who already have state-enforced claims over massive amounts of capital going in. Inconveniently it can be literally life-threatening to those who have nothing and hazardous to those who only have their own labor to sell.
Anarchism puts people first. The systems arise from it as needed and are kept in check by everyone's willingness to participate in them. A real-life version of the fiction of the "social contract" state theory uses to justify its steel grip around its subjects' necks. Under a state there is literally nowhere you can go because all land is property and property can be ceased or held by the state. Under a state there is literally nothing you can take with you because all you have is property and all your property is only under your control as long as the state permits it. The state exists as a golem manifesting and voiding property claims and transactions while following the faint calls of whoever holds the most of it, be it the democratic majority or a minority of moneyed individuals.
For me, that goes deeply against my idea of ethics. We can't aimlessly tear down the systems we have, yes, as long as other systems exist that will fill in the gaps. But we can build horizontal structures in the spaces those systems allow it or where they can't stop us - yet. Once you tear down one system, the others will fill the gaps. It's on us to ensure those that remain will be in favor of us once those that exist in contradiction force their own inevitable destruction as their necessary resolution.
Do you prefer a system that affords a very small number of people a lifestyle of exuberant luxury and wasteful excess at the cost of exploiting the labor of the vast majority and condemning a large number of people to abject poverty to one that distributes resources based on how much every single person can contribute and how much they need and sharing the surplus, even if the luxuries this affords everyone can at best approximate the mean of the system built on exploitation?
Generally, people like democracy because they like the idea of everyone having an equal say. Generally, people like socialized healthcare because they like the idea of everyone being cared for in times of crisis. Generally, people like public services because they like the idea of everyone having access to vital infrastructure and emergency services. Generally, people like the minimum wage because they don't like to see people being taken advantage of. But the very idea of capitalism contradicts this.
Under capitalism, democracy is defined in terms of the free market. Socialized healthcare is seen as wasteful. Maintaining infrastructure beyond what is immediately necessary is inefficient. The minimum wage is seen as hindering market flexibility. All can be property and all property must be subject to the market and the market must allow for the accumulation of property in order to allow it to find a stable equilibrium over time, humans are an afterthought. Generally, people don't like this. That is why it's always wrapped in conditionals: "capitalism but in a democracy", "capitalism but regulated", "capitalism but social market economics", "capitalism but woke". But those are always contradictions and at the end of the day the market demands privatization and absolute capitalization. Capitalism tends towards "anarcho-capitalism", a minimalist state reduced to its mechanisms of enforcement but at the full control of moneyed interests where every social interaction is a market transaction.
Capitalism puts markets first. Everything is capital, every interaction transactional. Conveniently this benefits those who already have state-enforced claims over massive amounts of capital going in. Inconveniently it can be literally life-threatening to those who have nothing and hazardous to those who only have their own labor to sell.
Anarchism puts people first. The systems arise from it as needed and are kept in check by everyone's willingness to participate in them. A real-life version of the fiction of the "social contract" state theory uses to justify its steel grip around its subjects' necks. Under a state there is literally nowhere you can go because all land is property and property can be ceased or held by the state. Under a state there is literally nothing you can take with you because all you have is property and all your property is only under your control as long as the state permits it. The state exists as a golem manifesting and voiding property claims and transactions while following the faint calls of whoever holds the most of it, be it the democratic majority or a minority of moneyed individuals.
For me, that goes deeply against my idea of ethics. We can't aimlessly tear down the systems we have, yes, as long as other systems exist that will fill in the gaps. But we can build horizontal structures in the spaces those systems allow it or where they can't stop us - yet. Once you tear down one system, the others will fill the gaps. It's on us to ensure those that remain will be in favor of us once those that exist in contradiction force their own inevitable destruction as their necessary resolution.
I general I don't really disagree with you, but there's one place we do differ. I find that in reality we often don't have the choice between a good idea and a bad idea, but rather between a bad idea and a terrible one. And so trying something new simply because what we currently have is bad is not compelling, to me. It's really interesting how much wisdom is tucked away in all of those old hokey folk sayings that we seem to be largely discarding in modern cultureless culture: 'Out of the frying pan, into the fire.' So, no - I don't find it to be just navel gazing.
As to the issues with "our" current system, I think one could argue a lot of it started in 1971. [1] It's referencing the end of Bretton Woods. Under Bretton Woods the USD was convertible to gold at a fixed rate, and other countries were obligated to peg their currency to the USD. The idea being that the fixed conversion rate would prevent the US from printing too much money, or other countries would just convert their excess USD to gold and make a huge profit. Except we did print too much money and other countries decided to cash in their gold. So we simply defaulted on our obligations and withdrew from the agreement.
It's at exactly that point in 1971 that the handcuffs on governments' money printing were completely removed. And we're now seeing the consequences of this. Rather than being some deep issue with capitalism, I think we're just looking at a relatively short-lived monetary experiment that's ultimately turning out to be a catastrophic failure, masked only by the fact that we kicked off said experiment at the exact time computing and related technology was entering into a hyper-expansion phase. But now as that fantasy/bubble of infinite growth to sustain infinite monetary expansion starts to pop, we're seeing the natural outcomes happen at an accelerated rate.
[1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
As to the issues with "our" current system, I think one could argue a lot of it started in 1971. [1] It's referencing the end of Bretton Woods. Under Bretton Woods the USD was convertible to gold at a fixed rate, and other countries were obligated to peg their currency to the USD. The idea being that the fixed conversion rate would prevent the US from printing too much money, or other countries would just convert their excess USD to gold and make a huge profit. Except we did print too much money and other countries decided to cash in their gold. So we simply defaulted on our obligations and withdrew from the agreement.
It's at exactly that point in 1971 that the handcuffs on governments' money printing were completely removed. And we're now seeing the consequences of this. Rather than being some deep issue with capitalism, I think we're just looking at a relatively short-lived monetary experiment that's ultimately turning out to be a catastrophic failure, masked only by the fact that we kicked off said experiment at the exact time computing and related technology was entering into a hyper-expansion phase. But now as that fantasy/bubble of infinite growth to sustain infinite monetary expansion starts to pop, we're seeing the natural outcomes happen at an accelerated rate.
[1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Communism assumes that no one has to clean the toilet, but the toilet would still be cleaned. It’s the abundance of resources premise. You can’t have communism in a scarcity world. The common example being taught to kids are oxygen: think of how everyone can consume as much as they need, and there are enough for everyone.
How the toilet actually get clean is left as the exercise for the reader.
How the toilet actually get clean is left as the exercise for the reader.
It's tiring to hear people critique communists using the same tired arguments I hear from Christians critiquing atheism. "If there is no God, why wouldn't you rape and murder everyone" and "If there is no police, why would you clean the toilet" have the same answer.
Yes, if you have a toilet and think cleaning toilets is yucky but you value having a clean toilet, you'll have to ask someone to clean it for you and they'll likely not want this to be a one-sided relationship unless you're literally phyiscally or mentally disabled to the point people want to take care of you because you can't do so yourself. That does not require capitalism.
Heck, you could even have money without having capitalism. The question is what money can buy. Under feudalism for example - not that feudalism is preferable to capitalism unless you think you'd get to be the king (and arguably not even then) - all the money in the world wouldn't have turned a peasant into a king because the lord would have just had his guards confiscate the money, kill the peasant and flay their corpse as a warning against not knowing your place in the hierarchy.
Saying "if I don't pay people to clean the toilet, it'll just be dirty forever" not only betrays your own suspect attitudes to hygiene but also a complete detachment from how 99% of human interactions operate, namely based on a shared interest of not wanting to be taken advantage of and helping when you can.
Some people genuinely like cleaning toilets. Some people don't mind cleaning their own toilets. Some people would really rather not have to clean their own toilets and are willing to do other things for other people. Some people are filthy slobs and would rather have a dirty toilet than clean it themselves or help others.
And yes, the obvious answer to "what about jobs that will literally kill you" is: then why should anyone want to do those jobs? If the jobs are vital to the survival of the group, those sound like some pretty damn prestiguous jobs that would lead to whoever does it being held in very high regard and treated as a saint. If the jobs are largely useless to the group, they simply won't be done unless we can find a way to do it that won't kill you. The difference is that under exploitative systems we either literally force people to do so at gunpoint or we treat the workers as disposable drones and only compensate them (or invest in their safety and care) as little as we can get away with.
But I understand that all of this might sound like fanciful prose if you can only ever envision systems working if they rely on exploiting some 90% of the population even though they're only held together by those 90%'s misplaced compassion.
Yes, if you have a toilet and think cleaning toilets is yucky but you value having a clean toilet, you'll have to ask someone to clean it for you and they'll likely not want this to be a one-sided relationship unless you're literally phyiscally or mentally disabled to the point people want to take care of you because you can't do so yourself. That does not require capitalism.
Heck, you could even have money without having capitalism. The question is what money can buy. Under feudalism for example - not that feudalism is preferable to capitalism unless you think you'd get to be the king (and arguably not even then) - all the money in the world wouldn't have turned a peasant into a king because the lord would have just had his guards confiscate the money, kill the peasant and flay their corpse as a warning against not knowing your place in the hierarchy.
Saying "if I don't pay people to clean the toilet, it'll just be dirty forever" not only betrays your own suspect attitudes to hygiene but also a complete detachment from how 99% of human interactions operate, namely based on a shared interest of not wanting to be taken advantage of and helping when you can.
Some people genuinely like cleaning toilets. Some people don't mind cleaning their own toilets. Some people would really rather not have to clean their own toilets and are willing to do other things for other people. Some people are filthy slobs and would rather have a dirty toilet than clean it themselves or help others.
And yes, the obvious answer to "what about jobs that will literally kill you" is: then why should anyone want to do those jobs? If the jobs are vital to the survival of the group, those sound like some pretty damn prestiguous jobs that would lead to whoever does it being held in very high regard and treated as a saint. If the jobs are largely useless to the group, they simply won't be done unless we can find a way to do it that won't kill you. The difference is that under exploitative systems we either literally force people to do so at gunpoint or we treat the workers as disposable drones and only compensate them (or invest in their safety and care) as little as we can get away with.
But I understand that all of this might sound like fanciful prose if you can only ever envision systems working if they rely on exploiting some 90% of the population even though they're only held together by those 90%'s misplaced compassion.
I had not heard of this term, and I don't find much of substance regarding digital society management on the web. But it does seem to exist as a cluster of concepts at the union of academic, Orwellian, and marketing vocabularies. Sometimes you see a phrase and feel dread that you'll have to live in a world where it's just an ordinary thing people say. I remember when "Department of Homeland Security" felt dystopian. Now it feels like an ordinary, well-worn phrase that I intellectually know must be dystopian, but the nerve endings that used to tingle are now burned out. Here's to the continual process of redefining normal.