Thank you for the thoughtful reply. We still disagree on a fair bit, but I don't have a problem with your reasoning.
Good-faith posters and detailed arguments deserve thoughtful responses. Sorry I forgot to get back to this. I read it on my phone then forgot to reply when I got back on the pc.
I'll give just a couple of notes on some points you've made that have always been a little confusing to me when I've heard them expressed. The first is about conservativism, disgust, and uncertainty avoidance. I understand that conservatives often (but not always) score low on the openness scale, and liberals often (but not always) score high on the openness scale... but aren't both ends of that spectrum important to a functioning society? I mean, if your society is built only of people with high levels of openness, you're going to take a wrong turn and drive off of a cliff at some point, aren't you? You need someone there pumping the breaks. (Conversely, if everyone has low levels of openness and is standing on the breaks all of the time, you won't get anywhere.)
And the same goes for the out crowd / disgust response. If your society is dominated by those who are low in openness, you end up with racism and bigotry and all kinds of nasty nonsense. And if society is dominated by those who are high in openness you open yourself up to existential threat at the hands of people and groups who aren't very nice.
I'm familiar with the argument. Originally from Jordan Peterson. It's one of the more well-reasoned enlightened centrist-type arguments I've heard before and I suppose it makes sense in theory. But where have we actually seen the left-side of this theory play out? I mean, we definitely have plenty of examples of nations that went too far to the right and turned racist, xenophobic and authoritarian. But what examples do we have of nations that went too far left, and "dove off a cliff" (I put that in quotes because I'm just going to use your words there, as I'm not sure what you mean by dive off a cliff). What examples do we have in say, the modern industrial era (so late 19th century, up until now) of nations having too much openness and crumbling from within because of that openness? It all makes sense in a sort of theoretical, yin and yang, the middle road type of way. But in practical reality I'm not sure that it plays out like that.
No one wants to live in a police state. But a state without any police is a dangerous place. People really will come to your house, knock down your door, harm your family, and take your property. That's not some trumped up boogieman
That's certainly true under certain conditions. Such as those of pre-history, or similar conditions where there are high rates of violence, lawlessness, etc etc. But is that true of highly technological, advanced and educated modern societies? The best examples we have of that such as Japan, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, etc, have very little violent crime and have very minimal and non-lethal police forces. You do not have to worry about being murdered by the police in those nations. The crime is very, very low and the police forces are very small.
I don't know that we should completely eliminate law enforcement, but certainly the examples given above have clearly demonstrated that a highly advanced, educated society requires very minimal law enforcement, have they not?
Likewise, a nation that pours all of its resources into defense is doing a disservice to its citizens and likely causing undue tension in the world that makes us all less safe. But if you don't have a military force to defend your nation (or aren't de facto protected by the military might of your allies), there are nations in the world who will expand and invade and rape the resources of your nation and commit atrocities against your people. Also not some trumped up boogieman.
Is that true though with the presence of ICBM's and other forms of nuclear arms? If the United States completely dismantled its armed forces, but kept most of its nuclear arsenal, would we ever have to worry about invasion? Why?
And all of that just leads me to wondering about this vision:
"Bands of people / workers in local surviving communities coming together and socially owning the means of production (syndicates), co operating with other nearby syndicates. That is my limited understanding of his take on the matter."
I mean, honestly, what prevents that from turning into a society of pure terror as bands of marauders go from community to community pillaging and leaving destruction in their wake? Is that a myth, too? Do pirates and gangs not exist?
So we're referring to the state of nature here. First conceptualized by Thomas Hobbes in his writing the leviathan, which was a tome on why we need social contract, and why we need a State to prevent us from returning to the state of nature.
In your estimation, you think it likely that people would automatically return to this state of nature, "every man against every man". Its certainly not an impossibility, and there would likely be some number of areas that do return to that state. I think the wager is that modern/advanced/educated man does not behave in the state of nature the same way as the illiterate/uneducated man of 12,000 years ago. I think there's a good deal of sociological literature that would certainly indicate that if you put a modern man into an anarchic system, he doesn't start raping and pillaging. Ultimately we don't know and I don't know that anarcho-syndicalism is the answer and I don't even know if my take on Chomsky's ideal system is even correct.
It feels like you'd need to band together to fight these sorts off... but then they'd band together, too, right? And become super gangs? Aren't you back to some version of the nation state, and law and order, and property law, if if you are really going to deal with these threats?
If that's the way that things play out, then yes, this is a logical progression of things would likely go. The communities of peace-loving communalists would need to arm themselves and form larger and larger confederations to defend themselves from the marauding bands of raiders. I'm still not sure though, if given the choice and a completely clean slate to start from scratch, that these defense confederations turn into modern corporate capitalism over time, however.
I'm a pacifist at heart. But if you threaten those that I love, that changes very quickly. I'm a socialist at heart, too, and believe in giving to my community out of my possessions and my time. But if you forcibly take from me the rewards of my work, and give those rewards to someone else, I'm going to be a hell of a lot less inclined to produce anything of value.
Well, the "socialist" nations of western europe are certainly highly productive economies that produce the highest standards of living on earth. They quite clearly have demonstrated that a decent web of corporate regulation and high taxes do not stop prosperity and economic productivity.
The problem with your conception is that it relies on people willingly volunteering a part of their wealth, for the good of the whole. In an economy where the middle and lower class are being squeezed more and more tightly with stagnant wages and skyrocketing prices, people have less and less available income to given. Even if they wanted to, many cannot give. And the middle and lower classes aren't the ones holding the playing cards. The 1% and .1% are holding the whole deck, and we all clearly see their agenda. The 1% aren't willingly giving to the rest of us for the good of the whole. They do the opposite. They lobby our government and buy off our politicians for lower taxes and deregulation.
So in your conception of things -
the middle and lower classes have very little to give, even if they wanted to
the upper class are getting greedier and greedier, taking more and more for themselves
But to you, the solution, is for people to voluntarily give more, rather than having it mandated? So why isn't that happening as it is? Income and wealth inequality are growing at break neck speed, right? The middle class is shrinking, right? So where is this volunteerism and charity to balance things out?
This is the flaw in your ideal system. Higher amounts of wealth will naturally be generated by the talented few among us. I understand that people are not inherently equal in their abilities and in their productivity. So what you do is have a system that automatically shaves a little off the top and smooths out the roughest edges. This is done through tax and financial policy. Not through people's charity.
I like the sentiments; I just don't get the end game.
Systems that produce a higher quality of human life.
