An idea About Group Relationships, Episode 0

No Comments

The main idea of this blog post is that regardless of the fact, whether the relationships between members of a group are coercive or not, the relationships are always an intellectual phenomena that can have very many different versions. Coercive examples are various states and pirate ships, from Egyptian and Mayan pharaohs and priests to Islam, Confucianism, western crusaders, "representative" democracies, communism, participatory democracy. Non-coercive examples are meritocracy, Gandhism, anarchy. People in the future will probably use systems, arrangements, that no person in year 2014 has ever heard of. Something totally new, probably more complex. An example of a trend is that a representative democracy is far more complex arrangement than an ancient tribe leadership system is. An assumption of the current contemplation is that evolution has a form of group selection, as opposed to individual or kin selection.

Given that the Soviet Union collapsed, because officials of the repressive arm of the Soviet Empire were not content with the decease of living standards to medieval levels, economic competition between different groups of people, often confused with "states", puts considerable pressure to a coercive party. The Soviet case demonstrates that no small group of people is able to conduct all planning and decision-taking as effectively as a dispersed groups of people can do it. That explains, why capitalist systems, Great Britain, the United States, won and the 100% communist system, the Soviet Union, collapsed and the de facto capitalistic "communist" China has its "communist" party still in power. All of that regardless of the fact that the military technology of the Soviet Union was superior to the United States military technology.

That being said, it is probable that an economically winning group of people will have some kind of an arrangement, where there are considerable economic freedoms and freedoms to cooperate and communicate. No central authority will decide over common resources. If project X is deemed "good", resources will converge to project X without any central authority telling people to pile their resources to project X. There will always be sharks, but the sharks of the future will not be kings or presidents or leaderships of a small group of parties, because the sharks of the future have to put up with far stronger resistance than the sharks of year 2014 have to put up with. The sharks of the future have to have a distributed arrangement, may be something reminiscent of 2014 drug cartels, to achieve the necessary strength and intellectual capabilities.

As with the Magna Carta and Renaissance related events, regime change will probably not take place without some sort of an active resistance to the old regime functionaries. Probably there will be victims on both sides, but there might be a situation, where both sides have roughly equal violence capabilities (a link to an Estonian text) and both of the parties are smart enough to use the nuc-le-ar bo-mb "logic" by refraining from settlement through blood-shed. History has shown that if the old regime has greater violence capabilities than the supporters of the new order, then a regime change will not take place, unless the old regime collapses on itself. On the other hand, there are different types of violence inflicting tools, weapons, and newer and cheaper weapons can be more powerful than older and expensive ones. (Think of a squadron of horses and highly trained knights with swords and a single machine gun at the disposal of an amateur.)

Here's an excerpt from a video, where the Noam Chomsky describes, what he thinks about that topic:



My(martin.vahi@softf1.com) current (2014_07_21) guess is that probably the most efficient and effective way to help a cause is to work on an area, where one is better than one's team mates. For an IT-guy that probably means helping one's team mates with secure communication and automation. Distributed arrangement is essential for efficiency and any distributed arrangement involves efficient and reliable, preferably secure, communication. As of 2014_07_21 that sounds like a plan. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and software development is my strength that I can use for compensating other people's weaknesses. That concludes my political "activism" for a while.



Thank You for reading my blog post. :-)


P.S. Acceptance of slavery (oppression) is equivalent to being a slacker. The apes in the jungle and in the zoo are perfectly content with what they have. Most people are slackers and therefore do not bother to take any action against their abusers.

+++++++++++


For those, who can understand Estonian, I mention that as of 2014_08 the computer hardware related strategy that I intend to use is described in an article titled "Pseudo-juhuslikke ideid riistvaraliste tagauste teemal, episood 1".

Comments are closed for this post