There can never be a functioning social system

All sorts of politicians, philosophers and social scientists try to come up with the best system to tell people how to organize themselves within a society. There’s democracy, communism, theocracy, socialism, capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, anarchy, feudalism, tribalism, republic and loads of others. They all promise a lot, but never deliver. “This system would be perfect if only _______.”  The _______ never becomes reality, at best such conditions last for a short while.

Let’s give up then. Our grand ideas of how things should work are always doomed to fail. Woe is me, woe is me. No.

Lets give up trying come up with some universal system for everybody. That is all we need to do. What works for me might not work for you, and vice versa. Also what worked for me when I was 20 years old may not work for me when I’m 40. You have to play by ear, observe the environment you live in. A social system is basically a bunch of habits of social interaction between people. Sort of as described by Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphic Fields. We form habits. For example I have a habit of getting together with my friends every weekend to play roleplaying games and drink a few beers. I would say it works for us quite well. I would even recommend it to others, but I’m sure the majority of humanity would not be interested, or they might even be disgusted by the notion. To each his own.

The same philosophy should be applied to more complex social issues, i. e. see what works. What do people find suitable for them. There is, and never can be, any all encompassing social philosophy for describing according to what sort of habits people should organize themselves to follow.

Myself, I consider anarchy the only morally agreeable system. Note: anarchy means no king or ruler, it does not mean the absence of rules. I am certainly against abstract laws and complex jargon that the average man cannot understand such as we have today, but I don’t object, and I would assume same goes for other “anarchists”, to people having agreements or commonly agreed rules together. While I do think it would be possibly to have a small community based on mutual anarchic agreements which would work well, I don’t think it would be a suitable model for all of humanity, since it seems that the majority of people want someone to tell them how to live their lives. If we were to have our little anarchic community living in happiness, the masses next door could and would probably be taken over by some form tyranny and eventually it would threaten the anarchic community. There is the If Only ______ in anarchy.

The desire to have a perfect social system stems, according to my observation, from laziness and/or fear. Abdication of responsibility. The notion seems to be if we had the perfectly working social system life would go on just like a dream without hardships, flowing like magical river with no dam in sight. We wouldn’t have to worry about a thing. There is this assumption that society is a mathematical formula, if you can crack the code, if only we can organize everything just perfectly it would work itself out and we could just sit back and relax. Sorry, that is not how life works. You will always have to work hard, there will always be times of tribulation and uncertainty mixed happiness and success. The only way to rid ourselves this problem is to have a Brave New World-type scenario where everyone is drugged or microchipped to become less than human.

Now that we live in the global community of interconnected rules and authority figures, and nation states with governments we still have all sorts of hardships we have to face. The contribution to solving these hardships that the externally imposed social system provides is, in my opinion, the inability for us to solve our own problems. There is always some external authority figure that you have no personal connection to who is expected to solve your problems. And sometimes they even do that, but often they don’t. In the pre-modern era is you wanted a house to live in, you built one. If you needed food, you hunted for it or grew it yourself. Now we have all sorts of laws and regulations, and bureaucratic hoops we have to jump through, to even consider doing so. We cannot do anything for ourselves, both in the sense we aren’t taught the skills to build houses and grow food, and there are laws and social obstacles to stop us from doing so.

This is what we have gotten from the belief that there is a social system that can solve our problems for us. The only true social system is interaction with the people around us, and modernization has made that even more difficult than before. Do you talk to your neighbours, do you know their names? I don’t, not really.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “There can never be a functioning social system”

  1. Anarchy is the only way for a society to organise itself in a way that suits everyone. Anarchy just means no rulers, and without rulers it is actually possible to have rules (a first for human society).

    In an anarchic society people of like mind would be perfectly free to gather together (physically or virtually) and practice whatever form of organisation they like….. communism, socialism, collectivism, cashless, potato trading….. you name it. The only thing the couldn’t do is impose their lifestyle onto others by force.

    A comparison can be drawn with relationships and sex. Consensual relationships and sex allow for every kind of interaction imaginable…. you can consent to being equal partners, or a surrendered wife (or husband), or tied up and whipped on Thursdays, or locked in a dungeon at the weekend or having an ‘open’ relationship or getting married just for economic reasons or just for companionship or safety or convenience or romance or whatever.

    When you think in terms of human relationships the idea of being organised by another seems objectionable. People should obviously be free to organise their own relationships voluntarily (AKA anarchy).

    And ‘society’ is just a bunch of people engaging in business and personal interactions, relationships and transactions. So obviously people in society should be free to organise their own interactions, relationships and transactions voluntarily (AKA anarchy).

    The question of “how we should organise society” is a misleading question. The real question is “should we organise ourselves as a society or should we let a group coerce us instead?”

    Coercion is NOT organisation. All social systems *except* anarchy (which is not a system, but just the absence of a violent ruling class), require coercion and are therefore not systems of social organisation at all, but systems of social coercion AKA rule by force.

    In simple terms, anarchy is just ‘what you end up with’ when society decides to be organised rather than chaotically ruled by a violent ruling class.

  2. Yoo might want to check out the role model of Islam practised from 632 to 661 AD and then come back and give it a second try.

    And, please, no hard feelings intended. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s