Peat Supports Anarchism (Talking With Ray Peat #3: The Origins Of Authoritarianism)

[wiggles92]

I ignited quite a heated debate in that Brexit thread, which I'm sure many found tiresome, from those advocating racial differences, and those not. I'm not here to start that up again, it got ugly.

Buuuuuttt it then morphed into the old government vs. no government argument. The standard questions of who will build the roads, the immorality of corporations, some poo flinging, some beliefs that libertarians corrupt society and such. Anyways, in the latest Danny Roddy podcast () around 33:15 mins Peat is asked what would be most optimal for society with regards to this exact question.

I'd tentatively claim that Peat believes anarchism is the best system, as he answers by citing a line from Tolstoy:

"a person should be ashamed to use government power"

and then explaining the anarchist movement in Spain, specifically Andalusia. Anyways, from what I can understand Peat isn't quite the socialist he was portrayed as in other threads.

Just to be clear:

Anarchism: state power corrupts, and it corrupts absolutely. The state is immoral, as it forces the individual to pay for its policies (taxation used for welfare, infrastructure building, war on drugs, wars in general, regulations, control of science and indeed NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE research etc.)

Socialism is the diametric opposite of this, with a belief that the state is the solution to immorality. Think communism, with no free market, and allocations of labour and value as the state sees fit in its purest ideological form.

Please. Don't try and twist definitions. These are the two positions, and seemingly Peat wants no government. As a sidenote I hate the word anarchist. Brings up images of Sid Vicious, and violent riots. All it means is freedom from state power, or indeed just freedom.

I believe the anarchist system is correct, as its morally wrong to take away my right to voluntarily pay for the products and systems I want to invest my resources in. I'm still not sure whether I'd say I'm for total anarchism (no government whatsoever) or minarchist as its now called, which is basically just Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy (state is very limited, voluntary basis of taxation, and only for enforcement of something resembling British common law, and defence of a territory (read:country)).

Regardless, to me this seemed important to point out, as that debate was so recent, and some seem to have fundamentally misinterpreted Peats political stance, or indeed lack thereof. Corporations aren't the problem, the state is, as ultimately it is only the state that has a monopoly on power. Now, you can make the claim this isn't appropriate for the forum, but really it is.

No government = no regulation = freedom to choose, and to progress from that level playing field. It also means freedom from corporate influence, as such influence is only dangerous when its backed up by state power. As Peat hasn't ever explicitly advocated anarchism, I can see how his strong criticism of corporate greed, and its influence on science progress, could lead one to condemn private enterprise. In reality he condemns the protection of this corporate influence from government. Businesses cannot themselves force an agenda, but given the opportunity to do so some obviously do, estrogen based therapy being an example that springs to mind.

 

[Sucrates]

It's a tricky term at this point "Anarchism", as I think it's mostly used as soft language for a sub-sect of Communism. You could project half a dozen political ideologies and the anti-politic onto Ray Peat, he's spoken not unfavourably of Neo-Marxists in that same interview, he's also spoken of an ideal of Technocracy, of which I can understand the notion in his case given his IQ. I wonder is this the town he was referencing?
Marinaleda: Spain's communist model village

 

[Such_Saturation]

I really find it funny when these "neo-libertarians" or whatever "don't thread on me" kind of people think they are so distant from the ideas of true Communism and even SJW "safe space" values.

 

[Nick]

Anarchism: state power corrupts, and it corrupts absolutely. The state is immoral, as it forces the individual to pay for its policies (taxation used for welfare, infrastructure building, war on drugs, wars in general, regulations, control of science and indeed NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE research etc.)

Socialism is the diametric opposite of this, with a belief that the state is the solution to immorality. Think communism, with no free market, and allocations of labour and value as the state sees fit in its purest ideological form.

Just to clarify, this is a bit of a false dichotomy. Especially in the context of Spanish anarchism, Anarchism is very much a socialist project based on the abolition of both the state and capitalism/private property. In this sense, it can be seen as the "left wing" of communism, or "libertarian socialism," but is of course in opposition to state communism and state socialism. To quote the two political thinkers mentioned by Peat in the interview:
"We hold further that Communism is not only desirable, but that existing societies, founded on Individualism, are inevitably impelled in the direction of Communism. The development of Individualism during the last three centuries is explained by the efforts of the individual to protect himself from the tyranny of Capital and of the State" -Pyotr Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread
"The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all. All things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth." -Pyotr Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread
"I see that by violence, extortion and various devices in which I participate the worker’s bare necessities are taken from them, while the non-workers (of whom I am one) consume in superfluity the fruits of the labour of those who toil" -Leo Tolstoy

These really are two amazing thinkers. I think Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid" is one of the most important works ever written about biology.

“Don’t compete! — competition is always injurious to the species, and you have plenty of resources to avoid it!” ― Pyotr Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
“Human science fragments everything in order to understand it, kills everything in order to examine it." -Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

 

[Lightbringer]

It's a tricky term at this point "Anarchism", as I think it's mostly used as soft language for a sub-sect of Communism. You could project half a dozen political ideologies and the anti-politic onto Ray Peat,

Absolutely correct, you can interpret this interview in multiple ways, each to his own. Wiggles interpretation is wiggles alone - nothing right or wrong about it. By the way, one of the ideologies that Kropotkin is associated with is 'anarchist communism':
Anarchist communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[XPlus]

Anarchism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc. They can call it whatever they want. It's eventually the same experience.
When you put a bunch of people or monkeys into one place, soon after they establish hierarchies - a bunch of people sucking up to each other.
This is a simple concept that works. The psychological foundations for this concept are hardwired in our consciousness.
Everyone has a sense of entitlement to protect. Self-maintaining order is established and when someone tries to break that order they're fixed either by force or by increasing their sense of entitlement.
Throughout history, revolution was just a way of establishing a new social order. It did not changed the concept and its underlying foundations.
People's persistent fight against authority over the years always had its premature deflation points, where the people fall back to monkey-bussinessing with each other on the long-term.

Moving towards being socially efficient and cooperative will be a function of people's development at large (aka evolution) going through the right direction.

 

[haidut]

I ignited quite a heated debate in that Brexit thread, which I'm sure many found tiresome, from those advocating racial differences, and those not. I'm not here to start that up again, it got ugly.

Buuuuuttt it then morphed into the old government vs. no government argument. The standard questions of who will build the roads, the immorality of corporations, some poo flinging, some beliefs that libertarians corrupt society and such. Anyways, in the latest Danny Roddy podcast () around 33:15 mins Peat is asked what would be most optimal for society with regards to this exact question.

I'd tentatively claim that Peat believes anarchism is the best system, as he answers by citing a line from Tolstoy:

"a person should be ashamed to use government power"

and then explaining the anarchist movement in Spain, specifically Andalusia. Anyways, from what I can understand Peat isn't quite the socialist he was portrayed as in other threads.

Just to be clear:

Anarchism: state power corrupts, and it corrupts absolutely. The state is immoral, as it forces the individual to pay for its policies (taxation used for welfare, infrastructure building, war on drugs, wars in general, regulations, control of science and indeed NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE research etc.)

Socialism is the diametric opposite of this, with a belief that the state is the solution to immorality. Think communism, with no free market, and allocations of labour and value as the state sees fit in its purest ideological form.

Please. Don't try and twist definitions. These are the two positions, and seemingly Peat wants no government. As a sidenote I hate the word anarchist. Brings up images of Sid Vicious, and violent riots. All it means is freedom from state power, or indeed just freedom.

I believe the anarchist system is correct, as its morally wrong to take away my right to voluntarily pay for the products and systems I want to invest my resources in. I'm still not sure whether I'd say I'm for total anarchism (no government whatsoever) or minarchist as its now called, which is basically just Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy (state is very limited, voluntary basis of taxation, and only for enforcement of something resembling British common law, and defence of a territory (read:country)).

Regardless, to me this seemed important to point out, as that debate was so recent, and some seem to have fundamentally misinterpreted Peats political stance, or indeed lack thereof. Corporations aren't the problem, the state is, as ultimately it is only the state that has a monopoly on power. Now, you can make the claim this isn't appropriate for the forum, but really it is.

No government = no regulation = freedom to choose, and to progress from that level playing field. It also means freedom from corporate influence, as such influence is only dangerous when its backed up by state power. As Peat hasn't ever explicitly advocated anarchism, I can see how his strong criticism of corporate greed, and its influence on science progress, could lead one to condemn private enterprise. In reality he condemns the protection of this corporate influence from government. Businesses cannot themselves force an agenda, but given the opportunity to do so some obviously do, estrogen based therapy being an example that springs to mind.

Remember, the last stage of communism (according to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, but not Stalin or some other tyrants) is anarchism. Anarchism is what communism is expected to transition into when it successfully completes its dialectical opposition with capitalism. If you read Das Kapital, max makes that point very clear. I am quite said that this book (Kapital) is not given more attention in the academic system. If students read it with an open mind, I doubt you'd have so many enslaved souls. But then again, if it will cause such havoc no wonder it is not promoted for more studying...

 

[jaa]

Going straight from capitalism to anarchism would be a disaster. Anarchism is wonderful in theory and appeals to most peoples desire for personal freedom. But we're not evolved enough yet to make it work. We're still (mostly) mypoic, self-centred, apes. And even if we're well intentioned, we're still easily fooled and often act against our larger goals for sake of convenience. Removing many of the regulations society currently has in place will just accelerate humanity over the cliff we're slowly trying to turn away from.

I was a lot more sympathetic to libertarian views until I read Scott Alexander's Anti-Libertarian FAQ. I haven't come across any convincing rebuttals to the main arguments he makes since reading it.

Why I Hate Your Freedom

With regards to communism, we've had one massive failed experiment, but I don't think we should throw that baby out with the bath water. I have a hard time envisioning a sustainable society that doesn't operate on some sort of financial incentive system. Capitalism isn't the bees knees either though, and seems to be getting more and more out of control as the chasms grow wider. I think clamping down on capitalism is the way forward. People will still work hard to get ahead even if they're getting ahead by less. Relative status matters. I could see as continuously closing the gaps until maybe the robots take over and we start comparing ourselves vs others through other means.

 

[Brian]

Anarchism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc. They can call it whatever they want. It's eventually the same experience.
When you put a bunch of people or monkeys into one place, soon after they establish hierarchies - a bunch of people sucking up to each other.
This is a simple concept that works. The psychological foundations for this concept are hardwired in our consciousness.
Everyone has a sense of entitlement to protect. Self-maintaining order is established and when someone tries to break that order they're fixed either by force or by increasing their sense of entitlement.
Throughout history, revolution was just a way of establishing a new social order. It did not changed the concept and its underlying foundations.
People's persistent fight against authority over the years always had its premature deflation points, where the people fall back to monkey-bussinessing with each other on the long-term.

Moving towards being socially efficient and cooperative will be a function of people's development at large (aka evolution) going through the right direction.

I think agree with this line of thought. Political theory is an attempt to describe what already exists or a vision of what could exist, but seems to always fall short as a means of directing society towards a stable desired outcome for the average person.

I think its likely that politics and economics are a fairly close reflection of a region's average metabolic health and early childhood environment, including the values that are instilled in those early years.

So if that is true, in my opinion the root things to focus on for a more peaceful, cooperative, and prosperous civilization are an early childhood culture of non-authoritarian learning, parents and community instilling values by example (rather than by lots of explicit do's and don'ts). Perhaps most important is lots of early childhood experience encountering the emotional and social benefits of being a contributor, creator, and giver of things for the purpose of caring and helping others in distress, for economic exchange, and just for the joy of it.

Also I think early childhood environment should preferably include lots of exposure to nature through things such as gardening, permaculture, interaction with a large variety of both domesticated and wild animals, and trips into the wilderness for days at a time. I think formative experiences like this shape the mind towards empathy and interconnectedness better than any formal religious or academic training that could be taught later in adolescence or adulthood. Perhaps also some mind-body connection training of some type.

I would expect a society that focuses on early childhood and metabolic health to simply require much less of any type of centralized government, because the population would be so naturally skilled at governing and taking responsibility for themselves. They would naturally cooperate to take care of the less fortunate and infrastructure without being forced through heavy taxation or other coercive means. A lot more would occur on the local level, but there would still be plenty of global exchange of goods when mutually beneficial. Much more exchange via gift economy and generalized reciprocity. There would be much less commercialism and conspicuous consumption. Instead consumption would be based mostly on fueling creation of things that are beautiful and have lasting value for both individuals and communities.

Desirable evolutionary progress for humanity is process oriented, not goal oriented like most political theory might focus on. The name and theory of the political system based on this outcome doesn't really need to be defined. We don't need to necessarily have civilization so quantified and predictable. In the end, I think its always the process that matters more.

 

[narouz]

Going straight from capitalism to anarchism would be a disaster. Anarchism is wonderful in theory and appeals to most peoples desire for personal freedom. But we're not evolved enough yet to make it work. We're still (mostly) mypoic, self-centred, apes. And even if we're well intentioned, we're still easily fooled and often act against our larger goals for sake of convenience. Removing many of the regulations society currently has in place will just accelerate humanity over the cliff we're slowly trying to turn away from.

I was a lot more sympathetic to libertarian views until I read Scott Alexander's Anti-Libertarian FAQ. I haven't come across any convincing rebuttals to the main arguments he makes since reading it.

Why I Hate Your Freedom

A brief excerpt, which I am in sympathy with, from the article...

"However, there's a certain more aggressive, very American strain of libertarianism with which I do have a quarrel. This is the strain which, rather than analyzing specific policies and often deciding a more laissez-faire approach is best, starts with the tenet that government can do no right and private industry can do no wrong and uses this faith in place of more careful analysis. This faction is not averse to discussing politics, but tends to trot out the same few arguments about why less regulation has to be better. I wish I could blame this all on Ayn Rand, but a lot of it seems to come from people who have never heard of her. I suppose I could just add it to the bottom of the list of things I blame Reagan for."

I've heard now a few thoughtful political analysts who see the current Trump phenomenon
as the result of many years of the above-described variety of libertarian drum-beating:
how much they hate the government, Obama...how government is almost always to blame for every bad thing, etc etc.
These last decades of such drumming helped create, they say,
the environment which a Trump could easily turn to his advantage.

And his kind of politics bear very little resemblance to, say, Kropotkin's.

 

[Pointless]

I'm really impressed with Ray Peat's knowledge of the social sciences and philosophy. He really converses very articulately about this, and it seems like he was really put on the spot in terms of being surprised about the interview's content.

This argument has already degenerated into ideological labels, which is an authoritarian epistemology, but Dr. Peat's concrete, empirical methodology is illuminating.

 

[Pointless]

A brief excerpt, which I am in sympathy with, from the article...

"However, there's a certain more aggressive, very American strain of libertarianism with which I do have a quarrel. This is the strain which, rather than analyzing specific policies and often deciding a more laissez-faire approach is best, starts with the tenet that government can do no right and private industry can do no wrong and uses this faith in place of more careful analysis. This faction is not averse to discussing politics, but tends to trot out the same few arguments about why less regulation has to be better. I wish I could blame this all on Ayn Rand, but a lot of it seems to come from people who have never heard of her. I suppose I could just add it to the bottom of the list of things I blame Reagan for."

I've heard now a few thoughtful political analysts who see the current Trump phenomenon
as the result of many years of the above-described variety of libertarian drum-beating:
how much they hate the government, Obama...how government is almost always to blame for every bad thing, etc etc.
These last decades of such drumming helped create, they say,
the environment which a Trump could easily turn to his advantage.

And his kind of politics bear very little resemblance to, say, Kropotkin's.

As a libertarian myself, I agree with this. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was very wary of tyranny in all of its forms. Tyranny has risen up around us in the form of the banking cartel, but let's remember that they would be nothing without the government's power of taxation, imprisonment, and standardization of commerce.

 

[jaguar43]

I ignited quite a heated debate in that Brexit thread, which I'm sure many found tiresome, from those advocating racial differences, and those not. I'm not here to start that up again, it got ugly.

Buuuuuttt it then morphed into the old government vs. no government argument. The standard questions of who will build the roads, the immorality of corporations, some poo flinging, some beliefs that libertarians corrupt society and such. Anyways, in the latest Danny Roddy podcast () around 33:15 mins Peat is asked what would be most optimal for society with regards to this exact question.

I'd tentatively claim that Peat believes anarchism is the best system, as he answers by citing a line from Tolstoy:

"a person should be ashamed to use government power"

and then explaining the anarchist movement in Spain, specifically Andalusia. Anyways, from what I can understand Peat isn't quite the socialist he was portrayed as in other threads.

Just to be clear:

Anarchism: state power corrupts, and it corrupts absolutely. The state is immoral, as it forces the individual to pay for its policies (taxation used for welfare, infrastructure building, war on drugs, wars in general, regulations, control of science and indeed NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE research etc.)

Socialism is the diametric opposite of this, with a belief that the state is the solution to immorality. Think communism, with no free market, and allocations of labour and value as the state sees fit in its purest ideological form.

Please. Don't try and twist definitions. These are the two positions, and seemingly Peat wants no government. As a sidenote I hate the word anarchist. Brings up images of Sid Vicious, and violent riots. All it means is freedom from state power, or indeed just freedom.

I believe the anarchist system is correct, as its morally wrong to take away my right to voluntarily pay for the products and systems I want to invest my resources in. I'm still not sure whether I'd say I'm for total anarchism (no government whatsoever) or minarchist as its now called, which is basically just Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy (state is very limited, voluntary basis of taxation, and only for enforcement of something resembling British common law, and defence of a territory (read:country)).

Regardless, to me this seemed important to point out, as that debate was so recent, and some seem to have fundamentally misinterpreted Peats political stance, or indeed lack thereof. Corporations aren't the problem, the state is, as ultimately it is only the state that has a monopoly on power. Now, you can make the claim this isn't appropriate for the forum, but really it is.

No government = no regulation = freedom to choose, and to progress from that level playing field. It also means freedom from corporate influence, as such influence is only dangerous when its backed up by state power. As Peat hasn't ever explicitly advocated anarchism, I can see how his strong criticism of corporate greed, and its influence on science progress, could lead one to condemn private enterprise. In reality he condemns the protection of this corporate influence from government. Businesses cannot themselves force an agenda, but given the opportunity to do so some obviously do, estrogen based therapy being an example that springs to mind.

In the interview he talked about class struggle, Bernie Sanders, Peter Kropotkin, and Tolstoy. The reference of Spain, is a collectivist and communist "utopia". Here is the link.

Marinaleda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unitarian Candidacy of Workers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In no way did he give way to the american "libertarianism". Libertarianism started within the communist ideology. Then the koch brothers rewrote the political language for their benefit. There is a huge difference between the libertarian communist ideas of Kropotkin then of Ayn Rand.

Ray Peat even said that the medical establishment could use strong government regulations. If it was rational and empirical.

The Libertarianism that is promoted in the U.S can only be achieved in a dictatorship like that of Pinochet. He was a libertarian with Milton Friedman and Hayek supporting the dictatorship.


The truth is what he wrote in Mind and Tissue is exactly what he wrote. He wrote about Marxism and the Soviet Union. You seem to believe that people tried to portray him as a socialist but the quotes speak for themselves. I don't believe anyone tried to put words in his mouth.

I wouldn't be surprise if Danny Roddy edited this down. I am suspicious that the interview only last about thirty minutes while other interviews lasted at least one hour. And the length of time it took to release compare to other interviews also comes into question. I wonder if he said anything else that was deemed "inappropriate" by Danny Roddy in the political sense.

 

[Pointless]

Based on this interview and any quotes I've read, I don't think Peat is a Marxist or an Objectivist. The word "socialism" can mean anything, and it's not helpful here. He's clearly an anarcho-communist as others have pointed out. This is not a big political movement in the United States, but it is growing. I've had many friends that are anarcho-communists. It really does a disservice to these ideas to compare it with the Soviet Union or Western capitalism.

 

[Such_Saturation]

The disservice I think is allowing that the term "communist" can mean something other than "anarcho-communist".

 

[jaguar43]

Based on this interview and any quotes I've read, I don't think Peat is a Marxist or an Objectivist. The word "socialism" can mean anything, and it's not helpful here. He's clearly an anarcho-communist as others have pointed out. This is not a big political movement in the United States, but it is growing. I've had many friends that are anarcho-communists. It really does a disservice to these ideas to compare it with the Soviet Union or Western capitalism.

He literally spent about half of his book Mind and Tissue talking about Marxism and the Soviet Union. Do you have his book Mind and Tissue ? I never said he was a Marxist. But I think it's important to refer to these things when talking about his political ideology.

 

[Pointless]

He literally spent about half the the Mind and Tissue talking about Marxism and the Soviet Union. Do you have his book Mind and Tissue ? I never said he was a marxist. But I think it's important to refer to these things when talking about his political ideology.

Fair enough. No I've never read Mind and Tissue, and I can't afford it. I thought you were implying he was a full-out Red Army apparatchik lol

 

[jaguar43]

The disservice I think is allowing that the term "communist" can mean something other than "anarcho-communist".

I would assume that Ray Peat wouldn't agree. It may still have something to offer. At least on the philosophical level.

The reason I jumped from Blake to Lenin is that I think Marx was only
abstract and sketchy in the way he revealed the theological idealism hidden
in the various philosophies, but Lenin in his notebooks prophetically and
concretely showed the fallacies that were repeated endlessly in 20th
century philosophies of science, positivism, language philosophy, etc.
Either people don't read Lenin's philosophical work, or they are so trapped
in their theologies of "pure science" and other abstract systems that they
can't respond in any way to his powerful analysis. - Ray Peat

Blake List Archive -- Albion.com

 

[BigPapaChakra]

Going to have to listen to this interview again, probably multiple times. Generally, I think Dr. Peat would likely favor anarchist or minarchist values as opposed to what people tend to associate with communism, even in its "true" or "final" stages (though I'm not so sure on the exact cut-and-dry definitions here). Kropotkin, whom Dr. Peat has often mentioned (and did in this interview) was, IIRC, of the anarchist mindset (anarcho-communism more so, I believe). Dr. Peat has mentioned to me many times in emails that he wishes to see the dis-establishment of both medicine and the government and other large groups such as various groups of "Techno-Optimists" and such.

Tom Woods, PhD, has some fantastic material on anarchism, libertarianism, and so forth. He is more 'evidence based' and articulate than other anarchists I've come across with their ideal hypothetical future world with no state, yet no real set of ways in which this would work in real time, outside of their principle based reasoning of why a State is sub-optimal. This is Tom Woods youtube/show: TomWoodsTV Although I don't always agree with his reasoning, I enjoy watching some of Adam Kokesh's stuff, too. Stefan Molyneux has a good debate with Jan Helfeld on Anarchism vs. Minarchism which is definitely worth watching (as an aside, Jan Helfeld, although I believe he does not always accurately depict anarchism and incorrectly destructs it, utilizes the Socratic Method of Interviewing which I'm grateful for discovering because of him).

I have just really started to delve into the work of anarchists, minarchists, and such (though have been decently acquainted with Libertarian values previously), so if anyone has some resources to share so I can learn more, please do share!

 

[Pointless]

Frankfurt School: The Theodor Adorno Internet Archive

Theodor Adorno is one of the philosophers that Peat mentioned.