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

[explosionlord]

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

Ah, thanks for finding this! I was wondering where he was talking about, as he didn't reference the exact town. I want to Czech that place out, someday.

 

[burtlancast]

I meant that as a generalization to project him with all the other conspiracy theories. Whether illuminati, aliens, skull and bones, or gold standard.

Guilt by association ?

Looks to me you have a horse in this race.

 

[jaguar43]

Guilt by association ?

Looks to me you have a horse in this race.

He did write books on those specific theories. Didn't he.

Federal Reserve Conspiracy

America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones

Gold For Survival

Gold vs Paper: A cartoon history of inflation

 

[explosionlord]

I would think that on a forum full of people having to order "prescription drugs" from Mexico and India, as well as jump through hoops to get basic lab tests done, the case for limited government would be instinctual and obvious...

Eh, what you said has bad implications. It's not the government in itself, but government's collusion with the healthcare industry that make it so hard to obtain drugs of choice in the US. One could make an argument against our patent system, I guess, but nationalized medicine in other countries is not subject to outrageous restrictions on drugs. I, for example, get my levothyrox from Russia. I just hate the "privatize everything" idea so many people have, while those people simultaneously ignore the fact that single-payer (which is usually gov't supplied) is without all this ridiculous price control/gouging/corporate favoritism.

 

[Mjhl85]

There are many people who have no desire to be wealthy. There exist at present and in the past entire cultures that have no concept of wealth. It does not follow that because a large portion of a population that is subjected to constant advertising and consumerist propaganda desires the wealth that they are taught by the culture to desire, that this is an innate trait of human nature. This would be what Peat refers to in this interview at the "trashiest" parts of the culture. Our culture values wealth, so many people seek it. It is more amazing that some manage to resist the values that are reinforced by capitalism. In a culture that valued solidarity, mutual aid, and creative achievements, people would adapt to value these new norms. One of the pervasive themes in Peat's writing is the adaptive nature of humans and all animals and opposition to this kind of deterministic idea.

I don't agree. There are people who don't want to bother trying to become wealthy. This doesn't remove the desire to be wealthy.
Just to bold it again for emphasis: "There exist at present and in the past entire cultures that have no concept of wealth."
Some how you are getting to the conclusion but missing its point.
It's a matter of opinion calling the desire to be wealthy "trashy." I don't have to accept that value judgment. If others want to impose that on me
that is pretty authoritarian-istic. Nothing says a decent human being can't also have the desire to want to be wealthy. I think most people with the concept
of wealth desire to be wealthy but not all will be decent humans. That's totally different and more fair than calling it all trashy.

No, wealth is power in the class struggle. The problem is in the U.S the working class doesn't even know that they are the working class. You are trying to tell people that class struggle doesn't matter because everyone wants to be rich. Even if thats truth which it isn't , everyone can't be wealthy. So people should strive for their own class.

Why are you telling me what I am "trying to tell people"? That's weird.
Who even said everyone can be wealthy? That's also weird.
People will strive for their own class until they can upgrade. When they can, they will. It's perfectly healthy. The fact they can't doesn't mean
the desire isn't real. I smell more authoritarianism.

 

[jaguar43]

I don't agree. There are people who don't want to bother trying to become wealthy. This doesn't remove the desire to be wealthy.
Just to bold it again for emphasis: "There exist at present and in the past entire cultures that have no concept of wealth."
Some how you are getting to the conclusion but missing its point.
It's a matter of opinion calling the desire to be wealthy "trashy." I don't have to accept that value judgment. If others want to impose that on me
that is pretty authoritarian-istic. Nothing says a decent human being can't also have the desire to want to be wealthy. I think most people with the concept
of wealth desire to be wealthy but not all will be decent humans. That's totally different and more fair than calling it all trashy.

The attitude toward the future is an important part of how we orient ourselves and what concrete things we do to prepare for the future. A mechanistic view argues that we can't intervene to change the future, that it must fundamentally resemble the past, and that if people just invest in things that promise to give them a good profit the future will be nice. Another view sees the future as being composed of choices which lead to new choices, with new possibilities emerging as choices are put into action. - Ray Peat Generative Energy page 139

People who desire to be wealthy may not be "trashy" on the surface. But they are mechanistic.

Why are you telling me what I am "trying to tell people"? That's weird.
Who even said everyone can be wealthy? That's also weird.
People will strive for their own class until they can upgrade. When they can, they will. It's perfectly healthy. The fact they can't doesn't mean
the desire isn't real. I smell more authoritarianism.

Because you are speaking in a language that implies a certain an ideology without coming right out and saying your intentions. Some would say that is sketchy.

Upgrade ? what does that even mean ? You said before that its weird to think everyone can be wealthy. But then you say people can "upgrade" as if implying that people can move from one class to another. I don't think most people will ever be in the ruling class.

 

[Mjhl85]

The attitude toward the future is an important part of how we orient ourselves and what concrete things we do to prepare for the future. A mechanistic view argues that we can't intervene to change the future, that it must fundamentally resemble the past, and that if people just invest in things that promise to give them a good profit the future will be nice. Another view sees the future as being composed of choices which lead to new choices, with new possibilities emerging as choices are put into action. - Ray Peat Generative Energy page 139

People who desire to be wealthy may not be "trashy" on the surface. But they are mechanistic.




Because you are speaking in a language that implies a certain an ideology without coming right out and saying your intentions. Some would say that is sketchy.

Upgrade ? what does that even mean ? You said before that its weird to think everyone can be wealthy. But then you say people can "upgrade" as if implying that people can move from one class to another. I don't think most people will ever be in the ruling class.

Its passing judgement assuming it is itself mechanistic. To those who desire it it may be a value system since all systems are man made.
This doesn't mean anything other than the value of a system. Being decent or not is not mutual with desire of wealth. I think this view is itself a brainwashed
contrarian view. I never ever said everyone can be wealthy. Are you in the same conversation? Upgrading is not something on a whim but something that happens. Not to everybody but it can happen. The fact that not everybody can be in a ruling class is a value system for some folks. This doesnt make them indecent. They just desire a certain system that can create a value system with contrast. If you want to push it that your way you think is the right way and is the only way then you have proven that authoritarianism is needed.

 

[burtlancast]

He did write books on those specific theories. Didn't he.

Federal Reserve Conspiracy

America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones

Gold For Survival

Gold vs Paper: A cartoon history of inflation

Yes.

But i don't see a book on Aliens in this list.

 

[Simonsays]

As the Brexit thread appears to have dried up . I thought id post this here, as the same arguments are being played out. Interesting study about the Brexit vote and and its relation Authoritarianism .

The link between Brexit and the death penalty - BBC News

Summed up by quote which is a fairly good description of Authoritarianism

"They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."

 

[narouz]

As the Brexit thread appears to have dried up . I thought id post this here, as the same arguments are being played out. Interesting study about the Brexit vote and and its relation Authoritarianism .

The link between Brexit and the death penalty - BBC News

Summed up by quote which is a fairly good description of Authoritarianism

"They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."

On the money.
In the U.S.:
"Make American Great Again"--like it was in some narrowly-conceived and glamorized past.

 

[jaguar43]

Its passing judgement assuming it is itself mechanistic. To those who desire it it may be a value system since all systems are man made.
This doesn't mean anything other than the value of a system. Being decent or not is not mutual with desire of wealth. I think this view is itself a brainwashed
contrarian view. I never ever said everyone can be wealthy. Are you in the same conversation? Upgrading is not something on a whim but something that happens. Not to everybody but it can happen. The fact that not everybody can be in a ruling class is a value system for some folks. This doesnt make them indecent. They just desire a certain system that can create a value system with contrast. If you want to push it that your way you think is the right way and is the only way then you have proven that authoritarianism is needed.

In a recent television piece, Stub Stewart, one of our local timber barons, said that when he looks at an ancient forest he sees money; an average fir tree represents more than $2000, he said. (In Ernst Schachtel's analysis of perception types, this is the lowest, undeveloped or degraded type of perception, based on self-centered utility, rather than on grasping the actual nature of the thing.) Considering that this un-intelligent sort of perception is typical of people who have power, I want to point out some of the neglected money related effects of mature forests of giant trees. - Ray Peat Generative Energy page 52

The problem is that you assume that one's value system has no consequences. Take the quote I posted, the value system of the timer baron negatively effects the weather, animals, ecosystems, and farmers. Why should we be subjective for those who desire wealth at the expense of others, or in this case the ecosystem. Whole systems has to be taken into account.

 

[jaguar43]

Yes.

But i don't see a book on Aliens in this list.

True.

 

[Mjhl85]

In a recent television piece, Stub Stewart, one of our local timber barons, said that when he looks at an ancient forest he sees money; an average fir tree represents more than $2000, he said. (In Ernst Schachtel's analysis of perception types, this is the lowest, undeveloped or degraded type of perception, based on self-centered utility, rather than on grasping the actual nature of the thing.) Considering that this un-intelligent sort of perception is typical of people who have power, I want to point out some of the neglected money related effects of mature forests of giant trees. - Ray Peat Generative Energy page 52

The problem is that you assume that one's value system has no consequences. Take the quote I posted, the value system of the timer baron negatively effects the weather, animals, ecosystems, and farmers. Why should we be subjective for those who desire wealth at the expense of others, or in this case the ecosystem. Whole systems has to be taken into account.

heh I see now that you bring up strawmans or things that I am not saying. Either you don't comprehend or you really cant escape your authoritarianism.
I've seen this from you in other threads as well. One more time then I leave you to your silly sociopolitical talk frankly I am here for nutrition not this nonsense.
Don't assume the intention of some who value wealth is the intention of others who value wealth. They ARE NOT mutual.
Desiring welath is not indecent. Only specific actions are. Nobody should be subjected to or at expense of others.
Stop attaacking a value system for the action of some.

 

[narouz]

heh I see now that you bring up strawmans or things that I am not saying. Either you don't comprehend or you really cant escape your authoritarianism.
I've seen this from you in other threads as well. One more time then I leave you to your silly sociopolitical talk frankly I am here for nutrition not this nonsense.
Don't assume the intention of some who value wealth is the intention of others who value wealth. They ARE NOT mutual.
Desiring welath is not indecent. Only specific actions are. Nobody should be subjected to or at expense of others.
Stop attaacking a value system for the action of some.

Before you go, Mjh,
I would just add my own voice in dissent to your generalization that
"If people desire to be wealthy and still strive to be so in this system then the desire is innate..."

We have no evidence that people are born hardwired with Trump University programming.

Also: man do we carelessly throw this word/concept around in these parts: "authoritarian"!:p

 

[Mjhl85]

Before you go, Mjh,
I would just add my own voice in dissent to your generalization that
"If people desire to be wealthy and still strive to be so in this system then the desire is innate..."

We have no evidence that people are born hardwired with Trump University programming.

Also: man do we carelessly throw this word/concept around in these parts: "authoritarian"!:p

And I will respond to that narouz. The thing is and I was hoping people would see this inbetween the lines
I never said its the only innate thing but that if it remains to be so with some it doesn't mean we cast an evil light on
them. And intent and action should tell us of the decency or lacking of it not necessarily the value system. I think authoritarianism
is used carelessly and as leverage in a hypocritical way to tell you you're wrong otherwise I'd wouldn't utter a word of it,
im tired of the word frankly.

 

[jaguar43]

heh I see now that you bring up strawmans or things that I am not saying. Either you don't comprehend or you really cant escape your authoritarianism.
I've seen this from you in other threads as well. One more time then I leave you to your silly sociopolitical talk frankly I am here for nutrition not this nonsense.
Don't assume the intention of some who value wealth is the intention of others who value wealth. They ARE NOT mutual.
Desiring welath is not indecent. Only specific actions are. Nobody should be subjected to or at expense of others.
Stop attaacking a value system for the action of some.

How is it a strawman ? How Am I attacking a "value system" ? By being critical ? I guess everyone who applies critical thinking is an authoritarian now.

You said that people have an innate desire to be wealthy. You now say the intention of some who value wealth, is different than others who value wealth. However, if the desire was innate, then the intention would be the same for all. Your theory of the innate desire to be wealthy is still lacking.

Ok, my silly sociopolitical talk. Because saying a innate desire for wealth and has no political undertones. Please, no one is falling for that argument. Anyone who describes certain characteristics as innate, are going to be criticize by Ray Peat followers, other than qualities that are actually innate.

 

[kyle]

Man is a political animal. You can fill in the blanks of what this statement means. I take it to mean only the animals can live by anarchy and that is a noble thing that we can appreciate in the animals. We silly humans will have to content ourselves with a bunch of other air bags giving us their stupid opinions.

The pre-moderns did not think so abstractly as we do today. They saw the holistic spectrum of their being as it related to the health of state and nation. The Greek ideal was each man was to fill every necessary function needed to maintain the state. It meant an acknowledgement of what the state represented and how it related to each citizen. Democracy was meeting under the biggest tree in town once a month and people arguing and by the end they wouldn't get anything done and that was usually for the best. It wasn't some game to play with a million rules to live by but part of life itself. Isn't that a grounding idea?

Peat notes how we under value our subconscious knowledge. I say love of the organic nation comes naturally, and then influenced by reason. Not the reverse. I think if you jump off from some modernist theories you miss what humans understand most which is the love of family and the community which don't require any sort of theoretical justification, it just is. So what does this mean? Maybe the ideology is all a maze. Yes, family and community is hard to deal with but it isn't an endless maze, even a child gets it. Only an adult is stupid enough to worry about finance or politburos.

This is why I default to the 'little Hobbit' view. The Shire has an organic logic to it. It grew out of nature and fits their hobbit nature. I guess that makes me one of those retrograde, backwards conservatives. So be it.

 

[narouz]

Man is a political animal. You can fill in the blanks of what this statement means. I take it to mean only the animals can live by anarchy and that is a noble thing that we can appreciate in the animals. We silly humans will have to content ourselves with a bunch of other air bags giving us their stupid opinions.

The pre-moderns did not think so abstractly as we do today. They saw the holistic spectrum of their being as it related to the health of state and nation. The Greek ideal was each man was to fill every necessary function needed to maintain the state. It meant an acknowledgement of what the state represented and how it related to each citizen. Democracy was meeting under the biggest tree in town once a month and people arguing and by the end they wouldn't get anything done and that was usually for the best. It wasn't some game to play with a million rules to live by but part of life itself. Isn't that a grounding idea?

Peat notes how we under value our subconscious knowledge. I say love of the organic nation comes naturally, and then influenced by reason. Not the reverse. I think if you jump off from some modernist theories you miss what humans understand most which is the love of family and the community which don't require any sort of theoretical justification, it just is. So what does this mean? Maybe the ideology is all a maze. Yes, family and community is hard to deal with but it isn't an endless maze, even a child gets it. Only an adult is stupid enough to worry about finance or politburos.

This is why I default to the 'little Hobbit' view. The Shire has an organic logic to it. It grew out of nature and fits their hobbit nature. I guess that makes me one of those retrograde, backwards conservatives. So be it.

I like these views.
At present, I wouldn't even say all leaders are merely air bags.

What the libertarians often mean when they claim they want freedom
is that they want the freedom to take advantage of the systems in place
to exploit me (and other non-rich people) to climb up on top and get the most they can get.

So, if you're lucky enough to live in a democracy, like the U.S.,
at least you can exert some influence to elect certain more benign air bags :>)
who will protect you from the "libertarians" who want to exploit you.
Well, protect you to some degree--it is a corrupted system.

Also, we need smart, benign air bags
who will protect us from the likes of Putin, to take one example off the top of my head.
Even if we were able to somehow return to Hobbitdom here in the U.S. (say),
Putin would just say, "hey, look what those stupid people have done!
They've turned themselves into nice hobbits and laid down their arms.
Crank up the tanks, Valery!"

 

[Parsifal]

I like these views.
At present, I wouldn't even say all leaders are merely air bags.

What the libertarians often mean when they claim they want freedom
is that they want the freedom to take advantage of the systems in place
to exploit me (and other non-rich people) to climb up on top and get the most they can get.

So, if you're lucky enough to live in a democracy, like the U.S.,
at least you can exert some influence to elect certain more benign air bags :>)
who will protect you from the "libertarians" who want to exploit you.
Well, protect you to some degree--it is a corrupted system.

Also, we need smart, benign air bags
who will protect us from the likes of Putin, to take one example off the top of my head.
Even if we were able to somehow return to Hobbitdom here in the U.S. (say),
Putin would just say, "hey, look what those stupid people have done!
They've turned themselves into nice hobbits and laid down their arms.
Crank up the tanks, Valery!"

Yeah and while these stupid leaders mess the world and there is a status quo, we will soon have destroyed the world and nature.

 

[explosionlord]

I like these views.

What the libertarians often mean when they claim they want freedom
is that they want the freedom to take advantage of the systems in place
to exploit me (and other non-rich people) to climb up on top and get the most they can get.

So, if you're lucky enough to live in a democracy, like the U.S.,
at least you can exert some influence to elect certain more benign air bags :>)
who will protect you from the "libertarians" who want to exploit you.
Well, protect you to some degree--it is a corrupted system.

Also, we need smart, benign air bags
who will protect us from the likes of Putin, to take one example off the top of my head.
Even if we were able to somehow return to Hobbitdom here in the U.S. (say),
Putin would just say, "hey, look what those stupid people have done!
They've turned themselves into nice hobbits and laid down their arms.
Crank up the tanks, Valery!"

I agree with your point on Libertarians, but am less-enthusiastic than you about the idea that we can have "less-benign airbags" in this U.S. system; especially the example of Putin. Not that he's a great guy, he's a piece of garbage, but the "benign female leader" we're soon to elect has made more than her fair share of overtones along with Robert Kagan/Victoria Nuland/NATO that she's ready to attack Russia by virtue of them being Russia. I think the knowledge of Putin that we have great nuclear capability is enough to allow us to be "Hobbit-like". See: Cold War 1945-1991. As far as protecting us from other powers, that idea is a farce; the only thing we have to protect, at this point, is our hypocritical exceptionalism.

Also, the quality of being benign amongst our elected officials would be much more possible if we were allowed to use an instant runoff system of voting and had paper ballots, as we see what happens when these machines falter or have questionable results: no paper trail! The Brexit vote at least had that going for it.