agreed. the human nature argument is a lazy one against something like anarchism or any other alternative system. if we can be socialized to seek money (it starts with the piggy bank when we're like 4 years old), we can be socialized to not seek those things and instead seek something else. replace "money" or "greed" with any negative way that humans behave, like power or domination.

Yes, the environment we grow up in plays a huge part in our development. Everything from nutrition during development to culture, values, etc. All shape how we think.

I was learning recently about Christopher Columbus and his encounters with native peoples and it’s fascinating how differently these people thought. The natives had a hard time understanding the colonizers and their endless need for gold and things.

Eventually some of them theorized that the European’s god is actually gold lol.

where does the ability to mold humans to fit a certain set of standards end? incentives, culture, norms, etc. I think can shape someone's default mode of thinking and actions on the margin, but eventually you reach some point like the "New Soviet Man" where you're asking someone not to be human?

i'm talking more about incentive structures as a way to encourage people to act towards the greater good within society, rather than having an individual fit a certain type. anarchism is all about individual self-determination, i.e. not trying to make everybody fit a certain set of standards.

but to your point of the new soviet man, how is that any different than the certain set of standards that we mold humans into today? we're raised to fit the status quo and be operatives for capital. we're compelled to look and dress a certain way, etc.

I think that’s a pretty negative take. There are lots of positive ways that we can reduce dysfunction in humans.

For example we know that reducing poverty, increasing access to education, and increasing access to nutritious food increase IQ, and reduce crime.

In terms of culture, there is no such thing as a society without culture so why not build a culture based on kindness and mutual aid?

Our capitalist society makes us think the only answer is greed but it isn’t.

Collectively held norms and expectations are commonplace across cultures, otherwise how would we effectively cooperate? They are kinda like protocols. There are many ways to raise people to uphold those sets of customs without falling into the domination and homogenization traps.

> like the "New Soviet Man" where you're asking someone not to be human?

I wonder if late American capitalism is doing the same with entrepreneur worship. Mainstream culture celebrates people who are self starters, constantly grinding, always on the lookout for unfulfilled human desires and new markets, sensitive to customers' feelings and individuality while somehow also completely indifferent to urgent systemic catastrophes like environmental destruction or the end of democracy (which require collective effort)...

This is not an ideology like Soviet dogma. But in capitalism's funny way, it's an omnipresent and coherent archetype nevertheless.

>The big question is can we have a functioning society with less human domination and how far can we reduce it?

No, not with any scale. This has been tried and tried and tried. It's a nice idea, but like most of leftism, only works on paper.

I wish the people that argue for things like the destruction of the family would instead push for universal healthcare. That's at least doable.

Big jump from "less human domination" to "destruction of the family" that you're making.

I'm talking about stuff like this, rhetoric that's common in anarchist communities: https://www.instagram.com/p/CmUY0cjKsIE/

Humans are hierarchical creatures. It's emergent behavior, not forced upon us.

I'm pretty active in anarchist (of the left-leaning variety) spaces and this is literally the first I've heard of family-abolitionism. That doesn't necessarily mean it ain't common, to be clear, but it does mean that this assertion that it is "common in anarchist communities" should probably be taken with a neighborhood-clearing and hydrostatically-equilibrious grain of salt.

At most, I've encountered calls to abolish the dependence on traditional family structures, in particular the assumption of a "nuclear family" baked into a lot of societal interactions. That doesn't mean abolishing families (nuclear or otherwise) themselves, but rather making it so that people who lack familial support systems (nuclear or otherwise) are not disadvantaged as a result of that lack.

Thinking your own family members are more important than others in the community leads to hierarchy.

As most things in life, it's just the surface meaning. The actual idea is denying that history have power over an individual

I think that anarcho-capitalism, and to a lesser degree even libertarianism, is a fundamentally flawed philosophy because of it being against hierarchies that "suppress" their followers and in support of hierarchies that bolster them. In other words capital owners down playing the state and propping up "free market economics".

There's much changed since the inception but the core idea of anarchism is abolishing central powers (and single truth) in favor of their own homemade belief system where government has no power over them and can't enforce their laws, because, hey, they're (anarchists) moved away from main stream.

Communities with rules are not necessarily against the ideas of anarchism as long as participation in that community is voluntary.

Anarchism != chaos

That seems like an odd definition of anarchism that leads to confusion.

And anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism since capitalism is a system of domination. It’s just rebranded laissez-faire capitalism.

"Anarcho"-Capitalism has nothing at all to do with the Anarchism of Pyotr Kropotkin, in the same way the "National Socialists" aren't actually Socialists.

Just a right wing group co-opting left wing terminology to try and give their abhorrent beliefs credence.