Can you point to some reasons why you believe that an authoritarian commune is a good idea (besides “let’s try and see what this button does”)?
Because in real world there are many successful authoritarian organisations? More or less every company you heard about is de facto authoritarian inside (sure, there are exceptions, too).
Because “our kind” seems to have bias against coordination, and an authoritarian leadership is a possible way to solve it?
Because in real world there are many successful authoritarian organisations?
The issue isn’t so much “authoritarian” as it is the combination of “authoritarian” and “commune”.
Communes tend to be totalitarian and this one is explicitly set up as such (high-commitment, full-immersion, etc.) This makes it a dangerous environment—if people mention noticing the skulls, that’s because there are a LOT of skulls. “Authoritarian” means submission to the authority and in a totalitarian context that means total submission.
Authoritarian organizations like companies merely claim about 40 hours of your time per week plus obedience to a set of mostly external rules. And, of course, they pay you recognizing that their claim is a burden on you :-)
I understand where the impulse comes from: grassroots left is notoriously disorganized with the Occupy movement having been, perhaps, the peak of that—no leadership, no specific demands, lots of talking, zero achieved. But I would be a lot more comfortable with a “normal” goal-directed organization which focuses on external goals and not on molding the minds of its members. I’m very suspicious of mind-molding.
Besides, Duncan’s comments throughout the last week left me with grave doubts about his suitability to lead this kind of project. Low credence, of course, since I’m reacting merely to an internet persona and not to someone I know in real life, but my opinion of that persona took a marked turn to the worse.
an authoritarian leadership is a possible way to solve it?
Sure, it’s a possible way. I’m concerned with the cost / benefit ratio, though. Plus benevolent God Emperors are in short supply.
Not in the sense that the secret police will check your underwear drawer for forbidden literature, but in the sense that they require conforming in more encompassing and more personal ways than the usual institutions of the society (like a workplace or a college, etc.)
Note that things which are basically shared living arrangements on a smaller or larger scale are sometimes called communes even though they don’t requite active integration into the life of that mini-society—I don’t have those in mind.
And, of course, this totalitarianism is not a binary variable but an axis with, essentially, a solitary isolated individual at one end and a hive mind on another.
Because in real world there are many successful authoritarian organisations? More or less every company you heard about is de facto authoritarian inside (sure, there are exceptions, too).
Because “our kind” seems to have bias against coordination, and an authoritarian leadership is a possible way to solve it?
Volunteers.
The issue isn’t so much “authoritarian” as it is the combination of “authoritarian” and “commune”.
Communes tend to be totalitarian and this one is explicitly set up as such (high-commitment, full-immersion, etc.) This makes it a dangerous environment—if people mention noticing the skulls, that’s because there are a LOT of skulls. “Authoritarian” means submission to the authority and in a totalitarian context that means total submission.
Authoritarian organizations like companies merely claim about 40 hours of your time per week plus obedience to a set of mostly external rules. And, of course, they pay you recognizing that their claim is a burden on you :-)
I understand where the impulse comes from: grassroots left is notoriously disorganized with the Occupy movement having been, perhaps, the peak of that—no leadership, no specific demands, lots of talking, zero achieved. But I would be a lot more comfortable with a “normal” goal-directed organization which focuses on external goals and not on molding the minds of its members. I’m very suspicious of mind-molding.
Besides, Duncan’s comments throughout the last week left me with grave doubts about his suitability to lead this kind of project. Low credence, of course, since I’m reacting merely to an internet persona and not to someone I know in real life, but my opinion of that persona took a marked turn to the worse.
Sure, it’s a possible way. I’m concerned with the cost / benefit ratio, though. Plus benevolent God Emperors are in short supply.
Cite? The kinds of communes my friends and acquaintances have lived in, haven’t seemed totalitarian at all.
Not in the sense that the secret police will check your underwear drawer for forbidden literature, but in the sense that they require conforming in more encompassing and more personal ways than the usual institutions of the society (like a workplace or a college, etc.)
Note that things which are basically shared living arrangements on a smaller or larger scale are sometimes called communes even though they don’t requite active integration into the life of that mini-society—I don’t have those in mind.
And, of course, this totalitarianism is not a binary variable but an axis with, essentially, a solitary isolated individual at one end and a hive mind on another.