Ancestors

Written by Druid 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 on 2025-01-12 at 08:25

Here's a radical idea. Countries could just stick to their own current land boundaries and work towards the betterment of their population. Crazy I know.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from druid@toot.wales

Written by philjreese on 2025-01-12 at 14:45

@druid

@BackFromTheDud

We should just do away with nation states altogether. Think about it. Really think about it. What positive things do nation states--with their borders and boundaries and murderous armies-- accomplish that humanity working collaboratively community-to-community absolutely could not do ourselves if those nation states were abolished? I'm wracking my brain and I can't come up with anything.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party

Toot

Written by Suzanne Aldrich (she/her) on 2025-01-12 at 18:51

@philjreese @druid @BackFromTheDud what is your thinking on driving these distributed communities towards consensus on goals and actions? Some of us have “led” distributed movements and are aware that there is no such thing as leaderless movements. Are we going to need consensus forming algorithms to guide us? How do you get factions to align? Otherwise, I see this heading in a feudal direction.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from suzannealdrich@hachyderm.io

Descendants

Written by I see Dud people! on 2025-01-12 at 18:53

@suzannealdrich All great plans fail to take human nature (and all that entails) into account. @philjreese @druid

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BackFromTheDud@mas.to

Written by Suzanne Aldrich (she/her) on 2025-01-12 at 19:17

@BackFromTheDud @philjreese @druid I would love to see us figure out a way to do this. It’s like “Imagine” by John Lennon. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from suzannealdrich@hachyderm.io

Written by philjreese on 2025-01-12 at 19:29

@suzannealdrich

@druid @BackFromTheDud

Respectfully, Suzanne -- while I appreciate your comment, and don't doubt your experience -- I have to flatly disagree with your initial premise. Not all leaderless movements fall apart. Just those whose mission isn't clear enough. IWW is still going strong, focusing on worker organization and DASIT. I am also a member of an extremely effective leaderless organization founded in 1935 and stronger and larger than ever: Alcoholics Anonymous.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party

Written by philjreese on 2025-01-12 at 19:29

@suzannealdrich

@druid @BackFromTheDud

Its mission creep, often, that dooms anarchic organizations to fall apart.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party

Written by philjreese on 2025-01-12 at 19:36

@suzannealdrich

@druid @BackFromTheDud

But, to answer your question, small democratic communities self organize organically on their own all the time and always have. And those self organized communities generally all also have multiple limited and defined relationships and partnerships with other communities, organizations, and entities of different sizes, to accomplish trade or various mutual goals. No algorithm needed.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party

Written by philjreese on 2025-01-12 at 19:39

@suzannealdrich

@druid @BackFromTheDud

Instead of seeing it as one community divided by factions, you can also see it as multiple communities working together in limited partnerships on some things, but not working together on other things.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party

Written by philjreese on 2025-01-12 at 19:49

@suzannealdrich

@druid @BackFromTheDud

Obviously, when there is a shared resource like an underground freshwater table shared by a bunch of cities, or a kitchenette shared in a dorm, consensus on usage will be harder to get to. But organizations often fall apart trying to reach consensus on too much stuff that doesn't need it. The organization overseeing the watertable doesn't need to reach a consensus over what decibel

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party

Written by philjreese on 2025-01-12 at 19:49

level is considered noise pollution. The kitchenette organization doesn't need to reach consensus on what the rules in the rooftop garden are. Just because a bunch of people live in the same place, not all are sharing the same shared resources, or have all the same needs. Our mistake is thinking "this whole group that shares this one resource needs to agree on all aspects of living or else. @suzannealdrich @druid @BackFromTheDud

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party

Written by philjreese on 2025-01-12 at 19:49

@suzannealdrich

@druid @BackFromTheDud

No just the ones sharing that resource need to agree on that resource and that's plenty big enough. There will be people in the dorm who have no use for the kitchenette. They dont need to be part of the consensus.

Its waaaaay simpler than we often make it out to be.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from philjreese@mstdn.party