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

[BigPapaChakra]

Some of Kropotkin's works: Pëtr Kropotkin | The Anarchist Library

 

[jaguar43]

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. Kropotkin, whom Dr. Peat has often mentioned (and did in this interview) was, IIRC, of the anarchist mindset. 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!

Kroptokin was a communist who advocate collectivism. How is he compatible with Molyneux, Woods and Adam Kobkesh who advocate capitalism.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Although I wouldn't put Peat with the disgusting "regressive left" that has become so far left that they are now fascists, Peat has said many leftist things. Leftist in the sense that the "conservative" American would scoff at these quotes:

"The Occupy movement was manipulated away from making any demands that would have had the possibility to turn it into a party and gain broad support—much of the 99%, maybe half of the voters—could have seen it as their representative, leaving the other parties to divide the other half. The requirement for consensus allowed many special issues to be heard, but it kept the essential mass demands from being made. The FBI papers that were released under FOIA showed that the powers had identified the leaders at the beginning of the demonstrations, and had snipers ready to eliminate them if they became a threat, but the government organized the police to suppress the movement without having to kill the leaders, and the lack of specific political demands kept it from spreading. Organized action is essential, but I think it has to work like an organism, with learning and thinking integrated with action. Dissent has to be accepted within the movement, to permit the bulk of it to take action, while the dissenters keep working on their issues. Several groups with several demands wouldn’t keep the larger group from succeeding with the goals they have in common, such things as eliminating the absolute power of the ruling class. Julian Assange said “Parties should be fun. They should put the word party back into politics.” The political party should be something integral to life." - RP

Is that him endorsing OWS and Assange?

"In a society that chooses to destroy ecosystems, rather than adapting to them, the question of sanity should be an everyday political issue." - RP

The conservative would call him a "treehugger" for that quote.

This quote shows some aspect of him not being religious, possibly pro choice:

"Progesterone's normal effects include maintenance of pregnancy, and that requires the prevention of additional pregnancies during the course of an established one Its presence in the vagina during intercourse causes the cells to react as if there were already an established pregnancy. There are various reasons that this method of contraception hasn't been generally accepted; for example, progesterone's very name suggests that it promotes pregnancy, and the bureaucratic mentality sees things in simplistic ways. Incidentally, I think the evidence is absolutely clear that the estrogen pills are not contraceptives. They don't prevent conception, they prevent implantation of the embryo into the uterus. That is abortion, so the industry had to make up a theory in which the pills could be marketed as a contraceptive, to avoid the religious reaction to the abortion pill. This theoretical gimmick took nearly twenty years to develop. " - RP

Q:"What impact would you like to see your research make on society? Reaching the largest amount of people? or a certain type of person? Or are you completely detached from the outcome?"

A: I’d like to see it lead to the disestablishment of medicine. The same general outcomes Ivan Illich worked for."-RP

The "disestablishment of medicine" would be viewed as a very leftist thing to do by the typical "corporate" American doctor, pharmacologist, surgeon etc.

"If people who refuse to talk about the real issues keep getting elected, then maybe the US population will become too fat and too stupid to keep destroying the world, setting an example for the other “advanced” countries." -RP

The conservative would call him an anti-American fat shamer for that quote.

 

[BigPapaChakra]

Kroptokin was a communist who advocate collectivism. How is he compatible with Molyneux, Woods and Adam Kobkesh who advocate capitalism.

Thank you for the insight. As you may have seen, I updated the post stating that IIRC Kropotkin was of the anarchist mindset, but probably more technically an "anarcho-communist", as evidenced by many of this writings that are archived on the site I posted.

As I said, I would like to learn more about anarchism and the like, so am not trying to say something IS or IS NOT such and such way.

That being said, I didn't state that Kropotkin was compatible or like-minded to Stefan, Tom Woods, etc. Just that (1) Tom Woods has fantastic material regarding anarchism and libertarianism, in particular, his interviews and debates, and (2) that Stefan had a great debate with Jan Helfeld on anarchism vs. minarchism. I'm not espousing their perspectives, merely arguing for their value as resources for learning. Lastly, I'd argue that Stefan, Woods, and Kokesh don't argue for capitalism, but anarcho-capitalism, which is distinct from outright capitalism with emphasis on delocalization and significantly increased personal liberty. I think Kokesh's ideas will begin to evolve, but he currently views the free-market and privatization as the mean for that change.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Peat was right on the mark once again. The mainstream diet advice seems to have sapped the 99% of their basic energy needs. Now it's to the point where we're all so used to feeling nutritionally and energetically deprived. It's become normal. We have barely enough energy to slave away at our jobs (while not even realizing we're slaves) and produce value, but still not enough energy to think independently and courageously and to organize in large numbers, rise up, start a revolution, or pose any sort of meaningful threat to the ruling class.

The genetically gifted still make 7 figure incomes, but the fact is that a few dozen individuals own nearly half of the world's wealth. How absurd.

Give the elites credit; they're cleverly keeping this machine chugging along without the lower classes noticing.

 

[BigPapaChakra]

One note, though, about Kropotkin and other Russian socialist-anarchists, is that sometimes there appears to be confusion or misrepresentation of state capitalism and 'free-market capitalism'. I've noticed on certain sites I've posted (An Anarchist FAQ (02/17) | The Anarchist Library) there is the claim that anarchists are socialists. Murray Rothbard would disagree, and this is the train of thought that Stefan, Woods, and Kokesh follow (though they also take some perspectives from von Mises regarding economics).

TYW had a post about brexit in which he discusses anarcho-capitalism. I will quote a section of it with the assumption that since it is publicly shown on his site, it is okay to share - if it isn't, please let me know tyw! "During this breakdown period, the mentality of "Keeping your Identity Small and well-defended" as a better methodology of organisation.

A commitment to self-sustainability, individual sovereignty and strength, with limited interactions with other people, and only when there is a shared recognition of mutual benefit, will be the only practical methodology for sustenance in such a world."

I think the above is something that I can't necessarily see happening with the collectivism espoused by Socialist-style anarchism. Socialist-style anarchism often discusses 'workers associations' and 'communes' which establishes the ownership of the goods/services produced by workers, allowing everyone to have an equal share. With my (current) lack of in depth knowledge on this ideology, I will only ask questions -> what separates these associations or communes from any other governing bodies? Additionally, how would they organize the equal ownership of the different groups of workers and the products/services they produce (I'm genuinely asking these questions, and not posing them as a way to discredit Kropotkin or anything like that!)?

 

[XPlus]

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.

Beautifully written.

The genetically gifted still make 7 figure incomes, but the fact is that a few dozen individuals own nearly half of the world's wealth. How absurd.

Or you can fart your way to a 7 figure income. Just ask those new age kids with "premium" youtube content.

I wish I was like "Daddy, when I grow up I'm going to be a prankster" when I was a kid.
Now I'm going to go work on my Pokemon Go vlog.

 

[jaa]

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.

Yeah I don't think the current system is the best one and people's frustrations with government is partly why Sanders and Trump did so well this year. If Trump gets elected, it will be in spite of himself and will be an over correction on the part of the electorate. Not unlike when people are first introduced to Peat after a LC diet and go balls to the wall with sugar. People like extremes. The 1 wasn't working, so lets try the 0. Unfortunately, that's typically not the best way to implement change unless you were doing something completely off the wall to begin with, which usually isn't the case when it comes to systems humans have evolved over time.

 

[wiggles92]

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'd say we are somewhat self-centred, but a more accurate description would be 'not an individual'. The only real fundamental change we require is a change in parenting practice. Abuse in childhood both reduces and distorts empathetic neurons for oneself, and for wider society. I highly recommend reading this chapter of the book 'The Origins of War in Child Abuse', and watching the bomb in the brain presentation on YouTube, to see the horrendously powerful effects of abusive and authoritarian parenting practices on development and subsequent behaviour.

Chapter 3: The Psychology and Neurobiology of Violence | The Association for Psychohistory

Having been brought up by parents that allowed me to say what I want, and not be punished for exploration of thought, I found a lot of people quite strange. From my perspective, child abuse, or indeed authoritarian parenting of any kind, such as complete rejection of a childs thoughts, the imprinting of guilt for thinking certain things etc. creates an adult who is never happy with themselves, and who wants ultimately to feel the peace of giving themselves to the collective, either through war, or mindless work for a leader, be that in medicine, businesses of any kind etc. They yearn for this experience, of being not themselves, but part of a sort of narcissistic self-sacrifice, because learned helplessness was the only solution to the slavery of being aggressed upon by authoritarian parents as a child. They had to give in as a child, they had to remove themselves, as otherwise the pain was too much to bear.

Again, this is my opinion, but once I realised what I was seeing, I could also see why I'd always had equally uneasy feelings about communism and fascism, as they both ultimately require subjugation to the collective.

This is why I've seen the importance of a society with no government and no regulation, because I'm peaceful and naturally alturistic, but also an individual who wants the right to keep what I earn, be that land, money, drugs, raw milk haha. I've never had any problems making quite a lot of money starting my own businesses, but I want to keep it, because its mine, I created that value. I might well give some to private charities. Better still, I'll give it to others who produce value. Remove this simple mechanism and a lot of people don't go through the initial pain of developing skills, businesses, value. They don't come out the other side, realising they can be much happier creating value for themselves, selling that value to others, and buying other peoples value. Free trade.

My thesis: nearly all 'negative' behaviour ultimately has its cause in child abuse. Neuroticism from a feeling of not being enough. Lack of independent though from having the individual crushed. Taxation and war from a feeling of revenge, from the loss of having something stolen from you as a child. Bipolar disorders and schizophrenia from the split realities created by the tension of (generally) childhood trauma, as Jung discusses. Achievement for society, not yourself, because the individual was crushed, and the only satisfaction left was to 'please the leader'. Dangerous/compulsive/addictive behaviour from the narcissism and self-hate that occurs when the individual has been tainted.

As a sidenote, I've never really understood the 'bad trip' phenomenon, with weed or acid, or the aggression that appears when some drink. I'm by no means a regular user (maybe smoke weed once every 2-3 months, acid only a couple of times ever, drinking rarely). I'd heard and read all this information about 'bad trips', being on the precipice of paranoia when you do these substances. I'm starting to wonder whether these substances just unearth the deeply hidden self, and its really just bringing up the trauma of having the individual crushed, they tilt you over the edge of this emotional precipice. The work of Gabor Mate is very interesting with regards to this theory, and largely mirrors the less extensively researched, but equally accurate, opinions of Peat on drug issues, and addiction.

On another side note, I've never really understood the labelling of politics (left/right/democrat/conservative/liberal). I understand the necessity of words to define the general beliefs an individual holds, but it seems to me its rarely about understanding and curiosity for one anothers beliefs, but more a knee-jerk emotional reaction of "you're not on my team!", i.e. the authoritarian, collective mindset. This irritates me a lot, as people are prone to thinking I'm attacking them personally, and that diverts debates into much poo-flinging, instead of concept-discussing.

Of course, changing what you eat is also important for your life, but I think the 'operating system' you are running on is of fundamental, foundational importance. Good nutrition is no more than improving the hardware. To extend this quite odd analogy, you can have a $4000 watercooled gaming rig, but it'll still bluescreen and be fairly unresponsive if you're running a beta build of Windows Vista. It's unlikely you can have a healthy metabolism if you are a slave to a traumatised mind.

 

[jaa]

This is why I've seen the importance of a society with no government and no regulation, because I'm peaceful and naturally alturistic, but also an individual who wants the right to keep what I earn, be that land, money, drugs, raw milk haha. I've never had any problems making quite a lot of money starting my own businesses, but I want to keep it, because its mine, I created that value. I might well give some to private charities. Better still, I'll give it to others who produce value. Remove this simple mechanism and a lot of people don't go through the initial pain of developing skills, businesses, value. They don't come out the other side, realising they can be much happier creating value for themselves, selling that value to others, and buying other peoples value. Free trade.

I'm with you to an extent. If everyone was like you then maybe libertarianism would work out. I'm not convinced externalities wouldn't pop up. And there's still an issue with having large disparities between the haves and have nots. But yeah, in an ideal world consisting of mostly all people like you who can take a step back and assess the larger picture and actively work towards the greater good so that the people with the resources will take it upon themselves to help out those less fortunate, this could work.

The problem today is we are no where near there. And it there's no easy solution to get there, even if all we had to do was get everyone to agree child abuse is the worst thing on earth. There are people in abject poverty, who don't have access resources, who will do even worse if things got more libertarian. It's easy to see this by looking at the more successful nation states today. Even the USA has safety nets. Conversely, one of the reasons for the USAs success is competition. I don't think it would be wise to move to communist model unless you want to stagnate/reverse things. A balance between the two seems ideal for the current climate. Something like a basic income funded by higher tax rates on the wealthy and reducing some beaurocratic inefficiencies seems like an helpful step forward. It's possible to keep the incentive structures in place, but levelled out a bit, so that the rich get taxed more heavily for being in a system that allows them to reap such wealth which helps the poor which lifts the society as a whole. If a CEO can make 1M more annually than the average citizen are they going to slack off because it's not 10M more? Doubtful.

I agree with your general comment about politics. The human tendency to pick a team and then justify that teams views across a wide range of topics is not encouraging.

 

[Nick]

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.

Absolutely is would be a disaster at present. Tolstoy also did not believe that the transition could happen quickly in the form of a revolution either. Kropotkin saw the entire species as acting like an organism, individuals acting like cells. Surely our human species organism at present has a severely defective metabolism and significant cancer. Sudden revolution would be like forcing this organism to adapt to higher energetic demands too quickly and would be ineffective in the long run. I think that society could evolve in a more organic process of intelligent adaptation as individuals adapted to a higher "social metabolism", much like Peat has suggested that organisms have evolved through a responsive "intelligent" adaptation rather than the random mutation doctrine. Peat suggests in this podcast that if the most authoritarian elements of society were addressed and improved, this would open up space to continue the process of improving the rest of society. As people's life situations and nutrition improve, so can their health and hormones, thus adding more positive social energy that can build social structure without needing coercion or power. "Energy and structure are interdependent at every level." @haidut has posted a number of times about the social implications of metabolism and hormones. Higher metabolism is necessary for people to think about collective good. Bonobos that have high thyroid and low aggression/hierarchy are one thing to look at as an example. I think Ray Peat's ideas about metabolism are essential for radical political progress to actually be feasible, so it seems tragic to me that most Anarchists I know in person eat only vegan food based on soy and grains!

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

Exactly. But this is not linear, it is circular. Society must improve for people's health to improve en masse, and people's health must improve for society to improve more.

I think the above is something that I can't necessarily see happening with the collectivism espoused by Socialist-style anarchism. Socialist-style anarchism often discusses 'workers associations' and 'communes' which establishes the ownership of the goods/services produced by workers, allowing everyone to have an equal share. With my (current) lack of in depth knowledge on this ideology, I will only ask questions -> what separates these associations or communes from any other governing bodies? Additionally, how would they organize the equal ownership of the different groups of workers and the products/services they produce (I'm genuinely asking these questions, and not posing them as a way to discredit Kropotkin or anything like that!)?

The biggest difference between these voluntary organizations and government is the intention to avoid any power, hierarchy, or coercion. By integrating Peat's ideas about health and metabolism into anarchist socialism, I think it becomes a lot more realistic to imagine that this could be effective. If everyone has bad health, it would require coercion and violence to force them to act in an egalitarian manner. If everyone has high metabolism and good health, no coercion would be necessary.
This is worth reading to understand how anarchists would seek to avoid devolving back into a state: From Democracy to Freedom

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...

Unfortunately once state communist "dictatorship of the proletariat" governments form, they never want to give up power and continue the transition. Marx had many great ideas but this is where his solution leaves something to be desired. It is such a shame that people see the failure of the pseudo-Marxist revolutions and somehow think that it invalidates the basis of his whole critique of capitalism.

On another side note, I've never really understood the labelling of politics (left/right/democrat/conservative/liberal). I understand the necessity of words to define the general beliefs an individual holds, but it seems to me its rarely about understanding and curiosity for one anothers beliefs, but more a knee-jerk emotional reaction of "you're not on my team!", i.e. the authoritarian, collective mindset.

The reason Anarchists often want to make a clear distinction that Anarchism is not at all related to Anarcho-Capitalism, Minarchism and American-Libertarian thought is that for such a system to preserve the institution of private property, coercion and violence become necessary in the form of police or the threat of violence directly by property owners. Just ask any indigenous peoples of European colonies about the violent and coercive roots of private property. Violence or the threat of violence is inherently necessary to preserve the inevitable economic inequality in any capitalist system. This distinction is important but I don't mean this to suggest we are not on the same team, because we are all humans wanting to discuss how to think about bettering the species!

 

[jaa]

Absolutely is would be a disaster at present. Tolstoy also did not believe that the transition could happen quickly in the form of a revolution either. Kropotkin saw the entire species as acting like an organism, individuals acting like cells. Surely our human species organism at present has a severely defective metabolism and significant cancer. Sudden revolution would be like forcing this organism to adapt to higher energetic demands too quickly and would be ineffective in the long run. I think that society could evolve in a more organic process of intelligent adaptation as individuals adapted to a higher "social metabolism", much like Peat has suggested that organisms have evolved through a responsive "intelligent" adaptation rather than the random mutation doctrine. Peat suggests in this podcast that if the most authoritarian elements of society were addressed and improved, this would open up space to continue the process of improving the rest of society. As people's life situations and nutrition improve, so can their health and hormones, thus adding more positive social energy that can build social structure without needing coercion or power. "Energy and structure are interdependent at every level." @haidut has posted a number of times about the social implications of metabolism and hormones. Higher metabolism is necessary for people to think about collective good. Bonobos that have high thyroid and low aggression/hierarchy are one thing to look at as an example. I think Ray Peat's ideas about metabolism are essential for radical political progress to actually be feasible, so it seems tragic to me that most Anarchists I know in person eat only vegan food based on soy and grains!

I like that analogy.

 

[jaguar43]

I'd say we are somewhat self-centred, but a more accurate description would be 'not an individual'. The only real fundamental change we require is a change in parenting practice. Abuse in childhood both reduces and distorts empathetic neurons for oneself, and for wider society. I highly recommend reading this chapter of the book 'The Origins of War in Child Abuse', and watching the bomb in the brain presentation on YouTube, to see the horrendously powerful effects of abusive and authoritarian parenting practices on development and subsequent behaviour.

Chapter 3: The Psychology and Neurobiology of Violence | The Association for Psychohistory

Having been brought up by parents that allowed me to say what I want, and not be punished for exploration of thought, I found a lot of people quite strange. From my perspective, child abuse, or indeed authoritarian parenting of any kind, such as complete rejection of a childs thoughts, the imprinting of guilt for thinking certain things etc. creates an adult who is never happy with themselves, and who wants ultimately to feel the peace of giving themselves to the collective, either through war, or mindless work for a leader, be that in medicine, businesses of any kind etc. They yearn for this experience, of being not themselves, but part of a sort of narcissistic self-sacrifice, because learned helplessness was the only solution to the slavery of being aggressed upon by authoritarian parents as a child. They had to give in as a child, they had to remove themselves, as otherwise the pain was too much to bear.

Again, this is my opinion, but once I realised what I was seeing, I could also see why I'd always had equally uneasy feelings about communism and fascism, as they both ultimately require subjugation to the collective.

This is why I've seen the importance of a society with no government and no regulation, because I'm peaceful and naturally alturistic, but also an individual who wants the right to keep what I earn, be that land, money, drugs, raw milk haha. I've never had any problems making quite a lot of money starting my own businesses, but I want to keep it, because its mine, I created that value. I might well give some to private charities. Better still, I'll give it to others who produce value. Remove this simple mechanism and a lot of people don't go through the initial pain of developing skills, businesses, value. They don't come out the other side, realising they can be much happier creating value for themselves, selling that value to others, and buying other peoples value. Free trade.

My thesis: nearly all 'negative' behaviour ultimately has its cause in child abuse. Neuroticism from a feeling of not being enough. Lack of independent though from having the individual crushed. Taxation and war from a feeling of revenge, from the loss of having something stolen from you as a child. Bipolar disorders and schizophrenia from the split realities created by the tension of (generally) childhood trauma, as Jung discusses. Achievement for society, not yourself, because the individual was crushed, and the only satisfaction left was to 'please the leader'. Dangerous/compulsive/addictive behaviour from the narcissism and self-hate that occurs when the individual has been tainted.

As a sidenote, I've never really understood the 'bad trip' phenomenon, with weed or acid, or the aggression that appears when some drink. I'm by no means a regular user (maybe smoke weed once every 2-3 months, acid only a couple of times ever, drinking rarely). I'd heard and read all this information about 'bad trips', being on the precipice of paranoia when you do these substances. I'm starting to wonder whether these substances just unearth the deeply hidden self, and its really just bringing up the trauma of having the individual crushed, they tilt you over the edge of this emotional precipice. The work of Gabor Mate is very interesting with regards to this theory, and largely mirrors the less extensively researched, but equally accurate, opinions of Peat on drug issues, and addiction.

On another side note, I've never really understood the labelling of politics (left/right/democrat/conservative/liberal). I understand the necessity of words to define the general beliefs an individual holds, but it seems to me its rarely about understanding and curiosity for one anothers beliefs, but more a knee-jerk emotional reaction of "you're not on my team!", i.e. the authoritarian, collective mindset. This irritates me a lot, as people are prone to thinking I'm attacking them personally, and that diverts debates into much poo-flinging, instead of concept-discussing.

Of course, changing what you eat is also important for your life, but I think the 'operating system' you are running on is of fundamental, foundational importance. Good nutrition is no more than improving the hardware. To extend this quite odd analogy, you can have a $4000 watercooled gaming rig, but it'll still bluescreen and be fairly unresponsive if you're running a beta build of Windows Vista. It's unlikely you can have a healthy metabolism if you are a slave to a traumatised mind.

You still ignore the class dominance. The things you advocate still doesn't do away with the class system.

Collectivism is not oppressing. It's removes the ability of the ruling class from oppressing the 99 percent. You are free to do anything except to keep people enslave with wage-labor. Since most people don't have that desire, then it wouldn't be an issue. It's only an issue to the ruling class, those who have a lot to lose.

If anything, the idea that "freedom" entails one can earn money at other peoples expense is authoritarianism. Whether it's wage-labor, property rights, work conditions, union busting. The psychopath, which Ray Peat cites in the beginning of the interview, reminds me of this type of mentality. It's ok to make a lot of money even if it means keeping others in poverty, since thats true "freedom"(sarcasm).

Unless you yourself are part of the ruling classes, I can't really understand anyone who isn't in the top 1 percent of income to defend such an economic system. It reminds me when Ray Peat said that people in the U.S think they are higher in the social ladder than they actually are. People think they are little rich people going around defend a system against their own self interest. Collectivism is the self interest for the 99 percent, which is everyone.

 

[Drareg]

Were there a couple of loaded/leading questions in this interview?
The question about people using Ray Peats work as an authority when Peat had given his definition of authoritarian in the past was strange.

Do we not need a new idea for humans?
We all speak on here about not entertaining the past when in a healthy coherent state? Peat in the interview mentions the ongoing creating changing aspect of reality but alludes to anarchism.
Granted some discoveries from the past may have an underlying truth/timeless of sorts but I don't think any past theories fit.
Is anarchism an underlying truth/timeless that will get us to cohere with the environment?

Are all those political systems not bastardised by psychopaths?
Many systems would all have a chance if psychopaths did not get involved?
Would anarchism still breed psychopaths?

Our issue may not be with flags and religions but psychopaths.

 

[narouz]

It reminds me when Ray Peat said that people in the U.S think they are higher in the social ladder than they actually are. People think they are little rich people going around defend a system against their own self interest.

I think this is true.
They've allowed themselves, against much evidence to the contrary,
to believe they can and should and will be rich like Trump,
if only they can just build that beautiful wall to keep the raping Mexicans out
and get rid of wasteful regulations so they can strip mine coal and drink perfectly fine leaded water.

 

[Drareg]

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.

A certain kind of state power corrupts, a state run by psychopaths.

Could you clarify the roads situation within an anarchist society,for example a motorway/autobahn/freeway, a great way to get places quicker, the corrupt as balls state now place tolls and sell the to private individuals.
How would an anarchist society go about organising and maintaining said roads? Essentially built by someone who puts a toll and is maintained from toll profit?
If it's and entrepreneur to do this where does the money come from in an anarchist society?

 

[Mjhl85]

You still ignore the class dominance. The things you advocate still doesn't do away with the class system.

Collectivism is not oppressing. It's removes the ability of the ruling class from oppressing the 99 percent. You are free to do anything except to keep people enslave with wage-labor. Since most people don't have that desire, then it wouldn't be an issue. It's only an issue to the ruling class, those who have a lot to lose.

If anything, the idea that "freedom" entails one can earn money at other peoples expense is authoritarianism. Whether it's wage-labor, property rights, work conditions, union busting. The psychopath, which Ray Peat cites in the beginning of the interview, reminds me of this type of mentality. It's ok to make a lot of money even if it means keeping others in poverty, since thats true "freedom"(sarcasm).

Unless you yourself are part of the ruling classes, I can't really understand anyone who isn't in the top 1 percent of income to defend such an economic system. It reminds me when Ray Peat said that people in the U.S think they are higher in the social ladder than they actually are. People think they are little rich people going around defend a system against their own self interest. Collectivism is the self interest for the 99 percent, which is everyone.

why do you confuse "the desire to enslave.." with the opportunity or idea that there is a lot to lose? These are not mutual.

 

[jaguar43]

I think this is true.
They've allowed themselves, against much evidence to the contrary,
to believe they can and should and will be rich like Trump,
if only they can just build that beautiful wall to keep the raping Mexicans out
and get rid of wasteful regulations so they can strip mine coal and drink perfectly fine leaded water.

Agreed. I think I heard a political commentator once say that he thinks people are voting for trump for the same reason the poor white population supported slavery in the 1800's. That they think they will one day own slaves. Just like they think they will one day be rich, without realizing how Trump made his money.

I wonder if people who vote democrat also think themselves higher in the social ladder ?

 

[jaguar43]

why do you confuse "the desire to enslave.." with the opportunity or idea that there is a lot to lose? These are not mutual.

I never said those words. I implied that wage labor is a form of enslavement according to kropoktkin, and that most people don't desire to get rich by keeping others in poverty. Compared to the libertarian idea that "freedom" allows people to be subjugated to wage labor since their definition of "freedom" implies free to be authoritarian and oppressive.

They are very mutual in my opinion. To get rich one has to impoverish others in the present economic system. Those who wish to keep their wealth need to keep people enslave to the present economic system therefore they desire to enslave because of their wealth and power. That is essentially class dominance.

 

[Mjhl85]

I never said those words. I implied that wage labor is a form of enslavement according to kropoktkin, and that most people don't desire to get rich by keeping others in poverty. Compared to the libertarian idea that "freedom" allows people to be subjugated to wage labor since their definition of "freedom" implies free to be authoritarian and oppressive.

They are very mutual in my opinion. To get rich one has to impoverish others in the present economic system. Those who wish to keep their wealth need to keep people enslave to the present economic system therefore they desire to enslave because of their wealth and power. That is essentially class dominance.

Then it must be that way. If people desire to be wealthy and still strive to be so in this system then the desire is innate regardless of its consequence.
The wealthy want to keep it, the enslaved strive to be the same.