this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2025
33 points (92.3% liked)

collapse of the old society

1136 readers
1 users here now

to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ex_06@slrpnk.net
Midnight@slrpnk.net
33
Network States - Is this where we're headed? (www.youtube.com)
submitted 6 days ago by RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net to c/collapse@slrpnk.net
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Observing what is currently happening in the US has led me down the Network State rabbit hole. The linked video is a great place to start if you're not already aware of these ideas.

Unfortunately these concepts seem to be cosied up to modern fascism/monarchism, but I do wonder if this is genuinely the likeliest alternative to modern day capitalism. Yanis Varoufakis' idea of technofeudalism seems like another way of viewing this.

Could greener, more altruistic network states co-exist with money and power hungry billionaire-led communities? Or would their greed and ambition be detrimental to the efforts of those trying to save the natural earth?

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 14 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Could greener, more altruistic network states co-exist with money and power hungry billionaire-led communities?

Not peacefully, that's for sure. I think that touches on a problem humans have always had. Imagine 10 separate societies existed. If only one was a warmonger, while the other nine sought peace, then all ten need to behave like that one asshole or they'll be conquered eventually.

That's why I don't see how peaceful, green societies could live alongside rapicious capitalist monarchies. Actually I'm pretty sure that played out a couple times already, and that's why things are the way they are.

What kind of political/state environment would these network states exist within, if any? That could allow for different types of relations between network states, but coexistence between states with such different goals seems difficult.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I know this is a popular view right now, but it isn't actually how such things work.

In your theoretical 9 peaceful vs. 1 war-liking group, the latter needs to be very careful not to pose too much of a threat to avoid the others banding together. In addition once you force others to invest in an arms race the side focussing on defence is the one that gets away more cheaply resources wise and thus making attacking a losing proposition in the long run.

Thus as a result the one war-liking group either gets wiped out or resigns itself to a more parasite like state where it cycles through raiding the 9 others but keeps it at a level where all the others at an individual level are not feeling sufficiently threatend to invest in real defense or band together with the others.

In addition the historical record actually shows that neither is a strategy that is really successful, and what rather happens is that the successful war-liking groups try to install themselves as the leaders of an peaceful group and then expand mostly through extortion and threat of violence but not actual attacks.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm fairly certain everything you wrote is perfectly consistent with my original statement.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

then all ten need to behave like that one asshole or they’ll be conquered eventually.

Is pretty much the opposite of what I wrote 🤷

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No... everything you described falls under "behave like that one asshole"

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

How? The most common strategy is to do nothing at all because the one asshole is too afraid to do anything but minor incursions.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but why is the asshole afraid? The peaceful groups armed themselves. Once everybody is armed how do you disarm?

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No they didn't. But the asshole doesn't want to risk that happening.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think we need to go back to the beginning.

We have 9 peaceful tribes/societies/states/whatever. They're happy to just live within their means and cooperate with each other when needed. In a vacuum, this will continue indefinitely because why fight when you don't need much and can share?

Now, the asshole tribe moves into the region. They're greedy, their population is outgrowing their resources because they're using all they have, furthermore they have few qualms about taking their neighbors' stuff.

The existence of this tribe forces all the others to arm themselves and maintain some sort of military. The only possible way a peaceful existence will be restored is if the troublemaker is removed. However even that isn't guaranteed to work now that all have militaries and nothing to do with them.

I feel like you were describing various scenarios the previous paragraph could play out, but ultimately the existence of the violent tribe forces the cooperative tribes to defend themselves or perish.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The problem with you argument is that the violent tribe is not a pure evil that is just violent for the sake of it. Outside of fantasy stories (and war propaganda) something like that doesn't exist.

They might be for various reasons prone to violence, but they still need to factor in outside factors and their own resources.

In reality such dynamics rarely play out like you describe them because it is not a very successful strategy for anyone involved and mostly just a waste of resources.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ffs, it doesn't matter whether they're good, evil, or somewhere in between. It doesn't matter why they're prone to violence. The fact that they're willing and capable means all other must be ready to fight.

In reality such dynamics are currently playing out and they have played out from the beginning of time. Our current world is a product of this process. This is like, game theory or something. It's like you're trying to tell me 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because we don't really know if there are two twos or some nonsense.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I recommend you read some actual history and anthropology because that is absolutely not how things have played out since the beginning of time. The world is a lot more complex than over-simplified understandings of game-theory.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago

I have read plenty, hence why I'm baffled at your denial of this concept. Frankly, I don't think you're arguing in good faith. Underneath all the complexity you keep trying to use as a counterargument is a simple concept that has manifested itself in countless ways throughout history and today.

[–] RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

Very interesting discussion, thanks both!

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yanis Varoufakis’ idea of technofeudalism seems like another way of viewing this.

Not really. Varoufakis idea is more of a novel way of framing what already exists right now, but I think he is doing to some extend the classic mistake of thinking capitalism is/was about competition, when that was always at most an inconvenience on the way to reach a monopoly.

Network states are basically the doomer vision for billionaires (which describes Peter Thiel quite well). They might try to sell it as the great vision of trading/charter cities like Venice during the Renaissance, but in reality they are fully aware that this is just a scaled up and more realistic version of the bunker with guns and cans.

[–] RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 days ago

Thank you for the explanation, I need to look at the ideas more closely and understand the differences between them.

I do find it strange that these network states don't explain how classic issues like climate change or equality would come into play. In fact, it's funny that the Network State book doesn't acknowledge what happens to differently abled or disadvantaged individuals. I guess the easy answer is that they simply don't care!