Are you an Anarchist? The answer might surprise you!
- Be respectful
- Don’t be a nazi
- Argue about the point and not the person
- This is not the place to debate the merits of anarchism itself. While discussion is encouraged, getting in your “epic dunks on the anarkiddies” is not. As a result of the instance’s poor moderation policies and hostility toward anarchists by default, lemmygrad users are encouraged not to post here, though not explicitly disallowed if they aren’t just looking to start a fight.
- 0 users online
- 1 user / day
- 1 user / week
- 1 user / month
- 13 users / 6 months
- 1.66K subscribers
- 342 Posts
- 884 Comments
This is interesting because it means both that some of the current social arrangements have endured because of their attractiveness and some of them are being tested.
I wonder about the relationship between reflective social truths and broader methodologically valid truths.
For example, a reflective social truth is capitalism’s profit incentive: the social arrangement creates the phenomenon. In other words, people make it true. Conversely, people make it false by not acting out that social arrangement. An example of a broader methodologically valid truth is the existence of Neptune, or the abundance of hydrogen in the universe. These are truths regardless of social arrangements. Of course, broader truths can be changed by social arrangements, as in the case of the capitalocene.
My question, then, is how the marketplace of ideas and their attractiveness relate to reflective social truths and broader truths. Should these two types of truths be dealt with differently? Or are they fundamentally the same? What does methodological validity mean in this marketplace of ideas, if anything? Are there things such as mass delusions?
I like that the view of the marketplace broadly aligns with neoinstitutional views regarding the struggle between groups. It is this struggle that determines social arrangements.
deleted by creator