In a word, no. That's not what any of this is about. My defense of egalitarian organizing principles is not aimed at achieving some kind of socialist utopia, or cutting down tall poppies, or making a world filled with mindless interchangeable drones lacking any individuality. I have simply sought to show that establishing guild-like organizations is possible and desirable; it doesn't go much further than that.
But, you may protest, what about the romantic ideal of the individual? Of the starving artist, the troubled hero, the misunderstood genius? What does this stodgy old-fashioned notion of "civic virtue" do for them?
First off, I would push back on the idea that there's a dilemma here. What kind of society do you think will do better at fostering creativity and individual achievement: one where everyone has a unique combination of guilds through which they can exercise their talents in the sight of others, or one where everyone sits at home all day never interacting with other human beings? Yes, there will always be some tension between the brooding creative types and the mainstream society, but this tension is itself the source of their energy. Without a "society" existing in the first place, the push-and-pull dialectic of the human condition cannot even begin.
Secondly, this would be to misread these articles as if they were addressing personal morality - what should motivate you to get out of bed in the morning. In fact they are addressed to societies - how they can more effectively get stuff done as a group. These are separate questions, and norms for social cooperation tend to be rather bland and uninspiring on a personal level. Thou shalt not murder. - Okay, sounds reasonable enough; but what should I do instead? On this, social morality is silent.
Critiquing the transmutation of social values into individual values is the main theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's oeuvre. It is a message that resonates with me, personally, because I had long believed that social morality was the only kind, and that the very purpose of life was to avoid transgressing it. It is easy to pick up on this message if you're everywhere surrounded by people telling you what not to do, and nobody explaining why you positively should do anything. But this, taken to its logical end, means that the best form of existence is non-existence; the best form of life is death, and a quiet and unobtrusive one at that, lest anyone else be inconvenienced. And that's hardly a way to go about life.
Misunderstanding this, many Nietzsche readers come away with the impression that he's a social moralist after the model of Plato or Hobbes, and thus derive from his works a model of an ideal "Nietzschean society," which tends to resemble a brutal fascist might-makes-right regime where the Übermenschen rule over the unwashed peasants and where (by implication) "guild culture" is ruthlessly stamped out as a subversive element. But (yes I know, death of the author, etc.) this is the exact opposite of the intended message. "Live your best life, regardless of what other people think" - Oh, so you mean a fascist dictatorship that regulates every aspect of my life? Hm, quite compelling.
Likewise, you would be committing an error of the opposite type if you were to interpret my articles on organizational cultures as prescriptions for the way you, as an individual, should live. None of this is saying that you (the reader) should subordinate your individuality to the herd, or that you should be ashamed to strive for greatness. Indeed, participating in guilds can be a way to express your individual values and purpose. But that's really up to you to decide.
Nonetheless, through an extreme stretch of the imagination, I suppose one could interpret this sequence of posts as an "anti-Nietzschean polemic" in the following way:
Somewhere out there is the next Great Man of History, who is destined to rise to power and bend the future to his iron will. He shall start from humble beginnings as a LessWrong meetup organizer, swiftly climb the ranks through heroic achievement in that field, and parlay his status into world domination. Then the glory of his reign shall overflow as the nectar of the gods, and all his subjects shall bask in his triumphant glow as they kneel down in praise of him, blessèd to delight in the Presence of the final completion of the World-Spirit - but alas! With these blog posts the thread of prophecy has been severed! For through his insidious connivances, that wretched worm, LessWrong user @jchan, has planted the seed of doubt in the people's minds, by writing articles about "guilds" and "rubber stamps" and "living in a society" which block our hero's Golden Path. And so the one who should have become the next Great Man of History will now languish in obscurity, the people blind to his virtues. Woe unto us who are thus condemned to live in this bleak world of mediocrity, for it is the fate we deserve for ever once heeding the words of that dastardly trickster, LessWrong user @jchan.
(You've uncovered my plan, child of broken prophecy! We should've been friends, you and I, but fate has made us enemies!)
[Concluding remark to Organizational Cultures sequence]
In a word, no. That's not what any of this is about. My defense of egalitarian organizing principles is not aimed at achieving some kind of socialist utopia, or cutting down tall poppies, or making a world filled with mindless interchangeable drones lacking any individuality. I have simply sought to show that establishing guild-like organizations is possible and desirable; it doesn't go much further than that.
But, you may protest, what about the romantic ideal of the individual? Of the starving artist, the troubled hero, the misunderstood genius? What does this stodgy old-fashioned notion of "civic virtue" do for them?
First off, I would push back on the idea that there's a dilemma here. What kind of society do you think will do better at fostering creativity and individual achievement: one where everyone has a unique combination of guilds through which they can exercise their talents in the sight of others, or one where everyone sits at home all day never interacting with other human beings? Yes, there will always be some tension between the brooding creative types and the mainstream society, but this tension is itself the source of their energy. Without a "society" existing in the first place, the push-and-pull dialectic of the human condition cannot even begin.
Secondly, this would be to misread these articles as if they were addressing personal morality - what should motivate you to get out of bed in the morning. In fact they are addressed to societies - how they can more effectively get stuff done as a group. These are separate questions, and norms for social cooperation tend to be rather bland and uninspiring on a personal level. Thou shalt not murder. - Okay, sounds reasonable enough; but what should I do instead? On this, social morality is silent.
Critiquing the transmutation of social values into individual values is the main theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's oeuvre. It is a message that resonates with me, personally, because I had long believed that social morality was the only kind, and that the very purpose of life was to avoid transgressing it. It is easy to pick up on this message if you're everywhere surrounded by people telling you what not to do, and nobody explaining why you positively should do anything. But this, taken to its logical end, means that the best form of existence is non-existence; the best form of life is death, and a quiet and unobtrusive one at that, lest anyone else be inconvenienced. And that's hardly a way to go about life.
Misunderstanding this, many Nietzsche readers come away with the impression that he's a social moralist after the model of Plato or Hobbes, and thus derive from his works a model of an ideal "Nietzschean society," which tends to resemble a brutal fascist might-makes-right regime where the Übermenschen rule over the unwashed peasants and where (by implication) "guild culture" is ruthlessly stamped out as a subversive element. But (yes I know, death of the author, etc.) this is the exact opposite of the intended message. "Live your best life, regardless of what other people think" - Oh, so you mean a fascist dictatorship that regulates every aspect of my life? Hm, quite compelling.
Likewise, you would be committing an error of the opposite type if you were to interpret my articles on organizational cultures as prescriptions for the way you, as an individual, should live. None of this is saying that you (the reader) should subordinate your individuality to the herd, or that you should be ashamed to strive for greatness. Indeed, participating in guilds can be a way to express your individual values and purpose. But that's really up to you to decide.
Nonetheless, through an extreme stretch of the imagination, I suppose one could interpret this sequence of posts as an "anti-Nietzschean polemic" in the following way:
Somewhere out there is the next Great Man of History, who is destined to rise to power and bend the future to his iron will. He shall start from humble beginnings as a LessWrong meetup organizer, swiftly climb the ranks through heroic achievement in that field, and parlay his status into world domination. Then the glory of his reign shall overflow as the nectar of the gods, and all his subjects shall bask in his triumphant glow as they kneel down in praise of him, blessèd to delight in the Presence of the final completion of the World-Spirit - but alas! With these blog posts the thread of prophecy has been severed! For through his insidious connivances, that wretched worm, LessWrong user @jchan, has planted the seed of doubt in the people's minds, by writing articles about "guilds" and "rubber stamps" and "living in a society" which block our hero's Golden Path. And so the one who should have become the next Great Man of History will now languish in obscurity, the people blind to his virtues. Woe unto us who are thus condemned to live in this bleak world of mediocrity, for it is the fate we deserve for ever once heeding the words of that dastardly trickster, LessWrong user @jchan.
(You've uncovered my plan, child of broken prophecy! We should've been friends, you and I, but fate has made us enemies!)