 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vice
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Location: Toronto
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
There is one thing I would have to say before taking on the question of life being short and nasty with ronb and that is that all day to day life is relative and based on its context. Who are you u modern man to tell a contemporary new guinea tribesman that his life is nasty and short. Beyond that if you look at what the newer less eurocentric anthropologists uncovered via age you will find that once the infections were avoided along with the warfare, it was not uncommon at all for primitive people to live into old age. Hell if you've watched any docs or better yet got to know a particular culture you'll find that there are indeed old people. Do you seriously think everyone is a strapping young lad who just croaks at 40? You are also incorrect if you think I see pre-civilization as "an idyllic Eden". Peace, war, violence and non-violence were relative to the times just as they are now. For me I simply look at the immediacy that existed in such times and compare to the abysmall mediation that we live today. This is not a full endorcement of primitivism, however people like me will always give some props for a pre-state period that lasted longer then the following epochs.
Jake:
you are correct that efficiancy as such is relative, however your analogy to the efficiancy of a serial killer is quite sucinct in describing modern technological relationships. I'm afraid there's no changing this. Miners must mine, the proles must compartmentalize, and the ordering must be efficiently pathological which corresponds to platonism which in practice is of course pathological as well.
As for academic posturing, I have something that they lack, honesty. In regards to my academic career if I should even call it that, I did 2 years at Seneca college doing a General Arts and Science program. You're not talking to some poliscience student here. The reading of people like Stirner and Nietzsche along with others came after I left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 466
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think life as hunter-gathers could be described as "nasty, short and brutish", as studies of the San and others show that their diet was usually better than most agrarian farmers were, and it took far fewer hours or calories expended. But it could hardly be described utopia either, as there was a higher risk factor at work, famine did strike at times, and potential family size was much more limited. Depending to a degree on the carrying capacity of each locale of course. Their cultures can even be More complex than early farmers some ways, and more take part in more areas, but the Total capacity for significant elaboration or change would be much more limited. Violence between neighbouring hunting groups is recorded but generally more sporadic, with fewer lives lost and fewer inherent imbalances in power.
This whole line of thinking illuminates to me a common weakness in all kinds of anarchist or passivist theories though, all supposedly "ruleless" or merely "leaderless" societies rely on the assumption that one good turn will be returned by the other, or rather, without outside coercion, everyone automatically starts playing nice again, while still showing up at the office in time to help out. Same goes with completely "localized" societies, what if our neighbour won't trade fairly with our commune, or play by the same ground rules, or just decide to pick a fight to grab a larger share of the resources? Why should they care about others without Any overriding authority to keep them onside? That to me is the main downfall of all utopian theories.
_________________
The time to move is now. Always has been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
satori shinobi
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 533
Location: where they hung the jerk that invented work
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This whole line of thinking illuminates to me a common weakness in all kinds of anarchist or passivist theories though, all supposedly "ruleless" or merely "leaderless" societies rely on the assumption that one good turn will be returned by the other, or rather, without outside coercion, everyone automatically starts playing nice again, while still showing up at the office in time to help out. |
Huh? Passivist? What's that? I assume it's not the same as pacifist.
Anyway, anarchist society is not based on the concept of "playing nice". It's based on the acknowledgment that we are stronger together than apart, and the belief that operating as large communities doesn't necessarily rely on some individuals subverting the wills of others. We can freely accept the compromises that complex modern societies entail to reap their rewards, and work out those compromises through uncoerced negotiations. Consensus building, in other words. It's not simple, but it stands to reason that if small groups can do it, so can large groups.
What this does assume is a certain level of political sophistication on the part of those involved, to enable such consensus to be built in an egalitarian manner. So even if we postulate a deceitful, amoral character in such a sophisticated society, they would have to accept that their chances of cynically manipulating their peers without being caught were too small to be worth the risk, and grudgingly "play fair". A society where you could fool none of the people all of the time, and all of the people none of the time would end up anarchist by default, because nobody would accept the bogus rationalisations that are currently used to control us. It's about personal vigilance, not blind trust.
Of course, there's always the possibility that people actually prefer to be abused and dominated, but hey, I'm an optimist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ErikTheDedd wrote: |
This whole line of thinking illuminates to me a common weakness in all kinds of anarchist or passivist theories though, all supposedly "ruleless" or merely "leaderless" societies rely on the assumption that one good turn will be returned by the other, or rather, without outside coercion, everyone automatically starts playing nice again, while still showing up at the office in time to help out. Same goes with completely "localized" societies, what if our neighbour won't trade fairly with our commune, or play by the same ground rules, or just decide to pick a fight to grab a larger share of the resources? Why should they care about others without Any overriding authority to keep them onside? That to me is the main downfall of all utopian theories. |
I'd have to disagree, of course. Consider the present day. Sure, ultimately the nation-state, in theory at least, derives its authority from a monopoly on violence in its territory. But day to day, it depends on manufactured consent, what wossname called "hegemony". I don't go to work in the morning because there's a cop who'll beat me up if I don't. And while on one level it's true that I go to work because if I don't I won't get a paycheck, I'm a clever enough guy that I could probably make more money with less effort through a life of crime. I don't because I've internalized many (though not all, or I wouldn't be a radical weirdo) of the society's assumptions about what's OK behaviour. Most societies ultimately function because most people in them accept that the social organization they're experiencing is legitimate, one of the best practical solutions to the situation the society is in.
Personally, I think that through history this acceptance has largely been due to manipulation and propaganda by elites, some conscious, some not-so-conscious. There is a concerted effort to make sure that even if people perceive injustices, they are persuaded that there is no alternative to injustice--human nature, or the nature of economics, or the need for leaders to organize things, or divine will, or whatever basic feature of the world can be invented, make it impossible to ever have a more just society than the current one. But that's not really the point. The point is, society doesn't mostly operate on direct coercion, it operates on persuading everyone that the system is pretty good all things considered & so they should be loyal to it. When coercion starts to take a more central role, it strikes me as a sign of a system experiencing problems and breakdowns.
So, what if the system really *was* good, and society was just and egalitarian and generally operated to enable people's good lives rather than harvesting their surplus for someone else? Seems to me that rather less elaborate mechanisms would be needed to generate general acceptance of the system. So just as in our current system, things would operate largely on the basis that most people were persuaded that the system is good and they should generally operate according to its tenets. The problem of outside aggression remains--but I don't see that a society without rulers must necessarily be incapable of military action. The Spanish Anarchists fought damned well. Consider that the Fascists had Hitler on their side, were being well supplied with arms, and had most of the already-trained-and-equipped army on their side. Meanwhile, the Anarchists et al. were being blockaded by the British, stopping them from getting arms of their own! It's amazing the civil war lasted as long as it did, really; had the two sides been more equal in money and outside support, I think it likely Franco would have got his butt whupped.
We generally assume, because it's nearly always been that way, that a military force must operate in a feudal-derived chain of command structure. But that's really more of a historical artifact than anything else. Sure, you need to have people who are in charge during battle, because there's no time to argue. But there's no reason they can't be elected, and there's no reason they have to be in charge the rest of the time. The pirates of the Spanish Main often elected their captains, and those captains were often only in charge while prey was in sight; the rest of the time, the quartermaster, also elected, would run the show.
I see no reason why an armed force couldn't be run on a bottom-up basis, or something close to it; bottom-up modified by expertise, perhaps. So you've got an army, volunteer. Anyone in the army can take courses on any military topic they want (although there'd be some required stuff, obviously). If they get certified in logistics, they're allowed to participate in discussions about, vote on, or be elected to positions in charge of aspects of, logistical stuff for the army. If they get certified in strategy, they can be similarly involved in strategic issues. If they get certified in tactics and have a certain degree of practical experience, they're eligible to be voted in as various levels of field commander. If a field commander gets stacks of people killed for stupid reasons, he/she can be voted out, impeached, in egregious cases maybe even stripped of certification. Field commanders command in the field--they don't get to tell logistics experts what to do when they're not in battle, or engineers what to design. Although if you're a field commander who's qualified as an engineer, you'd be involved in engineering discussions and likely your voice would carry a fair amount of weight.
An organization like this probably wouldn't have worked in the middle ages, but I don't see why it couldn't work now. Technology, specifically communications technology, has changed.
And I don't see why the people in an Anarchy couldn't be capable of deciding that there was need for a military in the first place. They'd just have to make the decision collectively rather than being monkeywrenched into it by leaders. The result would probably have a much more defensive posture than many current militaries; much of it might look more like Hezbollah than a standard tanks'n'stuff army, or like the Swiss military. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Beyond that if you look at what the newer less eurocentric anthropologists uncovered via age you will find that once the infections were avoided along with the warfare, it was not uncommon at all for primitive people to live into old age. |
It's been about 50 years since anthropologists used "primitive" to describe any cultures.
You are missing the point. Nobody has ever said that there were no old people in hunter gatherer societies. However, old people are an anomaly in the arcaeological record. Your chances of living past 40 were scarce. However, your chances of dying of a gangrenous broken bone for example, were very high.
If you look into it, you'll find that it is the newcomers who have revised the somewhat rosier picture that was painted by the anthropology of the seventies and eighties - the one that I was taught. I have a dear friend who is a Anthro prof, he specialises in Irish Passage Graves - his doctoral thesis posed a serious challenge to the commonly held wisdom concerning rigid hierarchy in ancient Irish culture. He is a self described anarchist, not uncommon in Ireland I understand, who nevertheless gleefully disabuses me of my preconceptions about hunter gatherer societies anytime I hold them up as idyllic in any way. The archaelogical record doesn't support this, it's mostly wishful thinking, politically motivated.
What eurocentrism has to do with this is beyond me. It is pretty widely accepted that Europe was something of a latecomer to the agrarian revolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6169
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antonio Gramsci?
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eh, yeah, I think that's the guy. 'E's one of those people I keep reading other people talking about but never seem to run across anything he actually said personally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm a clever enough guy that I could probably make more money with less effort through a life of crime. I don't because I've internalized many (though not all, or I wouldn't be a radical weirdo) of the society's assumptions about what's OK behaviour. |
That and, unless you're a particularly fearless fellow, the fear of going to jail (or, if fear's not in your vocabulary, the simple desire to remain at liberty).
What's more, not all crime has its roots in poverty, or alienation from society, or what have you.
I suspect that a more pragmatic Anarchist may say "no worries; we'll still have jails, just maybe fewer of them, and we'll hold our noses when talking about them", but I've also encountered Anarchists whose argument begins with the destruction of "the State" and a subsequent anti-authoritarian "clean sweep" and when you ask them what their Anarchist society would do with committed criminals, sex offenders, etc., they've usually got nothing, or else they revert to the "if we build it, they will come" model in which the new society is just so awesome that sex offenders are cured simply by living in it.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vice
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You rais some interesting points dedd one. I would hardly call any human existence a utopia. For me I just want that which best fights mediation. Such a thing will always be an everyday work in progress. As far as violence goes, meh. Who cares. Its a timeless aspect of human existence. If the neighbour does not play fair then there will be war. I have no inherent problem with war. For me peace and happiness are best preserved in moments. I think the key is to decentralize the war machine back to that sporadic level and make it more nomadic again. As far as complexity goes I would agree that there are certain things in primitive societies that you could say are are complex. As Jared Diamond points out they can be master horticulturalists. The deep knowledge they have of their natural surroundings could be said to be complex, having an internal compas and being able to navigate yourself out of a burning fire are cool things that I would love to learn. The key for me is that there is little to no alienating specialization that goes on in this complexity if you want to call it that. As for hazard working environments we just throw a certain class of people into the more dangerous zones. Look how many construction workers die yearly or miners of course. As far as my way goes I like to be in as much control of my own subsistence as possible. The survival aspect might actually enchance things.
ronb
You are still mistaken about the scarcely living past 40. For one thing the evidence to base this on was compiled after colonial contact with such cultures and not before. In spite of this, the research that people like Sahlins and Lee published on the San shows a far less nasty life. At its best primitive life spans are somewhat on par with modern ones with such things as soap and other sanitary things(which could be carried over into a post-civilized existence as I said). At the end of the day however if I have to choose between a shorter more immediate life and a long boring mediated modern one, the choice is an easy one for me. Heaven knows the skyrocketing rates of depression are proof enough. Once again though I don't take hunter-gatherer life as idylic, simply an expiring example of a non-state existence which has the longest lasting record among human epochs. Civility has lasted 1/10ths as long and it looks to be making a final crack this century which will probably lead to a dispersal of all the various epochs.
And the reason why I say eurocentrism is that that is where this platonic idea of progress comes from. Because primitivism is seen as the 'starting line' there will be an almost logical bias against it as the positivists displayed at their worst. Its only the last 40+ years or so where a lot of this shit was junked.
Finally to Magoo
The majority of those in jail should not be there to begin with. If there was a personal singular even that affected me I would rather my own might personally and perhaps those who I trust would deal with such things. In many ways the restoritive aproach has been shown to work well in alot of these cases. If you want to throw out psychopaths and serial killers as examples who make up a small amount of jail slavery then I would perhaps be forced to make a choice between killing and confinement...I choose the former. Much like how we deal with a crazy rotweiler or pitbull. The logic of confinement creates a slippery slope where others get thrown in as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm a clever enough guy that I could probably make more money with less effort through a life of crime. I don't because I've internalized many (though not all, or I wouldn't be a radical weirdo) of the society's assumptions about what's OK behaviour. |
That and, unless you're a particularly fearless fellow, the fear of going to jail (or, if fear's not in your vocabulary, the simple desire to remain at liberty). |
The "clever enough guy" part was sort of intended to convey that I wouldn't be planning to get caught. Lots of criminals don't, after all. So it's not that I'm fearless, or have no desire to remain at liberty, just that I'm vain. Which, again, is not uncommon, so something more than fear of retaliation is needed to keep various kinds of system sabotage at bay. Look at the late Soviet Union. Sure, one major source of collapse was the massive military budget and its first call on resources and talent. But another was widespread loss of buy-in, for instance in agriculture; "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work". Force is not the major factor stopping crime, nor is it the major factor that causes people to generally do their bit in society. Places with little social cohesion can spend money on cops till they go bankrupt and there will still be massive crime. Many places today that are both prosperous and relatively egalitarian have few cops, small prison populations, and little crime. A social anarchy would be working on being an extreme case of that direction. The relative lack of coercion would not, I think, be the major factor determining how workable the society was, any more than it is in non-anarchist societies.
| Quote: | What's more, not all crime has its roots in poverty, or alienation from society, or what have you.
I suspect that a more pragmatic Anarchist may say "no worries; we'll still have jails, just maybe fewer of them, and we'll hold our noses when talking about them", |
Drifting way off topic, old bean. But yes, that would be more or less my position--cops, fewer; jails, fewer; organized differently from the paramilitary hierarchy that typifies cop shops today; and no riot cops. Rehab etc., more. But yes, still some cops, still some form of justice system. I don't know what to do about judges and lawyers. The question of how to run a justice system in an anarchist, egalitarian fashion is certainly a difficult and complicated one. But then, the question of how to run a justice system, period, is a difficult and complicated one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8700
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough. Not saying I'm an Anarchist now, but fair enough.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | For one thing the evidence to base this on was compiled after colonial contact with such cultures and not before. |
On the contrary, the evidence is in the archaeological record, many millenia before the colonial era.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes - when I say pre-agrarian, I don't mean modern cultures that haven't aquired agrarian technology (yet, being the implicit value judgement), I mean the cultures that existed before agrarian cultures came into existence. Research into modern hunter gatherer cultures are not all that relevant. Instructive, in some ways, but as you mentioned, colonialism has destroyed its usefulness as a true reflection of pre-agrarian societies, as Chagnon's work with the Yanomamo eventually showed so movingly - his work is basically a timelapse film of the destruction of a culture by contact.
The San/!kung studies - and Chagnon's work - are precisely what I mean by the older 70s and 80s anthro stuff - the research you mention is from the 60s. It's where I formed my view on the somewhat idyllic impression of small band life - no more than 2 hours of work per day! hours spent in recline and playing with infants!
However, I also recognise your point that lifespans are relative. 40 years of hunter gatherer subsistence with no need for calendars would doubtless seem an entirely different lifespan than the life measured in milliseconds by atomic clocks that we live in our world.
| Quote: | | And the reason why I say eurocentrism is that that is where this platonic idea of progress comes from. Because primitivism is seen as the 'starting line' there will be an almost logical bias against it as the positivists displayed at their worst. Its only the last 40+ years or so where a lot of this shit was junked. |
Eurocentrism is also where the whole idea of primitivism comes from - the noble savage etc. And a lot has happened in anthropology in the last 40 years - which is probably more like 70. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vice
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not really familier with changnon though I have no idea how one can make any definitive judgement on primitive life in pre-civilized times. As far as the 70s and 80s goes that was a time of the more reactionary responses to the likes of Lee and Sahlins, I'm not sure they hold up very well. I also disagree that those 60s anthropologists we're paiting an idylic picture, they were if anything dispelling alot of the nasty brutish and short myths that carried the day untill those studies were completed. They did not hold back the bad stuff however, Sahlins I believe devoted some time to torture in primitve societies. At the end of the day however their are positive aspects that people like Jared Diamond are eager to point out. He thinks the move to agriculture was the biggest mistake humans ever made, and he's no primitivist.
As for primitivism being a product of eurocentrism, I don't nessarily disagree though primitivist discourse is varied and not limited to someone like Johnny Zerzan(who while having a lot of interesting things to say does show a reverse form of positivism). At the end of the day though someone like me can learn a lot from how those pre-state societies operated. As long as those who chamion that way of life are real about the herstorical flaws and drawbacks as well as the fact that not everyone wants to "go back" I have no problem with it. Personally in a post-peak oil world I would not mind seeing some primitivist relations comeback. Certainly It could be used in combination with permaculture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronb
mocker
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2627
Location: Blackroof country, no gold pavement, tired starling
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I also disagree that those 60s anthropologists we're paiting an idylic picture, they were if anything dispelling alot of the nasty brutish and short myths that carried the day untill those studies were completed. |
I'd say it was the rise of ethnography - culminating with Levi Strauss etc - that really began to dispel the major misunderstandings - both positive and negative - about "primitive" cultures. But the first major backlash to Hobbes"s "nasty brutish and short" notion was the Romantic movement, which also had it's roots in the 60s, the 1760s. The tension between the back to nature crowd and the progress at all costs crowd has played itself out in anthropology since the beginning. Still is, really. However, I repeat, the archaeological record actually supports Hobbes's notion about nasty and short. The deaths were largely of simple and unpleasant causes - broken limbs, concussions, childbirth. And it's quite rare to find skeleton older than 40. The brutish is more difficult to discern.
And, so you know, this notion of "civilization" is one the major bits of baggage associated with Eurocentrism - essentially any culture that is organised like ours is described as "civilized" and ones that aren't are "primitive". It's a catch 22. An implicit value judgement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N.R.ChrisD
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | However, I repeat, the archaeological record actually supports Hobbes's notion about nasty and short. The deaths were largely of simple and unpleasant causes - broken limbs, concussions, childbirth. And it's quite rare to find skeleton older than 40. The brutish is more difficult to discern.
|
Whilst I'm certainly not a primitivist, I think your reading of anthropology is somewhat thin. I think your opinions of prehistory are probably more based on projections of western death anxiety than anything else. People today die of all manner of simple and nasty causes. The majority of the world's population still live in abject poverty and do not have access to decent health care or the wonders of technology. Even those with wealth who do have access to these things it does not or will not mean an end to death or suffering, last time I checked there was still plenty of both. So the nasty is certainly not really applicable in any genuine way. I think there are probably billions of impoverished citizens in slums, sweat shops and subsistence farming that would find the hunting and collecting lifestyle idylic. As far as the "short" part as I believe you yourself already mentioned it is really difficult or meaningful to even discuss when considering different cultural constructions of the passage of time. I would also be interested to see any research varyfying your claim about 40 year old bones.
I think it's important to note that there are competing theories in Anthropology like any dicipline and I really don't think any can really claim any great degree of absolute truth.
I also think it is inaccurate to say that modern hunting and gathering societies can tell us nothing about previous modes of living. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 466
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rufus Polson wrote: | | Senor Magoo wrote: | What's more, not all crime has its roots in poverty, or alienation from society, or what have you.
I suspect that a more pragmatic Anarchist may say "no worries; we'll still have jails, just maybe fewer of them, and we'll hold our noses when talking about them", |
Drifting way off topic, old bean. But yes, that would be more or less my position--cops, fewer; jails, fewer; organized differently from the paramilitary hierarchy that typifies cop shops today; and no riot cops. Rehab etc., more. But yes, still some cops, still some form of justice system. I don't know what to do about judges and lawyers. The question of how to run a justice system in an anarchist, egalitarian fashion is certainly a difficult and complicated one. But then, the question of how to run a justice system, period, is a difficult and complicated one. |
Thanks for all that Rufus, I've just never heard an anarchist of any sort admit that there might be Any need for prisons or cops in an anarchist society. Being a bit of 'weirdo lefty' myself, I of course believe that most social relationships are 'chosen' and reciprocal under normal circumstances, the opinion of others and agreements made probably having more impact on behaviour than structural carrots and sticks, but I've learned through hard expereience that some people just aren't Willing to play fair. And they can just as well come from privileged backgrounds as under-privileged ones. How any kind of court system could be achieved in a structurally non-coersive society would be an interesting challenge.
And yeah, I Thought I wrote pacifist, not "passivist"...
_________________
The time to move is now. Always has been.
Last edited by Erik Redburn on Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vice
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd repeat what what chris said.
Putting aside the questionable logic of asserting that pre-historical people lived only till 40, even if it is true why is it that contemporary primitive cultures live well beyond that age when things more or less go well. I really don't see a dichotomy between hunter-gatherers before and during civilization. Also I'm not sure whether I should laugh at what you site that passes for nasty. Concussions, broken limbs, I'm sure when post-civilized humans dig up the bones of Ice Hockey players and proletarians they will find the same thing. As if there as been an epoch of humanity without such things. Also as for child birth, there might be some truth to that though you understate the fact that hunter-gatherers have show themselves to be somewhat efficient at birth-control when the time calls. Studies on the San have show this for instance. With the rise of agrarian culture things actually got worse of course due to the fact that there was more of a logic for the population to grow.
Now as for civilization, I think you're confusing culture for civilization. Civilization has a definitive governmentalizing logic of expansion as well as greater levels social complexity via division of labour and the like. Literacy for instance is an obvious product of civilization as it has a logic of anihilating cultures and perspectives as Jack Goody argues. If you juxtopose the nature of war in both cases on one side you have a war machine that simply seeks to preserve multiplicity and context. The results are more bloody of course and there is less of that politically correct genenva convention crap though it happened less often. War in the civilized sense on the other hand is about good old fasion expansion. Theodore Adornho reffered to it as a march which I think is a fitting description. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 466
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
RonB: "And it's quite rare to find skeleton older than 40. The brutish is more difficult to discern. "
I can see why hunting gathering societies surving into historical periods *might* be more peacfully inclined than earlier ones (the Yanomami example is treated too often as the norm now IMO), being that they mostly survived in marginal environments surrounded by more powerful agrarian neighbours, but is there any reason given on why earlier hunting peoples would live so many fewer years on average than historically recorded groups?
_________________
The time to move is now. Always has been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vice
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | eric:
Thanks for all that Rufus, I've just never heard an anarchist of any sort admit that there might be Any need for prisons or cops in an anarchist society. Being a bit of "weirdo lefty" myself, I of course believe that most social relationships are chosen and reciprocal under normal circumstances, the opinion of others and agreements made probably has more impact on behaviour than carrots and sticvks, but I've learned through hard expereience that some people just aren't Willing to play fair. How any kind of court system could be achieved in a largely non-coersive society would be an interesting challenge. |
Well some anarchists accept that fact that violence is violence and one must not deal with such complex amoral manifestations within a discourse of 'criminality' something which has theoretical contradictions. The men who wrote the law books commited crimes themselves. The law is simply organized violence by the many who have a one sided view on 1 or 2. There is no perfect way to deal with the worst case scenerios however the idea of criminality and law should not be one of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 466
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, but to me it's not a "discourse", sociopathology too remains a very tangeable problem to the healthy functioning of society, whether "leadership" plays into it or not. It can't just be ignored by people going about their business, neither can previously established habits of mind. Structures and systems don't have a morality, far I can see, some are just more open, integrated or equitable than others, the rest is up to the actors involved. I don't know. What seems to set traditional anarchism apart from traditional socialist thinking, is that anarchism seem more focused on metaphysical change rather than day to day poly-tics as known -towards perhaps the not-yet known but not Starting from there. I don't know if that makes sense either.
Put another way, of course any real change starts with looking at problems in a new light, they probably remain problems because the same assumptions and same focus and same attitudes remain. But the problem Itself as it exists Now has to be dealt with, not as it should do under conditions not yet apparent but a few dreamers perhaps. Any problem, material or otherwise, could be said to be a spontaneous sign Telling us somethings no longer functioing and way it responds to our efforts maybe how it should be approached instead. Not that unlike the problems facing first hunters, except our problems manifest themselves through more artificial constructs and systems, not more responsive animate ones. But over time these institutions take on lives of their own, influencing others and becoming more removed from their originally intentioned functions, which Might have been perfectly sound in design stage.
Producing our needs should be easy now, but it still isn't because other factors and actors and beliefs and Demands come into it. That doesn't mean the concrete and glass structures housing them are the problem, they probably can't be eliminated anyhow, not without a lot of extra resistence leading to more problems. But if their Designed forms remain intact, they can still be rebuilt or built around to more human proportions, to more closely meet human needs, more aligned to natural geometries perhaps. Concrete can be replaced with more aesthetic stone, streams and trees can built around rather than Over, less energy can be wasted on excess trifles, any energy saved copuld be redirected where Needed, rather than more profit for More pointless Structural growth --IF the structures are understood as related to their Designed and proclaimed Functions again, more aligned to more Current demands or circumstances perhaps. Maybe then, problems associated with seemingly insurmountable structural inertia might suddenly become less severe and more manageable. Success in one area can shine light for others, energies released could give impetus onward. Not that complicated really. Just takes a while to say. 
_________________
The time to move is now. Always has been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ErikTheDedd wrote: | | Structures and systems don't have a morality, far I can see, some are just more open, integrated or equitable than others, the rest is up to the actors involved. |
Well, this is true as far as it goes, but brushes off the most important issues. Systems by definition don't have a morality--they're not moral agents. But do systems have directions in which they push behaviour? Absolutely. And quite strongly in many cases. Partly because of the coercive features involved, often quite overt. For instance, in the typical modern day corporation, the law states that corporations must pursue profit, essentially to the exclusion of other considerations. Stockholders, having taken ownership positions for profit, will also insist on this. If a person in a position of responsibility should fail to follow the profit-at-all-costs maxim, they would be liable to discipline, firing, and perhaps even legal action. Partly because of the intense impact role seems to have on people; one experiment showed that if you take ordinary people and designate some of them as prisoners and some as prison guards, not only will they begin behaving to the roles, but they may on their own initiative begin intensifying them. In the case I'm referring to, brutality began spiralling out of control and the experiment had to be halted. Other experiments in things like creating artificial prejudice by designating an eye colour as inferior, and so on and so forth, have generated chilling evidence of the ways people fit themselves into roles all too easily.
If you want to get anywhere, you *have* to sweat system, what directions the system's incentives push people and the roles the system puts people in. You want a system where the roles are egalitarian and the slippery slopes make people drift in positive directions, not negative ones.
| Quote: | I don't know. What seems to set traditional anarchism apart from traditional socialist thinking, is that anarchism seem more focused on metaphysical change rather than day to day poly-tics as known -towards perhaps the not-yet known but not Starting from there. I don't know if that makes sense either.
|
Not to me it doesn't. If you want to talk *traditional* anarchism, what seems to me to have set it apart from *traditional* socialist thinking was the insistence that struggle must be pursued from the start using the equalities and organizational forms that one wants to introduce. The anarchists always rejected vanguardism, rejected stages. They reasoned that organizational forms replicated themselves--if you introduce a revolution using a top-down hierarchy to get it, what you will have after the revolution is a top-down hierarchy, which will then try to preserve itself. One might argue that the Soviet system, China, and various African revolutions rather solidified their point. Many once-vibrant pressure groups, particularly environmental ones, give punch to that message as well. The tendency is for a group of well-meaning people to figure that what's important is Action! and they can worry about how it's organized later. Then years later when the whole thing has grown big and gained clout and then metamorphosed into a Beltway lobby group that survives by mailout donation drives and does nothing useful, the people who believe in the original cause wonder what happened. Traditional anarchists could tell them what happened.
More recently, much of modern socialist and generally left thinking has to some extent taken on board this anarchist principle. Which is a good thing. But it *is* an anarchist principle, and credit is due. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 466
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rufus Polson wrote: | | ErikTheDedd wrote: | | Structures and systems don't have a morality, far I can see, some are just more open, integrated or equitable than others, the rest is up to the actors involved. |
Well, this is true as far as it goes, but brushes off the most important issues. Systems by definition don't have a morality--they're not moral agents. But do systems have directions in which they push behaviour? Absolutely. And quite strongly in many cases. Partly because of the coercive features involved, often quite overt. For instance, in the typical modern day corporation, the law states that corporations must pursue profit, essentially to the exclusion of other considerations. Stockholders, having taken ownership positions for profit, will also insist on this. If a person in a position of responsibility should fail to follow the profit-at-all-costs maxim, they would be liable to discipline, firing, and perhaps even legal action. |
[/quote]
The division between shareholders and management may only have made the modern corpration even More socially irresponsible than the old family owned franchises; that IMO is one of the recent evolutions of capitalism that old Marxist analysis fails to recognise properly. But yes, I'd agree to your basic point, structures can encourage or discourage certain forms of behaviour based on who controls them, and they develop their own internal logic which Can be objectively harmful to other "externalities," while conditioning people (some) to internalize their values, ya.
Difference is that all that sort of thing, the fiduciary obligation of CEOs to shareholders first, last and always is really just another small legality and structural development that our society has come to accept. It's supported by a lot of heavy hitters and some bad legal decisions true, but that too can be reversed by focusing on That itself; while the public can reminded of this in the meantime whenever these same bastards tell us They would be better at running Everything. More accountable etc -uhhuh. Which is what I'm trying to say here, it's a Particular problem underneath its global impact, one that might only require Particular reforms. Maybe a few others to help them along, plus better public education, more varied media, more legal activism etc.
| Rufus Polson wrote: | | Quote: | I don't know. What seems to set traditional anarchism apart from traditional socialist thinking, is that anarchism seem more focused on metaphysical change rather than day to day poly-tics as known -towards perhaps the not-yet known but not Starting from there. I don't know if that makes sense either.
|
Not to me it doesn't. If you want to talk *traditional* anarchism, what seems to me to have set it apart from *traditional* socialist thinking was the insistence that struggle must be pursued from the start using the equalities and organizational forms that one wants to introduce. The anarchists always rejected vanguardism, rejected stages. They reasoned that organizational forms replicated themselves--if you introduce a revolution using a top-down hierarchy to get it, what you will have after the revolution is a top-down hierarchy, which will then try to preserve itself. ... |
[/quote]
I didn't mean any disrespect, I was mostly referring to what Vice was saying. (don't mean any disrespect to him either, he made some interesting points too I thought ) I'm certainly not arguing for "communism", though some might see that Too as a final destination itself. When I think of "traditional socialism" I tend to think of the descendents of more democratic Fabian socialism, while "traditional anarchism" to me only means what I've heard from most who call themselves that. Neither yours or Vice's ideas seem to fit what I see as the "mainstream" now -if I can use That word for anarchists of Any sort. I suspect all leftwing thought has some transcendental aspect at the heart of it though, if only because we're all looking for something that doesn't yet exist in the real world -or in Vices case, doesn't exist as an option for most of us anyMore -and because they all involve holding more trust in the Potential of others.
The difference again is that I'd argue that All transitions, great or small, involve Some steps, even if there's a few leaps and bounds and temple burnings along the way too, as they all have to start from where we are now. Even if conditions change for the better (or worse) they can only change from Here, especially on the social level.
That's where I was mostly disagreeing with Vice. The only path I see back to any sort of tribalism for ninety five percent of us would be death for ninety five percent of the rest. Then a slow relearning of natural skills and slow forgetting of modern attitudes among future gens. Whether this would be more accurately considered a complete "break" with our societies historical evolution or another natural development itself maybe just differences in definition. The anarchism that you seem to prefer looks to me more evolutionary too, the Grounds would still have to be laid using the tools we got now and directed towards problems and attitudes we have now before any such leap could take place. That's all I was trying to get at. I think. 
I'm somewhat anarchistic in the sense that I think some of these developments have to evolve As they evolve, let Others play their part as they see fit too, as otherwise pre-planned maps of Everything to Come don't seem to work so well for us contrary but meddling anthropoids. Better just rules of thumbs and general strategies, final destination unknown. OTOH more "movement" by the left towards Some of it could only help.
_________________
The time to move is now. Always has been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rufus Polson
Purple Library Guy
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3483
Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anarchism is not a new thing; time was it was about as influential among the discontented as socialism. Nowadays Vice may be rather more representative of "Anarchists" (in North America at least) than I am. But up through the 1930s or so, Anarchists were a significant political force in many places, even in North America. There were Anarchists heavily involved in the Russian Revolution, until the Bolsheviks put them down. And of course the Anarchists were perhaps the dominant strand in the brief leftist government in just-before-Franco Spain. Anarchists were big in trade unions throughout Europe just like the Communists, and even in North America the IWW, or Wobblies, were more Anarchist than anything else.
So there has been a time when Anarchists were not just people who said utopian things. They were a force among industrial workers, driving strikes and campaigns for reforms and organizing. The establishment hated and repressed them as much as the rest of the leftist riffraff, and did so quite effectively. And then for a while, given that Communism was nominally running quite a few sizeable countries, if one was going to be seriously radical one went Communist, and Anarchism kind of fell by the wayside.
Nowadays there really isn't anything you could call an Anarchist movement, and quite often if someone says they're an Anarchist they do mean roughly "I am interested in utopian philosophy and have no truck with dirty practicalities". Especially in Canada or the US--might be a bit different in Italy or Spain. But that's what I'd call modern, even postmodern, Anarchism; traditional Anarchism is rooted in the nineteenth and early twentieth century workers' struggles. But on the other hand, since word filtered out about Stalinism and repression in China, and then China basically went capitalist and the USSR fell, the idea of communism took a beating as well, and as people who still wanted to dissent from the injustices of the system looked for new ways of approaching things, they tended to take on board or reinvent a lot of the ideas of that traditional Anarchism. I'd say that much of the Seattle/Antiglobalization/World-Social-Forum left is in effect quite traditional Anarchist in its outlook, even though the people in it mostly wouldn't think of themselves as Anarchists per se. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vice
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | erik:
Ok, but to me it's not a "discourse", sociopathology too remains a very tangeable problem to the healthy functioning of society, whether "leadership" plays into it or not. It can't just be ignored by people going about their business, neither can previously established habits of mind. Structures and systems don't have a morality, far I can see, some are just more open, integrated or equitable than others, the rest is up to the actors involved. I don't know. What seems to set traditional anarchism apart from traditional socialist thinking, is that anarchism seem more focused on metaphysical change rather than day to day poly-tics as known -towards perhaps the not-yet known but not Starting from there. I don't know if that makes sense either.
|
Sociopathology will always be something of a bitch however we have to approach it much more honestly then we have been. By setting up morality codes we ignore the problem. As Bataille said, what constitutes crime in society is a manefestation of the most intense human emotions and actions. We tend to run away from this and externalize something that is quite universal. We turn good and evil into bineries and think everything bad is on the outside. Good old fasion platonism. It's funny you see anarchism as focussed on metaphysical. Anarchists are pretty renounded for their practice(not enough theory). As far as metaphysics goes, the quest for equality and justice seem to fit the bill. As far as day to day politics goes, I believe one must prefigure ones politics for it to be ultimately succesfull. As for the idea of getting everyone on side, I'm not sure that is the criteria that should decide whether something is succesfull or not.
| Quote: | | Put another way, of course any real change starts with looking at problems in a new light, they probably remain problems because the same assumptions and same focus and same attitudes remain. But the problem Itself as it exists Now has to be dealt with, not as it should do under conditions not yet apparent but a few dreamers perhaps. Any problem, material or otherwise, could be said to be a spontaneous sign Telling us somethings no longer functioing and way it responds to our efforts maybe how it should be approached instead. Not that unlike the problems facing first hunters, except our problems manifest themselves through more artificial constructs and systems, not more responsive animate ones. But over time these institutions take on lives of their own, influencing others and becoming more removed from their originally intentioned functions, which Might have been perfectly sound in design stage. |
| Quote: | | The difference again is that I'd argue that All transitions, great or small, involve Some steps, even if there's a few leaps and bounds and temple burnings along the way too, as they all have to start from where we are now. Even if conditions change for the better (or worse) they can only change from Here, especially on the social level. |
This to me is a view that tends to reflect liberal discourse. What grounds do you have to say there are stages? I think many things humans do they do quite unconciously. The processes they engage in are like the universe always unstable. Who new that hunter-gathering would give way thanks to a bit of seed planting. Also I find you're use of 'here' problematic as it seems to fixiated on the idea of presence. I think everything we do is an expression of a greater contingency that transcends the generic begining middle and end that the analytic prescribes.
Also I would prefer to use the term smaller scale as opposed to tribalism. In regards to 95% deing that is certainly were the logic of civilization is taking us. The question is can slam our foot on the break pedel as Walter Benjamin says we should and if we do will we fly through the windsheilds or can we have some local subsisting infrastructure in place as seatbelts. This would mean such things as rewilding cities and becoming damn good permaculturalists. I unlike you don't believe we have to 'unlearn' the lessons of modernity. Moderinity is a human creation. We do not adapt to it it adapts to us.
Oh and Rufus
I admire the anarchists past as much as you do. But a fitting way to pay homage to them is to learn from their theoretical and practical mistakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 466
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vice wrote: |
Sociopathology will always be something of a bitch however we have to approach it much more honestly then we have been. By setting up morality codes we ignore the problem. As Bataille said, what constitutes crime in society is a manefestation of the most intense human emotions and actions. We tend to run away from this and externalize something that is quite universal. We turn good and evil into bineries and think everything bad is on the outside. Good old fasion platonism. It's funny you see anarchism as focussed on metaphysical. Anarchists are pretty renounded for their practice(not enough theory). As far as metaphysics goes, the quest for equality and justice seem to fit the bill. As far as day to day politics goes, I believe one must prefigure ones politics for it to be ultimately succesfull. As for the idea of getting everyone on side, I'm not sure that is the criteria that should decide whether something is succesfull or not. |
There, I'm afriad, youre running circles around the whole subject. If that French philosopher had been a victim of real violence himself he might not have got so caught up on what "feelings" motivated the 'pyscho's' actions and more on how to discourage this kind of thing in the future. There are many different theories, none of which are proven to work in all cases. So we lock them up before they hurt others, but Try to maintain due process meantime so it doesn't get abused by authorities looking to cover their Own criminal actions, and only encouraging more of it, and try to make these gaols a little more civilized and conductive to rehabilition -though thats probably never been tried seriously anywhere yet.
The 'metaphysics' come into this again, when the philosopher gets diverted by this 'experience of the moment' kind of thing, which seems to be seductive for academics who may only be suffering from a mid-life crisis or momentary ennui, neither of which seriously addresses the painful and frightening Reality of human violence. I blame Sartre and Nietszche and other macho romantics there. You can't just pluck "Justice" as a solid criteria either, without evoking Some sort of universal values we can all agree on, not without recognising the universal use of violence itself as a means to control and intimidate others as well. And That Is a universal reality to conscious biological entities.
But Neitszche balled it all up, by refusing to distinguish between internally consistent and socially responsible authorities, ones that Reflected common moralities, and those that were purely arbitrary and hypocritical, imposed entirely from Above for the sole benefit of those above. Course Po-mos can always say All are imposed from 'outside' which of course is true in that we all Learn them at some point, but only confuses the subject again.
| Quote: |
This to me is a view that tends to reflect liberal discourse. What grounds do you have to say there are stages? I think many things humans do they do quite unconciously. The processes they engage in are like the universe always unstable. Who new that hunter-gathering would give way thanks to a bit of seed planting. Also I find you're use of 'here' problematic as it seems to fixiated on the idea of presence. I think everything we do is an expression of a greater contingency that transcends the generic begining middle and end that the analytic prescribes. |
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me, it really doesn't. Except that you seem to be implying that my simple reservations are bound by something you call 'liberal discourse', presumably inculcated by my socio-economic and cultural upbringing, and therefore unable to -what- discern the deeper truths hidden beneath our 'arbitrary social constructs'? Sorry, but I've heard too much of that sort of thing before. Can you clarify this, particular those last two sentences?
| Quote: | Also I would prefer to use the term smaller scale as opposed to tribalism. In regards to 95% deing that is certainly were the logic of civilization is taking us. The question is can slam our foot on the break pedel as Walter Benjamin says we should and if we do will we fly through the windsheilds or can we have some local subsisting infrastructure in place as seatbelts. This would mean such things as rewilding cities and becoming damn good permaculturalists. I unlike you don't believe we have to 'unlearn' the lessons of modernity. Moderinity is a human creation. We do not adapt to it it adapts to us.
|
I'll bypass that last sentence and just point out that 'permaculture' is far from hunting-gathering itself and may have little to do with tribalism of any sort, though 'rewilding' cities may be somewhat in line of what I was getting at Re 'humanizing' our urban and rural (theyre still connected) micro-environments. Much more modest an endeavor though, already being experimented with on a piecemeal basis.
Only I don't think that Any of us here can 'slam breaks' on Any of this. We're too few and top poorly equipted, and what youre saying is too far from what most others could even understand, let alone accept, let alone Attempt in any tangeable way. Those are just three more of the 'steps' I believe are inescapable and therefore universal. Steps, not stages, as 'stages' traditionally implies levels and superiority and pre-ordained (therefore inevitable therefore unquestionable) direction. Maybe that's what you were objecting to before. I try not to judge cultures by how they bring home the bacon, only how much it might cost in comnparison to others in similar circumstances. Maybe lower cost methods could improve circumstances for others in the future, but again, it's up to Them to Accept it too. That to me is liberality too, in its best sense.
_________________
The time to move is now. Always has been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thwap
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 4564
Location: Hamilton
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's some good reading h'yar! Thanks all!
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vice
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There, I'm afriad, youre running circles around the whole subject. If that French philosopher had been a victim of real violence himself he might not have got so caught up on what "feelings" motivated the 'pyscho's' actions and more on how to discourage this kind of thing in the future. There are many different theories, none of which are proven to work in all cases. So we lock them up before they hurt others, but Try to maintain due process meantime so it doesn't get abused by authorities looking to cover their Own criminal actions, and only encouraging more of it, and try to make these gaols a little more civilized and conductive to rehabilition -though thats probably never been tried seriously anywhere yet. |
Well regarding Batailles, how do you know that he did not suffer violence in his life. This is a guy who after being raised in a staunchly catholic family ran away to lose himself in brothels and other areas of sex work which certainly has its fair share of violence. If anything he had had a good honest look at these things. In regards to locking people up, just who do we lock up exactly? Are you talking about people like Paul and Carla? Cause they are few and far between and when you ressisitate a system of confinement you eventually drag others in who have no business being locked up. I don't mind some idea of due process(divorced from this objective fundamentalism) however I think that restorative justice as well as good old banishing are the most preferable means to use then jail. As I said in the worst case scenerio I would sooner kill someone then open the confinement floodgates. There is no perfect solution of course however as they say in pirates of the carribian, guidlines not rules.
| Quote: | | The 'metaphysics' come into this again, when the philosopher gets diverted by this 'experience of the moment' kind of thing, which seems to be seductive for academics who may only be suffering from a mid-life crisis or momentary ennui, neither of which seriously addresses the painful and frightening Reality of human violence. I blame Sartre and Nietszche and other macho romantics there. You can't just pluck "Justice" as a solid criteria either, without evoking Some sort of universal values we can all agree on, not without recognising the universal use of violence itself as a means to control and intimidate others as well. And That Is a universal reality to conscious biological entities. |
Well metaphysics will always be with us in some form or another however does it have to be as hegemonic as it has been thus far. In regards to plucking justice out the door, the idea of justice is not even 250 years old. Its based on older christian garbage that we seem to have an easier time throwing out the window. I see no reason why justice which has only been here a short while should not have a swift kick out the door either. "universal" values only come about when people have been enslaved and governmentalized on a mass level. If there is any radical dispersal that happens in out lifetime I don't see the concept of justice and its ugly sister equality lasting very long. Obviously there will be violence and intimidation, however lets hope it happens as little as possible. This can only happen when we do away with the morality tablets.
| Quote: | | But Neitszche balled it all up, by refusing to distinguish between internally consistent and socially responsible authorities, ones that Reflected common moralities, and those that were purely arbitrary and hypocritical, imposed entirely from Above for the sole benefit of those above. Course Po-mos can always say All are imposed from 'outside' which of course is true in that we all Learn them at some point, but only confuses the subject again. |
I can't see how one can lowball the fact that all laws have a common origin. If you look at those middle eastern men in canada that are in jail under security sertificates you get a pretty honest view of what this "socially responsible" law is based on. So-called human rights are originally based on being "civililzed", you do know what that means right. The point is ultimately to destroy authority as much as possible one of those authorities being the fixed identities and practice that we are subjegated and subjegate ourself to.
| Quote: | | Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me, it really doesn't. Except that you seem to be implying that my simple reservations are bound by something you call 'liberal discourse', presumably inculcated by my socio-economic and cultural upbringing, and therefore unable to -what- discern the deeper truths hidden beneath our 'arbitrary social constructs'? Sorry, but I've heard too much of that sort of thing before. Can you clarify this, particular those last two sentences? |
To your 1st point yes I'm more or less saying that. Ideas of 'gradualism' in regards to change are things that I only see in enlightenment discourse which does not reflect the more chaotic and contingent nature that makes up humanity. And in regards to my statement on presence I'm going after the seemingly dialectical position you seem to be taking in regards to human agency.
| Quote: | | I'll bypass that last sentence and just point out that 'permaculture' is far from hunting-gathering itself and may have little to do with tribalism of any sort, though 'rewilding' cities may be somewhat in line of what I was getting at Re 'humanizing' our urban and rural (theyre still connected) micro-environments. Much more modest an endeavor though, already being experimented with on a piecemeal basis. |
Where did I say that I was a tribalist? What I want is a post-civilized agency. I'm not into blueprints as to how this should look though I think there will obviously have to be a more luddic base that the entrails of modernity conform. Beyond that I don't dissagree much with the rest of what you say though if you look at what is happening via peak oil and global warming these changes will have to be much more then piecemeal.
| Quote: | | Only I don't think that Any of us here can 'slam breaks' on Any of this. We're too few and top poorly equipted, and what youre saying is too far from what most others could even understand, let alone accept, let alone Attempt in any tangeable way. Those are just three more of the 'steps' I believe are inescapable and therefore universal. Steps, not stages, as 'stages' traditionally implies levels and superiority and pre-ordained (therefore inevitable therefore unquestionable) direction. Maybe that's what you were objecting to before. I try not to judge cultures by how they bring home the bacon, only how much it might cost in comnparison to others in similar circumstances. Maybe lower cost methods could improve circumstances for others in the future, but again, it's up to Them to Accept it too. That to me is liberality too, in its best sense. |
I get back to the problem of dialectics and conditional change in your reasoning that I mentioned above. I think human potentiality is much more rich and unpredictable then you give it credit for. During the the Russian revolution before the red fascists consolidated power you saw an incredible change in social relationships on a pretty immediate level that happened in the blink of an eye. Talking about inescapable steps just stifles our creative potential. The capabilities that humans have to bring about a communal existence are with us right now. They are not conditioned on the past or the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 466
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vice wrote: |
| Quote: | | The 'metaphysics' come into this again, when the philosopher gets diverted by this 'experience of the moment' kind of thing ... ... You can't just pluck "Justice" as a solid criteria either, without evoking Some sort of universal values we can all agree on, not without recognising the universal use of violence itself as a means to control and intimidate others as well. And That Is a universal reality to conscious biological entities. |
Well metaphysics will always be with us in some form or another however does it have to be as hegemonic as it has been thus far. In regards to plucking justice out the door, the idea of justice is not even 250 years old. Its based on older christian garbage that we seem to have an easier time throwing out the window. I see no reason why justice which has only been here a short while should not have a swift kick out the door either. "universal" values only come about when people have been enslaved and governmentalized on a mass level. If there is any radical dispersal that happens in out lifetime I don't see the concept of justice and its ugly sister equality lasting very long. Obviously there will be violence and intimidation, however lets hope it happens as little as possible. This can only happen when we do away with the morality tablets. |
[/quote]
Then I don't know what you're arguing again, I thought you said 'Justice and equality' were good starting points...while dismissing the reality of violence and its affects on others, and by extension society in general, as a real problem. (problem that Has to be dealt with collectively that is) I say violence predates society as we know it, and its reasons can range from justifiable (self defence or defence of loved ones or Food) to unjustifiable (intimidation to exploit others, or just pure psychopathy or rage some cases) with some grey areas in between. If that's not looked at clearly by philosophers, they end up in an impossible dichotomy of their own where Either position allows for harm to others, so end up arguing Which form is more un-acceptable (and which by extension acceptable) ---as if that can be answered to anyone's satisfaction either.
Any society, including the least organized, has to deal with our potential violence and far as I know they All make some attempts to limit it, at least among those considered Members in good standing. Some are obviously given much more slack than others, but that too can be understand via traditional left analysis, relative power and economics and the structures and beliefs which support them etc etc.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | But Neitszche balled it all up, by refusing to distinguish between internally consistent and socially responsible authorities, ones that Reflected common moralities, and those that were purely arbitrary and hypocritical, imposed entirely from Above for the sole benefit of those above. Course Po-mos can always say All are imposed from 'outside' which of course is true in that we all Learn them at some point, but only confuses the subject again. |
I can't see how one can lowball the fact that all laws have a common origin.... |
[/quote]
I don't think so. Only in countries and cultures of common origin really, though authoritarianism has ancient roots in the transition from clan based societies to more property-based civilian societies, where old commonalities were lost among growing communities and multi-ethnic states and newer problems were apparently unaddressed by older customs -apparently- who the hell really knows Now, except by looking at more recent examples of this transition which could very well be rather Different, due to the influence of other already established "civilizations".
These questions of use and access and 'rights' and law were, however, apparently addressed by the most accesible means of the times originally, religions and kings and bureaucracies and organized wars of conquest. Humanism and democracy that came later in the West (or Islamic or Confucion-ist forms in Asia) shouldn't just be lumped in together with whatever's transpired since, in either original intent or their gradually broadening appeal and force. The 'oppositions' that most Europeans would have felt when the Renaissance took hold would be rather different than that felt by nineteenth century radicals, and moreso with what's seen now. European derived societies do seem to hold some odd dichotomies we don't see as much in other traditions.
Anyhow, arguing 'universals' is almost pointless either way, except to note that violence IS a universal problem of biological existence, and sorry, some Steps DO have to be taken regarding Any tangeable problem -especially societal ones. If not they just get worse, as they are now. Individual psychological pressures OTOH can on rare occasions invite sudden perceptual leaps, possibly involving as many as one or two others simultaneously. Mostly steps again, not stages. Steps maybe reversed too, if need be, 'stages' invoke more metphysics IMO.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me, it really doesn't. Except that you seem to be implying that my simple reservations are bound by something you call 'liberal discourse', presumably inculcated by my socio-economic and cultural upbringing, and therefore unable to -what- discern the deeper truths hidden beneath our 'arbitrary social constructs'? Sorry, but I've heard too much of that sort of thing before. Can you clarify this, particular those last two sentences? |
To your 1st point yes I'm more or less saying that. Ideas of 'gradualism' in regards to change are things that I only see in enlightenment discourse which does not reflect the more chaotic and contingent nature that makes up humanity. And in regards to my statement on presence I'm going after the seemingly dialectical position you seem to be taking in regards to human agency.
.......
I get back to the problem of dialectics and conditional change in your reasoning that I mentioned above. I think human potentiality is much more rich and unpredictable then you give it credit for. During the the Russian revolution before the red fascists consolidated power you saw an incredible change in social relationships on a pretty immediate level that happened in the blink of an eye. Talking about inescapable steps just stifles our creative potential. The capabilities that humans have to bring about a communal existence are with us right now. They are not conditioned on the past or the future. |
[/quote]
I don't know any 'dialectics' and I truly wish that humans Were more open to more radical change, but the subsequent events of the Russian and Chinese and American and French revolutions argue against that themselves. There was almost Complete anarchism reigning for awhile, when the Czar was overthrown. The Bolsheviks walked right into that void and assumed power that others seemed to accept at first when they brought some renewed order to life again.
Without Some recognition of the Force of nature, however, all 'nurture' theory can themselves drift towards authoritarianism. Both are to a large degree just different forms of luck and different sides of nature as exis. I personally prefer the older concept of "free will" -but only with some recognition of random luck and the effect of others who came before. Anyhow, I get the sense we're still talking along two parallel lines here, as I thought you Were arguing for 'primitivism' of some sort, so I'll just leave it at that, fun as it's been. (I'm still a fool for philosophy sometimes, but I usually tend to be more sceptical of any grand solutions offered than any particular criticism)
_________________
The time to move is now. Always has been.
Last edited by Erik Redburn on Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik Redburn
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 466
Location: In Transit.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rufus Polson wrote: | | Anarchism is not a new thing; time was it was about as influential among the discontented as socialism. Nowadays Vice may be rather more representative of "Anarchists" (in North America at least) than I am. But up through the 1930s or so, Anarchists were a significant political force in many places, even in North America. There were Anarchists heavily involved in the Russian Revolution, until the Bolsheviks put them down. And of course the Anarchists were perhaps the dominant strand in the brief leftist government in just-before-Franco Spain. Anarchists were big in trade unions throughout Europe just like the Communists, and even in North America the IWW, or Wobblies, were more Anarchist than anything else. |
And youre right Rufus, I suppose I shouldn't have written "traditional' as most of our cooperatives and credit unions were founded on somewhat anarchist principles, before becoming business-first themselves, I should have made that clear from the start. Kibbutzim and the Mondragon survivors from the Spanish civil war show they can still work on a practical basis today, and some communes still exist - though they seem to be based more on utopian religious movements than the leftist ideals they invoked.
Just that some seem to take Post-Modernism too literally themselves, and end up approaching real injustice like a movie review, rather than a call to meaningful action. That's what gets me. (no insult intended to EMers or Babblers who occasionally use Deconstruction as another form of Analysis. Like Communism, the original 'movement' may have been a natural reaction to the excesses of rationalist Platonic humanism, or more accurately, the distortion of humanism in the service of modernized technocrats. I just think its past time to move beyond eternal existential questions or ultimate destinations to more prosaic ones of human survival)
If the internet is anything to go by at all, there does does seem to be more acceptance of anarchism among socialists and other progressives now than there was awhile back, which maybe a positive sign.
_________________
The time to move is now. Always has been. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bshmr
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 4004
Location: Central USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cooperative Success Confounds Liberals, Analysts Alike
By Matthew Martin Staff Reporter The Exponent (Purdue - West Lafayette,Ind) February 17, 2012
| Quote: | Analysts said it couldn't happen and liberals said it was too early to come, but the Spanish cooperative of Mondragon has grown into a global powerhouse.
The Mondragon cooperative of 120 different companies was the focus of Carl Davidson, a writer and the national co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, who talked on Thursday to a sparse audience in Lawson Hall. The speech was sponsored by the Committee on Peace Studies and the Latin American and Latino Studies Program.
Mondragon is the largest cooperative in the world. The cooperative has been successful in a wide array of businesses including industry, research, and education.
"Think about a platypus. When they discovered them (Mondragon), it wasn't supposed to exist," Davidson said.
... |
http://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_cea97626-7952-521c-a74... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al-Qa'bong
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6169
Location: A monistic vulgarity in which nobility and wisdom have been exchanged for a pale belief in progress
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't think life as hunter-gathers could be described as "nasty, short and brutish"... |
Hobbes' original quotation was "..solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Zillions of years ago I wrote a paper on The Leviathan in which I made the outrageous claim that ol' Tom Hobbes was describing 17th-century England with that line.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi
"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics