Humans fundamentally good vs bad in terms of Anarchism, Socialism etc. even some materialism
Sep 29 2009 01:54
I know little about the theory of anarchism and socialism so i shall be making assumptions based from interactions with others.
But i am curious to see the opinions and theories people have about humanity. In terms of, are humans fundamentally good people, wanting to do good but have in a sense been corrupted (rogerian) or more that people might have primitive desires that in a sense need to be controlled and contained, one could say from an environmental/social sense (freudian).
Anarchists want to remove authority. They think the system corrupts man? So in a sense believe man is fundamentally good? But there has been numerous studies showing that people can have such disorders as anti-social disorder, where basically there is no empathy or regard for others, where such individuals diagnosed with this disorder steal, kill etc. And there has been found to be a neurological correlation. So basically some people, from the socially constructed description of what is a good and bad human, are fundamentally bad. Because people are, in my opinion and i guess the broader scientific community, are in a sense results of their material/physiological make up. So what i am saying is how would anarchy deal with individuals who will kill and steal and in a sense be bad?
I think socialists generally have the view that people are fundamentally good as well. I was discussing environmental concerns, and it was brought up that the working class wants to do good, but they are oppressed so can't. How does this then explain that some individuals have higher regard for the environment than others, eventhough both are working class. You cant put it all down to environmental/social influence in what determines a person.
Sep 29 2009 07:00
#2
"Human beings, unlike all other living creatures, have the capacity to act consciously against their natures and are highly flexible in their response to ‘abnormal’ social conditions which typify everyday life. What is remarkable is that given the fundamentally anti-human nature of capitalism, so many people still retain a sense of co-operativeness, solidarity and a caring approach to life." eg: when disasters break out, social barriers suddenly dissolve; solidarity, mutual aid and voluntary cooperation arise spontaneously.
"Although human nature may not be naturally 'good', it is true that human nature is naturally social. In a society based on exploitation and servitude, human nature itself is degraded."
Social organisation which is stressful and competitive, and which encourages relations to be based on rugged individualism and mutual struggle leads to filtering life through a certain lens, just as much as a cooperative, interdependent social organisation would lead to another.
Sep 29 2009 10:53
#3
Personally i think the evidence of history suggests that humanity veers more towards the negative, certainly if the bomb dropped tommorow, the survivors would no doubt set about killing each other over scant resources and reverting slowly to the most brutal dark age supersticions imaginable. I don;t think we can somehow socially engineer out these negative qualities from ourselves or that humanity would ever evolve beyond them (not in the forseeable future anyway), we simply need to provide a social framework wherein there is less opportunity and less motivation to express said negative qualitues.
Anarchism offers a society without divisions of wealth, and where division of ''nation'', ethnicity and religionetc etc are dramatically reduced, a society where one person has little or no power over another and where their is no artificallly induced scarcity of resources. Thus it offers a social framework wherein there is very little opportunity or motivation to daub signs on your neighbours doors or bomb/shoot/starve him and his kids.
Sep 29 2009 19:11
#4
I tend to agree with banpen and disagree with cant..
The fairly recent examples of Hillsborough, the Mumbai bombings and New Orleans show the active solidarity and concern of mainly the poor and the working class for looking after victims of various disasters faced with not just the indifference and uselessness of the police but their hostility and aggression.
The examples of the solidarity and sacrifice of the working class since the very beginnings of the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie, very often with their lives, are legion.
Darwin, with the not inconsiderable help of Alfred Russel Wallace, showed that from the very beginnings of humanity, it wasn’t a question of the “survival of the fittest” or of the strongest, but of the most moral, the most sympathetic, the most collective, the most inclined to mutual aid. It is capitalism, with its individualism and competition that will have to be overcome with collectivity and solidarity: socialism or barbarism.
Sep 30 2009 09:22
#5
Kropotkin argued that evolution favours those who co-operate (practice mutual aid). This reciprocal behaviour is the basis for feelings of justice and, finally, ethics and ethical behaviour.
So, we are not naturally good but we have the potential to be so. Just as we have the potential to be bad. Which tendency gains the upper-hand depends on the environment and the willingness of people to intervene to stop anti-social behaviour.
Needless to say, Kropotkin also argued that we shaped by our environment and the social relationships we are subject to. That is for both rulers and ruled, exploiters and exploited, oppressor and oppressed.
For more discussion see my introduction and evaluation of Kropotkin's masterpiece:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/mutual-aid-an-introduction-and-evaluation
Defenders of archy seem to assume that the human nature is bad, except for the people in power! Anarchists are not so stupid and recognise that if people are bad then giving some of them power is not a good idea...
Sep 30 2009 12:51
#6
Never understood this one, far too based in a meaningless dichotomy but if people were inherently 'bad', its just as much an incentive to dismantle class society.
Sep 30 2009 16:24
#7
Kropotkin wrote some good stuff on mutual aid and morality, as did Pannekoek in “Anthropogenisis” and his position on Darwin’s “Descent of Man...”, also Kautsky, Engels in “The part played labour...”, and Marx in his “Ethnological Notes”.
The question of morality is and has been a major concern of the workers’ movement and the ICC is currently pursuing the discussion in its “International Review” and on its website.
Sep 30 2009 19:10
#8
I don’t believe in the blank slate theory and I am thus at odds with the general position of the organisation I am in ie SPGB and World Socialist Movement.
I think that we have social instincts as well as egotistical drives and those are probably both rational and perhaps instinctual as well. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive and can co-exist together.
Or at least that is a reasonable scientifically justifiable thesis that is worthy of thought and how that might affect political analysis. As do others obviously, As below later.
In fact I think objectively the onus is on proving that social instincts don’t exist rather than the other way around if you take the reasoned position that originally humankind must have required co-operation as a survival strategy.
In fact language or communication itself which in its advanced form in humans is unique and definitive quality of humanity, can have no function other than to facilitate co-operation.
Also a Pannekoek ‘Anthropogenis’ argument although others have picked up on it as well.
I thought Kropotkins ‘Mutual Aid’ thing on this was a bit simplistic and there was too much Anthropomorhism but its originality and its general ahead of its time prescient nature, especially as regards present scientific investigation more than compensates for that.
Anyway;
Are Capuchin Monkeys Naturally greedy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness_2.html
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15381
And;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm
Sep 30 2009 20:42
#9
Imo, "Mutual Aid" is rather overhyped. It's poor science, poor history, highly politicised and unconvincing to anyone who doesn't agree with its premise from the outset. It's a really self indulgent little book. It seems like it's only popular because it shows Kropotkin at his most liberal and least dangerous, and thus most recuperable.
~J.
Sep 30 2009 22:10
#10
the idea of "mutual aid" as a consequence of evolutionary altruism is most certainly not bad science and not Kropotkin's invention either. Even Darwin, who at best was a politically apathetic Anglican, made a point of it, much to the dismay of eugenicists and dog-eat-dog-ists, who were nonetheless able to bastardize his ideas and come up with social darwinism.
BigLittleJ wrote:
Imo, "Mutual Aid" is rather overhyped. It's poor science, poor history, highly politicised and unconvincing to anyone who doesn't agree with its premise from the outset. It's a really self indulgent little book. It seems like it's only popular because it shows Kropotkin at his most liberal and least dangerous, and thus most recuperable.
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself here; on the one hand you say that the book requires you to be an anarchist to agree with it, on the other that this is Kropotkin's most "recuperable" book as it supposedly allows even god-fearing liberals to jump on board.
That aside, I agree that the prose (very 19th c. starry-eyed scientifist) is dated, and that it's lacking in the way of solid scientific proof (although it's not really his fault that evolutionary theory was just getting started back then), but it's still immensely useful for any attempt at justifying anarchism as something that is natural and possible because it is natural, as opposed to an imposed-from-above political ideology (the hallmark of all strands of bourgeois idealism).
As for humans being "fundamentally good or bad," I think this whole problem is bound to degenerate into moralistic hogwash, regardless of how carefully you approach it. Humans are as bad or as good as they can afford to be given their particular circumstances, at any given moment of their (our) lives. If anarchism could work, it wouldn't be because humans are absolutely Good, but because community, cooperation and federation have always been, throughout history, at the root of the most successful and beneficial social arrangements.
Sep 30 2009 23:20
#11
Quote:
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself here; on the one hand you say that the book requires you to be an anarchist to agree with it,
I never said that, I said that the book was only appealing to those who already believed what it had to say. Big difference. My point isn't that you have to be an anarchist to agree with the book, you don't. What I'm saying is, It only works as an argument if you want it to be true anyway.
Basically, Kropotkin sets out to prove that people and animals are basically, naturally 'good little communists' by bringing in masses of dodgy anecdotal evidence.
Quote:
this is Kropotkin's most "recuperable" book as it supposedly allows even god-fearing liberals to jump on board.
I think the reason for this is that "Mutual Aid" is such a vague and poorly defined concept. Compared to, say "Communist Anarchism", which plays a leading role in most of his other works, and clearly describes a world in which the ruling classes have no place, "Mutual Aid" can mean much less. It can be reduced to 'social conscience', 'good citizenship', 'charity' etc. Its message seems to me to be 'isn't it nice to be nice,' which is totally acceptable to a liberal boss or politician (in fact, Kropotkin himself stresses that the ruling classes are just as much practitioners of Mutual Aid as the workers). That's why I think that the book is 'recuperable' (I know, not a real word, but do you get what I mean now?)
Quote:
it's lacking in the way of solid scientific proof (although it's not really his fault that evolutionary theory was just getting started back then),
Well I'm not trying to say that Kropotkin was a Very Naughty Boy, I'm just pointing out it's not actually that great as a book. Because a lot of people rave about it, and having read it I don't see what the fuss is about. It doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't convince me, it doesn't seem relevant to my life, it doesn't make me want to change the world.
Quote:
but it's still immensely useful for any attempt at justifying anarchism as something that is natural and possible because it is natural, as opposed to an imposed-from-above political ideology (the hallmark of all strands of bourgeois idealism).
This I really take issue with. I don't think it's "immensely useful", because it's dated, unscientific, and poorly written; and I don't think it effectively justifies anything, except to people who want to think that way anyway. I also think there are huge problems to saying that communism is 'natural'. What does 'natural' even mean? How is capitalism 'unnatural'? It evolved gradually out of the development of the human organism as a social being; it's as natural as the atom bomb and vitamin supplements.
~J.
Oct 1 2009 01:51
#12
BigLittleJ wrote:
, I said that the book was only appealing to those who already believed what it had to say. Big difference. My point isn't that you have to be an anarchist to agree with the book, you don't. What I'm saying is, It only works as an argument if you want it to be true anyway.
I honestly don't get this. Who would want it to be true anyway, if not someone who agrees politically with Kropotkin, i.e. an anarchist? That's why I understood your point to mean that Mutual Aid is basically a self-validating theory because it's aimed at radical socialists and anarchists, something which is contradicted by the notion that Mutual Aid is deceitful because it pretends to be radical but actually appeals to liberals and capitalists. I think there is a quite obvious contradiction here; either Kropotkin is a sincere anarchist using "bad science" to validate anarchist beliefs, or he is a liberal hack using anarchism to justify class-collaborating "let's-be-nice-to-each-other-ism." OR he is just a sincere anarchist who ended up writing a crappy and unconvincing book, as you seem to imply here:
Quote:
Well I'm not trying to say that Kropotkin was a Very Naughty Boy, I'm just pointing out it's not actually that great as a book....having read it I don't see what the fuss is about. It doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't convince me, it doesn't seem relevant to my life, it doesn't make me want to change the world.
Anyway, all of this may seem very pedantic, but I'm just trying to understand what your criticism of the book is, besides the point that as a work of science it is very dated (something that I agree with.)
Quote:
I don't think it's "immensely useful", because it's dated, unscientific, and poorly written; and I don't think it effectively justifies anything, except to people who want to think that way anyway.
It is immensely useful because it aims at integrating a political notion into evolutionary theory. This was a revolutionary idea for its time, and it still is. So while the book itself may not have aged that well, its ideas are worth continuing and furthering (and indeed people like Stephen Jay Gould and others have attempted to do just that in recent years). In my experience the first reason why most people tend to object to the notion of anarchism being actually possible, is because they believe it inherently contradicts "human nature," and that in the absence of laws and a state, everyone will simply turn to atavistic animalism and a "tyranny of all against all." Showing them that this premise is scientifically unsound and not in accordance with "the laws of nature," and that in the case of actual anarchy existing (not some Hobbesian cliche), we wouldn't all turn against each other -- is a very worthwhile project, if anarchism is ever going to gain any ground in the public consciousness.
Quote:
I also think there are huge problems to saying that communism is 'natural'. What does 'natural' even mean?
I certainly didn't mean to invoke any essentialist "human nature" type theory (something which I actually argued against in the previous post); what I meant was simply that
I wrote:
community, cooperation and federation have always been, throughout history, at the root of the most successful and beneficial social arrangements.
This I would argue is because biological altruism, or whatever you want to call it, is an essential feature of evolution, and not just for higher primates. This is not the same thing as talking about an abstract Platonic "human nature" however, so that's not what I was referring to.
Quote:
How is capitalism 'unnatural'? It evolved gradually out of the development of the human organism as a social being;
Capitalism has nothing to do with the human organism; the capitalist logic overrides basic human wants, for the sake of some higher ideal of abstract freedom (even as the reality of it presents us constantly with misery and dispossession). I don't see how you could possibly see anything natural about it, unless you believe the establishment of "the market" is something that came about naturally, rather than as a product of war, slavery, poverty and so on. To say that capitalism is natural is to agree with its basic principles imo.
Quote:
It's as natural as the atom bomb and vitamin supplements.
well not exactly, because those things are material objects, made possible by scientific and technological ingenuity, not a set of social relations imposed and constantly reinforced through sheer brutality and force.
Oct 1 2009 02:42
#13
It is interesting to see people's responses. Especially in terms of 'evolutionary benefit'. I think in general a lot of people look at evolution as something that has to be socially positive. When in reality it has little to do with that. It is essentially a competition as to who can reproduce more of their genetics, for example it would seem the chinese are currently winning?
I am also not a fan of mentioning a 100 year old theory to justify peoples opinions. There is a lot of pioneering neurological studies and information around, why not use them to justify your political points of view? (or is that too much to expect from a forum of this nature?)
And i agree with what BigLittleJ says in terms of what is natural.. Again just because something is socially positive doesnt mean it is natural. Obviously the world today is a natural result from the past, like a domino effect/determinism (ie all the variables interact and result in what we have/ infinite loop of cause and effect).
Also on the comment, under anarchy, that some people will be bad, like say people will not have empathy or regard for others (for example antisocial behaviour.. which you could say is fundamentally bad.. but as weeler said, the good bad is a bit of a dichotomy), and somehow they will be removed from society. Then how does the community decide what certain actions constitute such a removal? There is no authority, so is there a vote?.. And does that go for setting the lines of what is socially acceptable?
And arent anarchist saying people are fundamentally just products (i agree with this) With it consisting of the biological and the environment interacting to form a product. And an environment of anarchy interacting with the biological will form a better product than a capitalist environment?
Oct 1 2009 03:32
#14
ChickenNugget wrote:
It is interesting to see people's responses. Especially in terms of 'evolutionary benefit'. I think in general a lot of people look at evolution as something that has to be socially positive. When in reality it has little to do with that. It is essentially a competition as to who can reproduce more of their genetics, for example it would seem the chinese are currently winning?
the number of Chinese people today is proof they are "winning" at evolution? I hope you're joking.
Quote:
I am also not a fan of mentioning a 100 year old theory to justify peoples opinions.
It doesn't matter how old a theory is; that doesn't make it more true or false. Besides evolutionary theory has certainly made great advances in the past 100 years; that is precisely why Kropotkin's book can seem dated to a modern reader.
Quote:
There is a lot of pioneering neurological studies and information around, why not use them to justify your political points of view? (or is that too much to expect from a forum of this nature?)
What exactly are these "pioneering neurological studies" and what do they have to do with anarchism concretely? Or is qualifying your statements too much to ask?
Quote:
And i agree with what BigLittleJ says in terms of what is natural.. Again just because something is socially positive doesnt mean it is natural.
I haven't been arguing that at all. But a social organization that places profit above basic human needs is obviously not the most natural arrangement possible imo. And if you look at how this social organization became the status quo, i.e. by being imposed on people through wars, starvation, colonialism, (wage) slavery, and so on, you start to realize that capitalism never took off from "the state of nature," as market apologist would have it.
Quote:
Obviously the world today is a natural result from the past, like a domino effect/determinism (ie all the variables interact and result in what we have/ infinite loop of cause and effect).
Yes, this kind of "determinism" is pretty much at the core of capitalist apologism; "the market came into being because of like the domino effect and shit, and like variables coming together 'n'am'sayin?; there definitely was no opposition to it, and it definitely couldn't have happened otherwise." 
If you actually believe this, you need to do some more thinking. There is nothing inevitable or natural about how capital, i.e. "the world today," came to dominate our lives.
Quote:
And arent anarchist saying people are fundamentally just products (i agree with this) With it consisting of the biological and the environment interacting to form a product.
no, human beings are not just products. Something that simply responds mechanically to its environment is called an automaton, a machine.
Quote:
And an environment of anarchy interacting with the biological will form a better product than a capitalist environment?
Obviously an anarchist environment would allow for much better social relations between individuals than capitalism does, but that doesn't mean anyone born in an anarchist society is automatically an anarchist. We are not exclusively biological or exclusively social beings; that's why biological, social and all other kinds of determinisms are simply ridiculous and untenable.
Oct 1 2009 04:11
#15
Quote:
the number of Chinese people today is proof they are "winning" at evolution? I hope you're joking.
The base definition (from wiki) is 'evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next'. So you could simply divide people into groups of genetic characteristics, and basic model might be race. Hence the poor example of the chinese winning the battle of evolution, ie the fight for genetic prominence in humans.
Quote:
It doesn't matter how old a theory is; that doesn't make it more true or false. Besides evolutionary theory has certainly made great advances in the past 100 years; that is precisely why Kropotkin's book can seem dated to a modern reader.
Well in my opinion, to say altruism is in human nature. Well then you would have to look into neurological studies, which is currently in a pioneering stage. Hence i wouldnt put much merit into theory that is 100 years old, when even at the moment it is still questionable.
Quote:
What exactly are these "pioneering neurological studies" and what do they have to do with anarchism concretely? Or is qualifying your statements too much to ask?
We are talking about human nature. Obviously social systems and constructs are product of interactions of man. So shouldnt we be studying man in scientific way?
Or should we just say what we believe to be right and what feels right, how we feel evolution should work etc? Some examples off the top of my head are brain structure differences between people with antisocial behavior and members of the normal population, also stuff like mirror cells linking to empathy. But as i said this is all quite pioneering, with a lot of question marks around it. But doesnt this all link to social systems, if you advocate anarchy etc, how do you know that it will work in terms of the population coorperating, or do we fundamentally want to compete and dont have that high of a regard for others (obviously there is variation amoung individuals).
Quote:
If you actually believe this, you need to do some more thinking. There is nothing inevitable or domino effect-like about how capital, i.e. "the world today," came to dominate our lives.
I think you need to do more thinking as well. Who cares if you agree with capitalism or not, or if there was any disagreement to this system or resistance etc. The question is, is it a natural product. It basically is. If not how is it not natural/artificial? Just because some powerful humans pushed for it doesnt mean it is unnatural.. maybe unjust and immoral, but that goes back to my 'feels right comment'. Nature isnt wrong or right, it is just the end result. It is like saying if an animal survived by killing off a different species, then that animal isnt natural because it just got to where it is today by the exploitation and killing and being more powerful than another animal.
Quote:
no, human beings are not just products. Something that simply responds mechanically to its environment is called an automaton, a machine.
How are we not a machine. We have a biochemical organ in our head, that is somewhat plastic. It follows the typical atomic rules as everything else. Do you think if you cut out some of your brain you would still think the same? Do you think if you werent exposed to certain experiences or information in the past you would still think the same? And your genetics has nothing to do with the way you think? You are basically just a product of your biophysical makeup and the events in the past, you didnt really have choice or control when it came to those determinents. So in a sense you are just an interacting end product like everyone else, with the illusion of free choice. (bit off topic..but i could talk about this for ages).
But to me, i think you have too much regard for humans. I think this is a general flaw with the left too. Hence i created this thread for some debate.
Oct 1 2009 05:25
#16
ChickenNugget wrote:
Quote:
the number of Chinese people today is proof they are "winning" at evolution? I hope you're joking.The base definition (from wiki) is 'evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next'. So you could simply divide people into groups of genetic characteristics, and basic model might be race.
race? are you serious? you are comparing genetic variety with a bullshit 19th century ideological concept?
The Chinese are homo sapiens, and the fact that there is a specific number of them does not mean that they are in any way "winning" evolution. Natural selection is something that affects the entire human species, and all other species as well. It has nothing to do with "race."
Quote:
Well in my opinion, to say altruism is in human nature. Well then you would have to look into neurological studies, which is currently in a pioneering stage. Hence i wouldnt put much merit into theory that is 100 years old, when even at the moment it is still questionable.
evolution is questionable? ah well, that definitely makes sense.
Quote:
We are talking about human nature.
I am not, because "human nature" tends to be construed as a vacuous abstract concept that can basically mean anything you want it to. If you are however, it would help to define what you mean by "human nature."
Quote:
So shouldnt we be studying man in scientific way?
Or should we just say what we believe to be right and what feels right, how we feel evolution should work etc?
This is not a matter of feeling. Biological altruism has been proven as an essential evolutionary strategy over and over; lots of studies show this. This has nothing to do with feeling it is right. It is an observable reality.
Quote:
Some examples off the top of my head are brain structure differences between people with antisocial behavior and members of the normal population, also stuff like mirror cells linking to empathy. But as i said this is all quite pioneering, with a lot of question marks around it.
uhmm...ok, let me know when it stops having question marks around it, and it starts making sense. Because I mean, brain differences between people with anti-social behaviour and "normal people"? This definitely sounds like compelling stuff.
Quote:
But doesnt this all link to social systems, if you advocate anarchy etc, how do you know that it will work in terms of the population coorperating,
because humans are actually very good at cooperating; even ultra-individualist free-marketeers are forced to recognize this. There are innumerable examples in history of people cooperating for a variety of causes, and the more people are allowed to cooperate freely the better stuff they come up with, individually and communally. Societies that have tended to emphasize cooperation and free association have invariably been the most inclusively beneficial and advanced ones. Of course so far, there hasn't been a society in which the concept of free cooperation has been perfectly formulated and applied, but that is why libertarian ideas endure and continue to evolve.
Quote:
I think you need to do more thinking as well. Who cares if you agree with capitalism or not, or if there was any disagreement to this system or resistance etc. The question is, is it a natural product. It basically is. If not how is it not natural/artificial? Just because some powerful humans pushed for it doesnt mean it is unnatural.. maybe unjust and immoral, but that goes back to my 'feels right comment'. Nature isnt wrong or right, it is just the end result. It is like saying if an animal survived by killing off a different species, then that animal isnt natural because it just got to where it is today by the exploitation and killing and being more powerful than another animal.
By this, very unusual, definition, everything that exists is natural, therefore there implicitly can't be anything artificial. A more conventional definition would be "faithfully representing nature or life." Now as I've stated a bunch of times already, capital does not function according to actual human needs; it merely appears to satisfy these needs in the effort to justify its constant expansion and grip on society. The logic of capital is the accumulation of profit; it is most certainly not concerned with faithfully representing nature or life, it is self-justifying and self-perpetuating.
What makes capital unnatural isn't just that it was imposed by force and at great cost for humanity, but that it negates natural human needs, like the need to live without the fear of poverty and starvation, the need to exercise one's intellectual and creative powers, the need for real human companionhsip, etc.
A carnivorous animal is not an appropriate analogy to this situation, because feeding on flesh to survive is not the same thing as economic class-based exploitation. Two entirely different things.
Quote:
How are we not a machine.
In the same way that no machine (so far) is human.
Quote:
We have a biochemical organ in our head, that is somewhat plastic. It follows the typical atomic rules as everything else. Do you think if you cut out some of your brain you would still think the same?
No, but if I would survive, my brain would adapt to the situation. If you randomly cut out some of a machine's main processor however, it is unlikely to adapt to that.
Quote:
Do you think if you werent exposed to certain experiences or information in the past you would still think the same?
No I don't. I learn from the ideas I am exposed to; this is a social process and it attests to my existence as a social being. My brain and certain inherited genetic traits affect the way in which I learn; that is what makes me a biological being. I am neither of these exclusively.
Quote:
And your genetics has nothing to do with the way you think?
I did not say that.
Quote:
You are basically just a product of your biophysical makeup and the events in the past, you didnt really have choice or control when it came to those determinents. So in a sense you are just an interacting end product like everyone else, with the illusion of free choice. (bit off topic..but i could talk about this for ages).
yes, highly off topic. Suffice to say that freedom of choice is a real thing, even for the primitive AI we have right now. Of course that doesn't equal "free will," which like "human nature" is a hopelessly naive abstraction, but it doesn't mean we live in a hard deterministic (fatalist) universe either, where we all are nothing but "end results." You could argue this philosophically all you want; it makes no difference. Human society does allow for choice, and we make choices everyday, from the clothes we wear, to the person(s) we spend our lives with. Philosophical gymnastics doesn't change that.
Quote:
But to me, i think you have too much regard for humans.
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, but fine, whatever.
Oct 1 2009 06:13
#17
1) I know the definition of race. I am using it literally, i am not the one stupidly applied certain connotations.
Race: "The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of **heritable** characteristics"
**Heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is attributable to genetic variation among individuals**
Evolution is the change of genetics over time. If i fathered 10 billion children, obviously i would be winning in terms of the evolution of humans. This is a simple concept that has been established but you are bringing in all these lame connotations. (again the chinese was just used as a simple example, yet you want to debate it?).
2) Evolution is of course questionable. I however am an advocate for the theory. But i was saying Kropotkin's theories are questionable not evolution (i wasnt clear)
3) As the again literal definition states, human nature "is the concept that there are a set of characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that all 'normal' human beings have in common." My point i believe was, that one can not really just state that humans are altruistic, you need more evidence. Especially when stating hypothetical politics. If you want to work out if people would act X in a certain environment, you have to work out the people. To see if there is a neurological basis for altruism, its prevalence etc. Neurological cause of behaviour, which is basically the forefront of psychology at the moment.
4) One could argue that people just cooperate so they can get individual reward. Hence you mention of free market restriction? Or else why else would people cooperate. Personal survival or benefit yeah? Maybe they get a good feeling when they do something good for another person or work with someone (basically a neurological setup that triggers positive feelings). Or on the other case, feeling bad when doing bad. The thing is not everyone has these neurological underpinnings.
5) The base literal definition of a machine is "any device that uses energy to perform some activity". Hence i am not adding any connotations like a machine is not a human.
6) Well you say that you will be a different person if some of your brain was removed yeah? So in a sense what you are, and how you think, is even somewhat limited to your biophysical make up. And as you say, as well as some of the information you have been exposed to. But where is the line between being totally influenced into making a decision and into being totally uninfluenced and making 'free choices'.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMLzP1VCANo
thats an awesome video. Basically saying that we are automatic machines, just internally verbalising such actions.
Oct 1 2009 11:23
#18
Vlad336 wrote:
I honestly don't get this. Who would want it to be true anyway, if not someone who agrees politically with Kropotkin, i.e. an anarchist?
As I said, the notion of mutual aid does not express political anarchism. It's a much vaguer concept which is perfectly at home among the ruling classes. I doubt your typical left-liberal would find anything at all at odds with their beliefs in the pages of "On Mutual Aid". Prove me wrong.
Quote:
I'm just trying to understand what your criticism of the book is, besides the point that as a work of science it is very dated (something that I agree with.)
My criticism is that (by today's standards) it's bad science. The history is pretty suspect too. You obviously found it useful; fair enough. But it actually did a lot to put me off Kropotkin, and Anarchism, when I first read it.
Quote:
Capitalism has nothing to do with the human organism;
I think the two are pretty intimately connected actually - otherwise, why on earth would we waste time trying to fight it, if it's nothing to do with us!
Quote:
the capitalist logic overrides basic human wants, for the sake of some higher ideal of abstract freedom (even as the reality of it presents us constantly with misery and dispossession).
Earthquakes also override basic human wants, and the reality of them is pretty miserable. That doesn't make them 'unnatural'.
Quote:
I don't see how you could possibly see anything natural about it, unless you believe the establishment of "the market" is something that came about naturally, rather than as a product of war, slavery, poverty and so on.
My whole point is that 'natural' is not a useful term to use in the context of human society (or in any context, really, it's a pretty vacant word). Certainly I think war, slavery, and poverty are no more or less natural than capitalism, or communism for that matter. All of these are human social relations, and as human society, like everything else if you're an atheist, is a product of nature, they are totally 'natural'.
Quote:
To say that capitalism is natural is to agree with its basic principles imo.
How? If I say "it's natural for a wolf to eat my child" does that mean I want it to happen? Of course not!
Quote:
Quote:
It's as natural as the atom bomb and vitamin supplements.well not exactly, because those things are material objects, made possible by scientific and technological ingenuity, not a set of social relations imposed and constantly reinforced through sheer brutality and force.
This I really don't understand. You accept that even artificial objects are 'natural', but you won't accept that a social relation is natural if it's imposed by force. That's bloody Rothbardian. In fact, it describes as 'natural' precisely the 'higher ideal of abstract freedom' that you correctly argued against in the same post.
Heck, in the 'natural' world, that is outside human society, animals use force and brutality all the time. It's just as natural as 'cooperation', right down to the microscopic level.
~J.
Oct 1 2009 16:06
#19
BigLittleJ wrote:
.Quote:
Capitalism has nothing to do with the human organism;I think the two are pretty intimately connected actually - otherwise, why on earth would we waste time trying to fight it, if it's nothing to do with us!
Connected yes, in that your organism will suffer the consequences of you being a wage worker, but capitalism is not the inexorable consequence of the human organism existing as social body. This I don't agree with, and it's clearly not true if you look at the thousands of years of history of people existing as organisms and social creatures without capitalism.
Quote:
Earthquakes also override basic human wants, and the reality of them is pretty miserable. That doesn't make them 'unnatural'.
It seems that both you and ChickenNugget are fond of wild analogies for some strange reason.
An earthquake is indeed a natural occurrence that can occur for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with free market principles (although natural disasters do sometimes happen as a consequence of capitalism)
Earthquakes usually occur sparingly, and if people have the means to (usually not because they're too busy being naturally poor thanks to capitalism) they can prepare for it in advance and avoid the worst of the consequences.
If you drop a hammer on your foot by mistake, that doesn't mean you've overridden your need not to suffer. It's not the same thing as being forced to do a shit job for your entire life for fear of utter ruin and possibly starvation.
Earthquakes, wild animals and so on, ARE NOT good analogies for the market and how it functions.
Quote:
My whole point is that 'natural' is not a useful term to use in the context of human society (or in any context, really, it's a pretty vacant word). Certainly I think war, slavery, and poverty are no more or less natural than capitalism, or communism for that matter. All of these are human social relations, and as human society, like everything else if you're an atheist, is a product of nature, they are totally 'natural'.
It's strange that you begin by saying that natural doesn't really mean much but then continue to insist that capitalism is natural, because it is.
Like I said, this definition of natural, as everything that endures for whatever reason, is not a real definition. If you accept that human beings do all share a number of social and biological needs that are natural, in the sense that they are a consequence of evolution and reflect natural processes (both biological and social, then a societal system that systematically denies and suppresses these needs (as capital does) is unnatural.
Yes, something unnatural can exist within "nature." Look at all the immensely ecologically destructive strategies that capital uses in its search for profit (global food industry is a classic example); are these natural simply because they exist, even as they actively destroy human and animal life as well as its natural environment? It just seems insane to define something that is provenly pernicious to nature and everything in it, in the short run even, (except for a handful of capitalists), as natural, because if it's managed to come into being and survive, it must be. This is the logic of Might is Right, and it's not an argument I was expecting to find on a communist board.
Quote:
This I really don't understand. You accept that even artificial objects are 'natural', but you won't accept that a social relation is natural if it's imposed by force. That's bloody Rothbardian. In fact, it describes as 'natural' precisely the 'higher ideal of abstract freedom' that you correctly argued against in the same post.
As I said to CN:
What makes capital unnatural isn't just that it was imposed by force and at great cost for humanity, but that it negates natural human needs, like the need to live without the fear of poverty and starvation, the need to exercise one's intellectual and creative powers, the need for real human companionhsip, etc.
A carnivorous animal is not an appropriate analogy to this situation, because feeding on flesh to survive is not the same thing as economic class-based exploitation. Two entirely different things.
It's not force per se that makes it unnatural, and what I said has nothing to do with a higher abstract freedom. What is abstract and, to my mind, completely divorced from reality, is nature as everything that exists, regardless of how pernicious it actually is to life and the conditions that support it. By this definition, nature is simply destroying itself and capitalism has nothing to do with it, so let's just stop worrying why don't we...Well there is definitely something wrong with this viewpoint, imo.
Quote:
Heck, in the 'natural' world, that is outside human society, animals use force and brutality all the time. It's just as natural as 'cooperation', right down to the microscopic level.~J.
Yes, using force is natural animal behavior. But it is really beyond me how you can compare an animal hunting to survive with the strategies of capital. I have yet to witness a wild animal that went out of its way to kill an entire herd of its prey only to then sell it back to other members of its own species in exchange for their continued toil. And even this absurd example wouldn't be an entirely appropriate analogy if it actually occurred But you won't see this behavior naturally occurring, because it is, as I have been arguing, against nature, in a very specific sense (that has nothing to do with "natural rights" or divine will).
In any case, this discussion is getting fairly out of hand, and I don't think I'll have the time to continue posting such long posts, so maybe we should just agree to disagree (not a cop out, I just gotta scram.)
Oct 1 2009 22:08
#20
OK, I agree this discussion is getting out of hand. But I feel like I should at least try and explain why I disagree, so here goes, I'll try to keep it as short as I possibly can.
In my opinion, everything that happens can ultimately be explained by natural laws and forces. So 'natural' and 'unnatural' don't really mean anything to me. But it seems to me like you think they mean 'good' and 'evil', or something like it. You say:
Quote:
natural, because if it's managed to come into being and survive, it must be. This is the logic of Might is Right
But it isn't, I'm not making any moral judgements about what is 'Right'. I'm just saying that 'unnatural' isn't a meaningful word - in the end, it all comes down to nature (or comes from nature, whichever way you look at it).
This confusion between 'Right and Wrong' and 'natural' 'unnatural' is a real stumbling block here. When I say capitalism isn't 'unnatural' that doesn't mean it's good, that it shouldn't be abolished. I can think of lots of indisputably natural things I'd abolish if I could. Nor does it mean I think it's inevitable, again, lots of natural things aren't inevitable.
Now, you've engaged in a very earnest dispute with all of the examples I've given of things which have characteristics similar to capitalism, but are obviously 'natural'. But having read your post several times, I still don't really understand your objections.
Obviously there are huge differences between an earthquake and capitalism, or between the way force is used by a wild animal and the way it is used by the police. However, while you've show they are very different and I completely agree with you, I don't really see how they're any less natural, unless you assume they are unnatural just because they're caused by the capitalist market (which is circular reasoning, surely?) or because they're somehow 'meaner' or 'nastier' or more irrational.
Anyway, that's more than long enough. If you have time, do get back to me.
~J.
Oct 1 2009 22:16
#21
Oct 1 2009 22:38
#22
It's not fair. JK is Educated, and knows the Proper Names for things.
~J.
Oct 2 2009 01:15
#24
The recent 'Journey of Life' series explored alot of stuff similar to Kropotkin; ie. Mutual aid was the main driving force in survival and evolution -- I highly recommend watching the one on human life.
Oct 2 2009 03:11
#25
Joseph Kay wrote:
naturalistic fallacy
ok fair enough, except I don't think I was doing that. What I did was 1) object to the vague definition of nature as everything that is everywhere and 2) argue that a definition according to which nature is synonymous with life and the environment that sustains it is much more coherent and useful, in which case a system that actively works to destroy nature understood in this way can rightfully be called unnatural without any moralist appeal to the "goodness" of nature.
I still think the basic ideas of Mutual Aid can and should be developed further, as they wouldn't just put anarchism in a better light, but would help us better understand how evolution works.
Oct 2 2009 06:21
#26
Vlad336 wrote:
I still think the basic ideas of Mutual Aid can and should be developed further, as they wouldn't just put anarchism in a better light, but would help us better understand how evolution works.
fair enough yeah; you might like Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundation of Cooperation in Economic Life as a kind of modern day, empirically grounded 'Mutual Aid'
Oct 2 2009 08:29
#27
Quote:
What I did was 1) object to the vague definition of nature as everything that is everywhere
I hardly think that's a 'vague' definition. If anything, it's the most precise definition possible.
Quote:
and 2) argue that a definition according to which nature is synonymous with life and the environment that sustains it is much more coherent and useful
Right, so any event or thing that destroys organisms and their habitats is 'unnatural'? Is that really a coherent and useful definition?
If all you're saying with all this 'capitalism is unnatural' stuff is 'capitalism is bad for the environment' then just say that. But, as I've already said more than once, natural things can be ecologically disastrous too.
~J.
Oct 2 2009 20:27
#28
I’ve lost the thread a bit.
If I can address the point of “good or bad”: I think in terms of this discussion, which is the evolution of mankind, then concepts like good or bad can only have religious connotations. Mutual aid, morality, conscious or unconscious (and Dave B is right to raise the question of the social instincts – though I don’t agree with his context), has been one of the major social driving forces in the evolution of humanity. “Good or bad”, at best, confuses the fundamental nature of this question and it obvious importance for the workers’ movement, the contribution of Kropotkin included.
Above, someone talks of evolution as “social engineering”. This was a concept that came from the bourgeoisie and as someone else points out above, pre-dates Darwin’s “Descent..”, though perverting his analysis into “social Darwinism” afterwards. Someone else above suggests that evolution is “poor science and poor history” (did I get that right?). At any rate, it’s ground-breaking science, revolutionary science, history the like of which had never been seen before in such detail and with such a sweeping analysis. This was the contribution of Darwin’s “Descent...” and it completely overturned the theory Malthus, who himself was troubled by the fact of how many of the weak survived.
It’s an important question because it reaffirms Marxism, scientific materialism, dealing a deadly blow not just to religion but to bourgeois ideology and reinforcing a materialist perspective, the distinct possibility of the survival of the most cooperative, the most moral and the most inclined to mutual aid. And clearly, that’s not capitalism.
Oct 2 2009 21:13
#29
Quote:
Someone else above suggests that evolution is “poor science and poor history” (did I get that right?).
What I saidwas that Peter Kropotkin's book, "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" was based on poor science and poor history. I did not mean to suggest that the theory of evolution itself is unscientific/ahistorical. Well, that'd just be silly.
~J.
Oct 3 2009 07:52
#30
baboon wrote:
I’ve lost the thread a bit.If I can address the point of “good or bad”: I think in terms of this discussion, which is the evolution of mankind, then concepts like good or bad can only have religious connotations. Mutual aid, morality, conscious or unconscious (and Dave B is right to raise the question of the social instincts – though I don’t agree with his context), has been one of the major social driving forces in the evolution of humanity. “Good or bad”, at best, confuses the fundamental nature of this question and it obvious importance for the workers’ movement, the contribution of Kropotkin included.
Above, someone talks of evolution as “social engineering”. This was a concept that came from the bourgeoisie and as someone else points out above, pre-dates Darwin’s “Descent..”, though perverting his analysis into “social Darwinism” afterwards. Someone else above suggests that evolution is “poor science and poor history” (did I get that right?). At any rate, it’s ground-breaking science, revolutionary science, history the like of which had never been seen before in such detail and with such a sweeping analysis. This was the contribution of Darwin’s “Descent...” and it completely overturned the theory Malthus, who himself was troubled by the fact of how many of the weak survived.
It’s an important question because it reaffirms Marxism, scientific materialism, dealing a deadly blow not just to religion but to bourgeois ideology and reinforcing a materialist perspective, the distinct possibility of the survival of the most cooperative, the most moral and the most inclined to mutual aid. And clearly, that’s not capitalism.
Again with this complete cobblers about the surivival of the most moral. What cack ended pseudo-teleological view of the last few thousand years would you have to have to come to thar conclusion.
Generally history's winners have been the most brutal, the most pragmatic, the most deceitful etc etc personally i don;t think this makes some grand point about evolution nor does it determine how we should behave in 2009 or rule out us behaving differently and achieving a different outcome but to say that morality and co-operation are present in nature or that they are the backbone of human social evolution throughout history is a statement that obviously has some pretty flimsy evidence to back it up and a vast weight of historical evidence to show that its incorrect. Two animals might 'co-operate'' to kill the runt of the litter in order to get more food but obviously this hardly translates to morality or co-operation for cooperations sake.
As for kropotkin, jesus theres a man who literally deserved to be repeatedly reincarnated as the runt of the litter in some group of vicious wild animals or other just to show him how wrong he was. Or perhaps as a baby turtle on a beach somewhere.
People are fundamentally good but have been corrupted, that's basic christianity.
People have primitive desires that need to be controlled could be seen as Freudian, but anarchism does not imply a lack of control. Anarchism provides a philosophy (for want of a better word) that can fill this freudian need for rules. There does not need to be a hierarchical imposition of this sense of morality (again for want of a better word). Anarchy wouldn't have to deal with individuals who steal because there wouldn't be property in the current sense and stealing it wouldn't provide benefits as in the current system.
In terms of people who are dangerous within society, such as killers, then an anarchist society would try to rehabilitate them and isolate them whee this was not possible.
people are not identical and do not need to be.
this is a bit simplistic and patronising, anarchism will release people from the current pressures that often cause anti-social behaviour, not simply in a class sense. The aim is that in a society where people are treated right and receive just reward they will behave better towards each other is fairly fundamental. By removing the need/obligation to compete people will be less likely to screw each other over.
If I want to con someone into giving me money in this society then they lose (which doesn't affect me) and I benefit (which does). In an anarchist society I wouldn't really benefit from doing it so I'd be less likely and their loss would affect me more due to a sense of solidarity within the community.