socialism, capitalism, anarchism- which do subscribe to?

Post Reply New Topic

i would beg to differ, and suggest you might consider, rather than the chimpanzee, the peaceful and matriarchal bonobo.

Bonobos make love not war. Human type primates do both. And patriarchal orders are dominant in human societies. Some matriarchal, but mostly patriarchal.

ruveyn

indeed. but the point i am making is that "human nature" cannot be considered to tend towards patriarchy, conflict and greed genetically, based upon the example of chimpanzees. indeed there are many of the belief, and evidence that can be used to support the position, that matriarchal social organisation was far more prevalent in the prehistoric world.

therefore i feel it may be imprudent to state unequivocally that human beings are hard-wired for greed, self-interest and conflict.

in fact there it has been proposed that the behavioural differences between chimps and bonobos is in itself a product of environment, which would support my supposition above.

For all that, primates are not warm and cuddly. We are a nasty lot. It is in the genes.

The fact that we revert to type in times of scarcity is proof of our inherent depravity.

ruveyn

the point here being that there is absolutely no need, other than the perceived need of capitalists and ruling classes to accumulate masses of wealth and oppress the poor, for scarcity among the human race. all the more reason for equality, freedom, shared wealth and resources, and self-management. once again, you inadvertently support my point.

and you can't really argue that greed and selfishness is the default. different behaviours for different environments.

Fascism...

like in Giovinezza's lyric: Del fascismo redentor... that italian for : Of redeeming Fascism (Wikipedia Giovinezza lyric)

Puhleeeze! Study human history. When have humans ever been nice for very long? When?

When the grabbing is easy, some grab. When times are tight it is Life on Hardscrabble Farm.

And the strong have always had their way with the weak.

ruveyn

this has often been the case, yes. perhaps i am naive or exceptionally idealistic. but i do think given the right conditions, humans can live together like human beings.

Given the right circumstances, Angels of the Lord will come flying out of my arse.

ruveyn

far less likely, though.

indeed let us study human history. the answer is in preclass forager societies where there was little or no warfare such as in the foraging western shoshone in south western america before european contact. anthropologist RB Ferguson's survey of the archaeological record supports the view that systemic warfare did not emerge till 10000 years ago when people began to settle in permanent settlements. im sure you are familiar with engels' view of what happend next but here it is in brief: humans settle, horticultural then agricultural society develops, agriculture produces excess produce, certain people own this and ownership of tools, those who own stuff and control it are of a higher class, oppression of lower classes who are needed to produce this wealth, conflict over ownership and control, blah blah blah the rest is history. i think thats how it went. also explains the oppression of women. nifty little theory.

the human population was extremely small in relation to now or even 10000 years ago,

The history of human kind has been rather grim since agriculture and herding became the prevailing means of livelihood. With agriculture and fixed residence came government, taxation and tyranny. Taxing the farmers and herders means an army can be raised hence an increase in warfare with its death and violence. So for about 8000 years our species have not lived nicely with one another.

Hunter-gathering puts survival closer to the margin. Humans have to spend time hunting the critters more than they spend vexing each other. Also hunter gathering requires a great deal of co-operation and sharing among the males which promotes a less warlike way of life..

There is only one problem: Hunter-gatherers are very much at the mercy of climate and they have virtually no margin for storing food to cover the bad years. The biblical story of Joseph illustrates the point., The Egyptians were able to weather seven years of famine with the surplus stored during seven years of plenty. Hunter gatherers have no such safety margin. Also hunter-gathering societies have no way of creating and supporting a class of people to gaze at the stars and not have to work at bringing in the next meal. That is why astronomy and the other sciences did not exist until humans lived in towns and cities and created a non-food producing class supported by taxation.

During the era of hunter-gathering populations were low. Human numbers increased markedly after the transition to agriculture. Humans were probably freer from each other during the hunter-gathering days, but their lives were shorter and in bad times, harder. So what amounted to a working anarchy was traded in for a hierarchical society with it attendant tyrannies. But we got science, philosophy and literature out of it. If one was lucky enough to become a member of the supported class, it was a good deal. For the man with a hoe, maybe it was not such a good deal.

ruveyn

wow i think im agreeing with you on something. the point of my 10000 years ago story was to demonstrate that once upon a time humans didnt threaten each other with bombs everytime they didnt get what they wanted and to link this warfare with class society and accumulation of property. the point of a socialist society would be to abolish class heirarchies and to have workers control the means of production and have wealth equally distributed thereby removing the economic motive to go to war. i wasn't suggesting we decimate the bulk of the earths population and grab a spear and go forage for hamburgers or something. just in case that was a little ambiguous...

yes, vmsmith. taking your two most recent posts, and combining these with bakunin's notion that states are bound to exist in perpetual war, provides the answer.

and i think you are correct, if humans are not in contention with other humans for resources then it might very well be possible for us to abolish class societies, unfortunately i have a hard time seeing it happen,
someone will always want more.