my view of the world

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh, I think I agree with that entirely. My point was that even in primitive societies there is not anarchy, which is what 'total freedom' means to me - there is still law and order, social norms and taboos, and 'elders' or chiefs or some other people with authority. I agree that there is a problem of scale inherent in running any social group as big as a country - humans are pack animals, not social insects.

Edit: even higher animals like apes and whales and elephants don't live in anarchy as such, they have social structures with alpha males or matriarchs and complex systems of social interaction that begin to look a lot like human social norms. Creatures like bees or ants live in the exact opposite of anarchy, of course - a sort of 'monarcho-communism'.

I started that little essay because someone said they thought I though I had total freedom, and I was just saying no, I don't think that and I wouldn't want that, because it would not be conducive to a functional society. However I am pretty sure I have complete freedom of thought, although certain people on here will no doubt just claim "Ahh, but that's exactly what a brainwashed person WOULD think!".
 
Last edited:
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Mr. Tea said:
Oh, I think I agree with that entirely. My point was that even in primitive societies there is not anarchy, which is what 'total freedom' means to me - there is still law and order, social norms and taboos
Click to expand...

i suggest you go and read up on anarchy :)

in your above example of 'mini dictators' and school playgounds, you are refering to chaos not 'anarchy' in its traditional sense- see godwin, kropotkin, rocker, some of proudhon's early writings ('order is anarchy') etc etc

anarchists of this sort (broadly, anarcho-syndicalists) place a high value of agreed social norms, rather than norms imposed from above.

kropotkin in particular used animal societies as examples of how freedom and co-operation often go hand in hand

lots of info here: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, well I have to admit I don't know too much about anarchy as a political theory - or rather, 'anarchism', as you might say. It just seems to me hopelessly optimistic and naive to think that all people will work towards the common good and cooperate rather than compete without some kind of centrally-imposed authority, whether it's a council of tribal elders or the elected government of a country of many millions of people. Again, if I'm misinterpreting what 'real' anarchists (as opposed to, say, the Sex Pistols) think, then I apologise.

The problem with 'agreed' social norms is that not everyone agrees with them! If we all had exactly the same values and ideas about what constitutes decent behaviour, there would be no need for laws of any sort, and we'd all live in an anarchistic utopia. But people have different ideas, and it's one of the jobs of government to try to find a golden mean of standards that the largest number of people can agree on, and then impose those standards on everyone. Naturally, some people have values that don't fit these prescribed standards, and these people can be anyone from hippies living in a commune to thieves and murderers - both are choosing (in very different ways) to live outside the accepted norms. It can be good to challenge these norms - like hippies growing their own food, rejecting consumerism and so on, if it makes them happy - or it can be very bad, in the case of violent criminals. I'm certainly not saying I agree with all these norms, by any means - for example, I think our current drug laws are an affront to basic personal freedom - but I just think it's contrary to human nature (and believe it or not, there are still people who think there's such a thing) for a group of people to spontaneously agree on a set of norms or standards, and that for any group of people who haven't deliberately chosen to live together - such as a country - you need some kind of government to impose rules that the largest number of people consider fair and sensible.
 
Last edited:
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
well central to that is the question 'why to people compete rather than co-operate?'

there are plenty of examples of anarchy in action, both big and small, so it can work, but no-one ever said it was going easy ;)
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
matt b said:
well central to that is the question 'why to people compete rather than co-operate?'
Click to expand...

There are two fundamental opposing forces in all human societies, and all humans, I think - the drive to cooperate, and the drive to compete. If we had only the former, we'd naturally live like termites or ants: it simply wouldn't occur to anyone to do anything of purely personal benefit. On the other hand, if we had only the latter instinct, we'd live like solitary creatures, coming together only to mate and raise young. Obviously no humans have ever 'naturally' lived at either of those extremes (although attempts at the former have been made, notably in the USSR and communist China).

To be reductionist for a moment, the urge to compete is down simply to ensuring the survival of one's own genes. Naturally, we're all far more concerned about the welfare of our own children than about anyone else's, for example. Balanced against this is the concept that by helping you, I can help you help me, whence arises cooperative and even altruistic behaviour. (In very crude terms, a bank is being momentarily 'altruistic' by lending me money, because it knows I'll have to pay it back later, with interest.) So there is constant conflict between these two opposing forces, and any kind of philosophy or political theory that seeks to deny one of them (anarchism on the one hand, Nietzsche on the other) is not going to work for any length of time.
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
Mr. Tea, to summarize:

you have accused us of paranoia, stereotyped us as conspiracy theorists worthy of dismissal, ridiculed my claims for pervasive indoctrination. in response I have thoroughly answered all the questions you have asked, and addressed all the issues you have raised, while not calling you names and making a mockery of your statements (like you have done to us).

do you care to respond or at the very least acknowledge my efforts to keep a level headed and thoughtful discussion going?

matt b said:
well central to that is the question 'why to people compete rather than co-operate?'
Click to expand...

another aspect of capitalism's misrepresentation of "nature" in order to justify its own predilection for violence is the exultation of competition as a virtue. while actually, in nature, there are much more examples of symbiotic relationships than competitively ones -- species which relie upon eachother for survival. yet we are constantly presented with pictures of our selves, our ancesters and the animal kingdom as dog-eat-dog, in ceaseless, violent struggle, where only the strongest survive. this is also a perversion of Darwin's theories of evolution - grossly exaggerating some aspects of it while ignoring the rest.
 
P

Parson

Guest
from an early age we are all conditioned to rank things

whats your favorite color?

fuck you i like all kinds of colors in all kinds of combinations what kind of retarded question is that to ask a kid
 
Last edited:
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
As I said, zhao, there is competition and cooperation everywhere. If it's a myth that nature is all about dog-eat-dog individualism, it's certainly a myth that we all lived in perfect peace and harmony before capitalism came along and ruined everything. For one thing, war has existed for millennia before capitalism ever existed, not that the effects of capitalism haven't sparked or exacerbated many conflicts since that system evolved.
Conflict is everywhere in nature - never seen two dogs growl at each other? Or two pigeons fight over a scrap of food?

And I'm not sure what you're getting about 'ranking' things, Parson. I don't think I'd been 'conditioned' into having a favourite colour as a kid, I just did, as do most people. It's natural to compare things, and to like some things more than others. Are you saying you don't have a favourite food, drink, type of music? Or at least, prefer some to others?
 
G

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Of course competition in capitalism is dogma, much of the time, and the natural unmodified status is massive monopolistic collusion, in many market places, and protectionism on the level of the state.
 
MATT MAson

MATT MAson

BROADSIDE
What about the modern acts of collabporation increasingly undermining competition within capitalism?

Things like open source culture and the democratization of media pose a real threat to many established industries. This, I would have thought, will have a profound knock on effect on many other things, not that it hasn't already.
 
P

Parson

Guest
saying collabporation makes me think you're kidding but you seem to think you have a relevent point
 
P

Parson

Guest
that is to say if you are saying that these challenges to established industries would in turn dehomogenize our culture to the point that more people awaken from this psychic hold of the ongoing war of attrition
 
Last edited:
MATT MAson

MATT MAson

BROADSIDE
I'm serious. I think society is reaching a point where old hierachies won't matter so much anymore. It's gonna take a while yet, but things are changing.
 
P

Parson

Guest
at first i thought he was trying to make up words (collaboration + corporation?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top