# Does Anarchism Contradict Human Nature?



## chompchompchomsky

I was having a conversation the other day with a friend of mine, and he brought up an interesting point. People are not fallen angels, we are sophisticated apes. All the apes create hierarchal governing structures with "Alphas" (In our case those would be investors and policy writers), and with subservient parties (workers, mostly). Is it realistic to believe that human beings could unwrite this fundamental proclivity and create a governing system which equalized everyone? Would anarchism, upon happening, _stay_ anarchism? Or would various power-hungry weirdos come in an take control? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## connerR

Various power-hungry weirdos would come in and take control.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

*sigh*
Yeah....


----------



## lobotomy3yes

There is one big difference between us and other primates though, and that is our capability for abstract and critical thought. Our minds are basically nonadaptive "spandrels" of evolution, and this is why I think anarchism is perfectly plausible. Regardless of any instincts we might have, and I would note that these are hard to pin down, we can imagine things otherwise and act accordingly. 

Also, "alpha male" does not = abusive bureaucracy. Sure there are natural leaders, but civilization is not a natural extrapolation of this. What we have is altogether something different...


----------



## Franny

Anarchism is not only perfectly plausible, but IS human nature. This is how I see it:

We all have varying degrees of desire for domination and submission, leadership and being led. And what lobotomy3yes said (I really need to learn your name) about our capability for critical thought plays into what I'm saying a tad. Think about this on a more basic physiological level. Our bodies are never "perfect", but striving for homeostasis. We waver just above and just above the perfect norm, never reaching it, but staying close enough to exist without difficulty. This is what anarchism is. Surely our capability to analyze our situation will help us maintain some sort of status quo, but more than that I think we have lower thought processes that will take over and sort things out for us (much like we have lower thought processes that fall in and out of love, move our hand off a hot burner, etc.). I think all people are innately good and have a proclivity for justice and equal distribution of resources. It's just hard to live in a society structured the way it is right now and see that clearly.

Mind you, I do not think anarchism would ever exist on a large scale. It would have to be structured such that communities are small enough for people to actually give a shit about their own community. Think small semi-interdependent communes. And this is how we naturally structure ourselves in the absence of "government" (quotations because anarchism is a form of government). And this is how all other mammals structure themselves. In the end we really are just another animal.

I hope that makes sense. I feel like shit today, but I'd be happy to clarify anything that sounds off.


----------



## Gudj

Anarchism does not contradict human nature. I used to be of the opinion that the only good human was a dead human, but since learning alot more about our species history and current social interactions, it's pretty clear that we are all currently some fucked up little devils, but have not always been. It's a condition that stems from our society(s) and the idea that we need to fuck people over to survive, and our feelings of entitlement. 





Franny-Chan said:


> \
> 
> Mind you, I do not think anarchism would ever exist on a large scale. It would have to be structured such that communities are small enough for people to actually give a shit about their own community. Think small semi-interdependent communes. And this is how we naturally structure ourselves in the absence of "government" (quotations because anarchism is a form of government). And this is how all other mammals structure themselves. In the end we really are just another animal.



However, this is where the definition of anarchism matters alot. If it simply means "no leaders" then yeah, it's only going to work for bands or tribes of people who's circumstances allow them to live that way. If it means "chaos" then go fuck yourself. If it means "no-body go to work, let's ride bikes instead and homebrew and play punk shows all the time", then that's never going to work on a large scale either, pretty obviously. However, I was under the impression that the anarchism we were all working towards had a definition similar to "communities are allowed to make decisions at a community/band/tribal level without some looming power from the outside trying to micro-manage a huge variety of people in a huge variety of situations". By that definition (or a better worded, more complete one with similar sentiment), anarchism HAS been working for us on a large scale for hundreds of thousands of years, and only stopped working very recently. Coincidentally (sarcasm) about the same time mass agriculture, cities, large scale wars, mass environmental destruction and the start of high-technology came into existence. 

If a community is allowed to learn what is best for it and it's neighbors, then someone who fucks with that is dealt with accordingly. If the whole idea of community is obliterated (like it is under capitalism), then shit falls the fuck apart fast. As I'm sure you have all noticed by now.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

I'm not sure I totally agree with what lobotomy3yes said about our minds, and I want to bring up the brain for a second. Our brain is in layers. Only the very,very thin, outermost layer contributes to our Arts, Sciences, Athletics, Literature, Music, Architecture, Mathematics, Dances, Inventions, conversations etc. As in, the vast majority of our brain is nigh identical to most other animal's, and our ability to critically think is, I believe, utterly outweighed by our "base" instincts. I *totally* agree with you on the abusive bureaucracy point, though- that they are not an extension of our desire for alphas in a group.
I'm not sure I totally understand what Franny-Chan's saying, but from what I gather I mostly agree. (I would like to take you up on your offer of clarification, though, just about the sentences surrounding "That's what anarchism is." I found that kind of confusing.)
I think Gudj's clarification of anarchism is really helpful, and it's one that I think is pretty damned reasonable.


----------



## LovelyAcorns

Anarchism can't contradict human nature, because there is no such thing as "human nature" to contradict. Thats just some myth assholes use to justify their atrocities. Even if we ignore the fact that humans have lived non-hierarchical or barely hierarchical for most of our time on this planet, and the various groups that still do today (ie, bushmen of the Kalahari), we can still learn one valuable thing from taking a glance at other cultures and times : that our actions and opinions are shaped far more by the culture we grew up in than genetics. Hell, the fact we have a word for "culture" proves that.

We are products of our environments. Create a free society, and you'll have a free people.


----------



## Franny

chompchompchomsky said:


> (I would like to take you up on your offer of clarification, though, just about the sentences surrounding "That's what anarchism is." I found that kind of confusing.)



What I meant is that anarchism will never be "utopia". That it's a political system, and all systems (physiological, social, etc.) follow basic laws of nature. I was just comparing a political system to our physiological system of homeostasis.


----------



## LovelyAcorns

chompchompchomsky said:


> As in, the vast majority of our brain is nigh identical to most other animal's, and our ability to critically think is, I believe, utterly outweighed by our "base" instincts.



What exactly are these base instincts? Be more specific. And where are you gathering your facts about the human brain? A human's brain weighs 1,400 grams, whereas a chimpanzee's weighs 420 grams. Now, brainsize doesnt indicate intelligence, but to claim that these two brains are "nigh identical" is kind of idiotic.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

To Franny-Chan,
Thank you, that clears it up for me a lot, and I can now say that I totally agree, and that i totally understand.
Lovely Acorns, I don't think I've ever even considered that before. That's a very cool idea. (First post)
Lovely Acorns, When I say "base instincts" I mean things like the base of your brain which regulates breathing and thermoregulation, and then above it the amygdala which regulates the "fight-flight-freeze" response, and the surrounding areas which regulate the various functions of your biological body. When I say the "outer layer" I am referring the cortex. (frontal, occipital, paretial, or what-have you.) Our "human" abilities are on the outside. My sources for these are:
"Phantoms in the brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind" V.S. Ramachandran, M.D. Ph.d
"The Way we think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's hidden complexities." by Turner and Faucolnier
Also my various textbooks (Nelson, 2004; Campbell 2006,,respectively)
(One of my _major_ interests is neuroscience.
If you could peel away the cortex from the human brain, you'd be left with something that looks a lot like that chimp brain. I'll try and find a good cross-section picture for the thread)


----------



## LovelyAcorns

chompchompchomsky said:


> To Franny-Chan,
> Thank you, that clears it up for me a lot, and I can now say that I totally agree, and that i totally understand.
> Lovely Acorns, I don't think I've ever even considered that before. That's a very cool idea. (First post)
> Lovely Acorns, When I say "base instincts" I mean things like the base of your brain which regulates breathing and thermoregulation, and then above it the amygdala which regulates the "fight-flight-freeze" response, and the surrounding areas which regulate the various functions of your biological body. When I say the "outer layer" I am referring the cortex. (frontal, occipital, paretial, or what-have you.) Our "human" abilities are on the outside. My sources for these are:
> "Phantoms in the brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind" V.S. Ramachandran, M.D. Ph.d
> "The Way we think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's hidden complexities." by Turner and Faucolnier
> Also my various textbooks (Nelson, 2004; Campbell 2006,,respectively)
> (One of my _major_ interests is neuroscience.
> If you could peel away the cortex from the human brain, you'd be left with something that looks a lot like that chimp brain. I'll try and find a good cross-section picture for the thread)



So is it my body's ability to thermoregulate or the "fight-flight-freeze" response that is going to take over and prevent me from living an anarchist life?


EDIT: WHOA. WHOA. WAIT. You are referring to the cortex as a "thin outer layer"? Now, I dont remember much about the human brain's physical structure, but I still know that ain't some small part, and according to a basic google search, its 85% of the human brain.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

LovelyAcorns said:


> So is it my body's ability to thermoregulate or the "fight-flight-freeze" response that is going to take over and prevent me from living an anarchist life?
> 
> 
> EDIT: WHOA. WHOA. WAIT. You are referring to the cortex as a "thin outer layer"? Now, I dont remember much about the human brain's physical structure, but I still know that ain't some small part, and according to a basic google search, its 85% of the human brain.



the _cerebrum_ is eighty-five percent of the brain. (Similar words, I know). And "cortex" means "outer layer", the cortex in our brains is, particularly, thin.

And no, I am not saying that your hypothalamus is going to prevent you from living in an anarchist state, what I was saying is that humanity's apparent difference from other creatures is a relatively measly one, and that our closest points of comparison all set up hierarchal systems, and we seem to (usually) as well.
Someone made a good point earlier that for the majority of time human beings existed in what we would now consider Anarchy. I think that's a fabulous point.


----------



## Beegod Santana

LovelyAcorns said:


> We are products of our environments. Create a free society, and you'll have a free people.



Couldn't of said it better myself!


----------



## lobotomy3yes

Great posts, all of you.

My name is Chris, btw Franny. 

A bunch of you really spoke my mind.

First of all, what _is_ human nature? How can anyone generalize every single human being? The most I can say is that the humans are humans by nature, and humans think by nature. We are neither good or bad, rational or irrational. We have the capability for critical thought, but that does not mean we always use it. We have the capability to be horrible people, but that does not guarantee we will be. 

As for the whole anatomy of the brain thing, that's a bit simplified. The truth is we don't know FOR SURE what does what in the brain, and it is believed that much of our thoughts are emergent. What this means is that there is no specific "thinking stuff." You can't pin down thoughts to individual particles, parts, or cells in the brain. Our thoughts are the result of many different parts and the relationships between them. I am giving a really short and simple version of cognitive science, but hopefully it will suffice. I can explain more if anyone is confused. My point is that the size of specific locations in the brain is irrelevant. Many other animals have bigger brains than us yet do not think like us. Our thinking capabilities are emergent properties of a complex system.

It's interesting to note that brain scans haven't told us much more than "Oh, this area lights up when people think about ____ generality." Hardly enough to determine whether anarchy is possible. Also, I would advise everyone to be cautious when reading a scientific study that has political overtones, or claims that "X behavior is advantageous." Much of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology is a weird sort of right wing/capitalist blabber. Much of the science behind these fields has been repeatedly show to be bunk. 

The bottom-line is that science can't tell us what we should or shouldn't do. That's the role of philosophy.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

I would say that we are coming to a point that neurologists can tackle some philosophical questions. Among them might be: what is the nature of self, what is the nature of qualia, etc. 
Neurologists currently rely more on something called "brain mapping" to study the brain. This involves putting in tiny probes and exciting individual neurons. So it is less now "this area lights up" and more so "that exact neuron fired". 
By no means saying we are anywhere close to probing the mystery of consciousness, but just wanted to clear that up.
Good post.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

I would say that we are coming to a point that neurologists can tackle some philosophical questions. Among them might be: what is the nature of self, what is the nature of qualia, etc. 
Neurologists currently rely more on something called "brain mapping" to study the brain. This involves putting in tiny probes and exciting individual neurons. So it is less now "this area lights up" and more so "that exact neuron fired". 
By no means saying we are anywhere close to probing the mystery of consciousness, but just wanted to clear that up.
Good post.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

Sweet, another scientist on StP .

Yes, we can see individual neurons firing, but does that mean really? We can't see individual thoughts, and we can't determine the meaning of individual firings. This is because of the emergent property of the mind. I'll illustrate this for anyone who is confused.

Say we have parts A, B, and C in the brain. None of them on their own consist of or produce thoughts. Add them together though, and you get thoughts. It's not that you get another part from adding them together, it's that the sum of A,B, and C is thought. 


Oh and I'm sure many of you have heard the ol' "Anarchism has never happened in history" argument, and I'd like to lay that to rest. For 3 years in Spain there existed a fully functional anarchist "city" (not sure how exactly you'd put it). You can read about that on Wikipedia for starters. Here is the link. 
Anarchist Catalonia


----------



## lobotomy3yes

I'd like to address qualia in a separate post.


I'm not sure neurologists can tackle philosophical questions per se, rather they can provide insight into these questions. It is really hard to say anything about the nature of self scientifically speaking. Science shows us how many of our parts function, but does it really say much about how we should/can/will behave? 


On to qualia. Qualia is a really confusing term for something not so confusing- the feeling of being, the sensation of things. It's not easily quantifiable, and that's intentional. Philosophers can cling to this vague idea and remain completely untouchable to scientific argument. Quite an advantageous position, right? Not entirely so. While we can't attack something that we can't define, we can critique the examples of qualia that are often offered.



Color is the big one that comes to mind. According to qualia doctrine, color is an arbitrary sensation. IE. what you see as red I might see as green. Simple semantics dictates that we will both call this color "red", but in reality we might see it differently. Qualia advocates have clung to this argument for years, and it is now completely invalid. Thanks to neurology, we can finally put an end to this color nonsense.

Color is light refracted off an object. It is picked up by the eyes and interpreted by the brain. The brain determines how we see different retractions of light. Furthermore, we have pinpointed this mechanism. When someone sees "red" differently, the difference is apparent in the brain. It's not arbitrary, it's a physical process. Color IS something entirely tangible and quantifiable. It's not even a matter of thought. The brain simply gathers information from the eyes and interprets it accordingly. Not so mystical anymore, eh David Chalmbers? Hehehe.

God I'm deviating waaay off-topic. This all relates somehow, I swear!


----------



## Franny

I've read a great deal about the brain. And its function (overall) still confuses me. I can't take scientific word as fact because what my brain experiences transcends that.

The reason I think that all people are good is because I sense that on a very deep level. Even when I think of the people that have really damaged me I can find redeeming qualities in them. This is why I often say that anarchism is spiritual for me as well as political. Because I not only think but feel that everyone has the capability to live in such a social structure. I'm sure I sound thoroughly crazy now, so I'll shut up.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

No no, you don't sound crazy at all. Intuition is the foundation for EVERY idea. We feel something and we explore the implications. If I didn't feel that anarchism is a good thing in the first place, why would I even argue on its behalf? If you can imagine it, it is possible. I too feel that anarchism is both possible and desirable. If everyone simply stood back and took an honest look at themselves and society, I think that anarchy would occur instantaneously. People always say that humans will do awful things and it can't be helped. Bullshit. We choose to act. We are influenced, but the choice is ours. For some that influence is stronger, even unbearably so. A pedophile may not be able to stop thinking about children, but he still chooses to act on those impulses. If he says he can't be helped, well I call bullshit, but nonetheless he has just admitted that he is better off dead so fuck him. All people can be good, but some refuse to choose good. It's a line we will have to cross some time...

I also understand not taking much of "science" as fact. The truth is there are many different scientific positions, and not all are compatible with each other. Always be skeptical of what people are telling you. I'll tell you right now that we know nothing for certain that actually dictates what we do (other than eat, sleep, etc.). We have identified many aspects of the brain, but that alone doesn't mean anything. Personally, I don't think we will ever figure out everything about the mind and human behavior. This is little more than a hunch, but I like to think that the Godel Incompleteness Theorem has some interesting implications for human progress. Of course we aren't Turing machines, but it makes sense that one within a system can never know all there is to know about that system. I think people are so adamant about figuring everything out because they want to have their existence explained and justified. They don't want to admit fucked up things happen only because we allow them to: _Fucked up shit is obviously natural of course, it's a byproduct of humanity. Can't be helped._ People would rather believe that. Admitting otherwise means we are weak, gullible creatures blindly searching for ultimate answers to problems we ultimately create. Personally, I think the truth is that random chance and indiscriminate processes brought us here without meaning, and that we must create the very meaning we seek. It's a choice. Freedom seems pretty cool, so why the fuck not?


----------



## macks

First off, these are a lot of really loaded terms being tossed around. "Science", "Freedom", even "Anarchy." We have to ask ourselves how we define these terms to really progress on the same page.

" Science shows us how many of our parts function, but does it really say much about how we should/can/will behave? " I think lobotomy3yes wrote this -

No. For someone to infer that we should/can/will behave a certain way would take the science out of the argument. "Science" is a term used to describe a way of assessing a problem. It is not always honest, interpreted or presented correctly.

This is where the philosophers come in, each with time to kill and a bottle of wine. Party is at your place right? People (philosophers especially) have been debating the question of human nature for a very long time, for me it comes down to nature vs. nurture. Which I personally don't believe is a productive question to devote my time to. You'll waste your life away reading molding text and slaving over laboratory work. We are what we are, let's learn how to exist without killing each other over dumb shit.

I don't really feel like I need to point out how the word 'freedom' is a loaded term - just look at how many times it was dropped in G-dub's speeches. Maybe there's a feeling behind the word for some people. The question of whether we can communicate it is another debate entirely. Functionally it is useless.

Anarchy. Well, let's look at the root words. "an" -against and the greek "archon" for ruler. So, all sentimentality and emotion attached to this word aside (see above part about "freedom"), it is to be against a ruler. Makes perfect sense to me. But what are you _for_ then? How do you fill the empty gap after you overthrow the ruler telling you how to live your life? The process is more daunting than the idea. I'm not saying that the whole of the earth wouldn't be better if this was the way things worked (without a ruler/hierarchy), but it's not. We need more builders, growers, experimenters, thinkers, inventors.. if only we could talk those damned philosophers that keep showing up with wine into getting their hands dirty.


*If* it is possible to live functionally in a non-hierarchical society - (And I don't say if because I don't believe it's possible; I say it because I haven't personally seen it, which is what it takes to convince me of anything these days.) - I believe that things have become much too large-scale for a shift like that to occur. There is too much at stake for those in power to relinquish it. At this point, to convince those at the top to start over from the 'bottom' as they see it would be to convince them to give up everything that generations of their ancestors has had, dreamed of having or died trying to get. If you're not talking them out of it you're trying to wrestle it from them. It's not a game to them. They have the guns, the power, the money, the police, the army, jails, uneducated mob, what have you. 

It's a great idea, but unfortunately without a collapse of epic proportions (can't say I'm not crossing my fingers here - even though I don't know what it means), it's a pipe dream. They've got us at every angle. Don't blame yourself, it's nothing personal. We were all born into a situation which stifles our desire to be individuals, to be human. The problem is that those in power have been playing the game of staying in power for centuries. They are damned good at it, and they share secrets. We the under-compensated are left reinventing the wheel ad nauseum. Just for trying to feel like our existence on this fucking spinning rock is worth hanging around for. Well, that's the last thing I'm giving up on but I'll be damned if it's not worth a try. 

We are too far detached from our past. Our situation is like an open festering wound. We need to relearn how to live without sucking off the teat of others in exchange for shiny things. Where did all the fucking integrity go!?

By the way, props to all those that are learning the hard way how to live/are living off the grid, and I do believe I am speaking to more than a few people on this board when I say that. 

[/rant]


----------



## Franny

macks said:


> I don't really feel like I need to point out how the word 'freedom' is a loaded term - just look at how many times it was dropped in G-dub's speeches. Maybe there's a feeling behind the word for some people. The question of whether we can communicate it is another debate entirely. Functionally it is useless.



I think the loaded undefinable terms we use are the most functionally useful ones out there. Ok, maybe functional isn't the best word for how I feel, but abstract concepts certainly are thought provoking. Freedom means something slightly different to everyone, and on the whole we do a terrible job of communicating what that means to us. We (as humans) need to get a whole lot better at this communication bit. But in the context of this conversation, I use "freedom" as a blanket term for whatever-it-is that floats one's boat within the confines of their society's chosen social mores. And in the context of anarchism, freedom is the volition to change one's societal mores to fit the needs of both their personal freedoms and the freedoms their own community is entitled to. Needless to say, easier said than done.




macks said:


> But what are you _for_ then? How do you fill the empty gap after you overthrow the ruler telling you how to live your life? The process is more daunting than the idea. I'm not saying that the whole of the earth wouldn't be better if this was the way things worked (without a ruler/hierarchy), but it's not. We need more builders, growers, experimenters, thinkers, inventors.. if only we could talk those damned philosophers that keep showing up with wine into getting their hands dirty.



That empty gap won't be an empty gap at all. This is what my whole argument about anarchism being human nature was about. If all formally structured government suddenly disappeared, I'm sure there would be a period of shock, chaos, and dismay. But out of that would quickly emerge the grower, experimenter, thinker, inventor in every one of us. I feel that this is built into us. Once we don't have some elusive higher power doing everything for us, we'll be driven to do it ourselves. But better. And maybe that's when we'll figure out what freedom on a large scale really is. And having said that, there is of course the issue of this:



macks said:


> It's a great idea, but unfortunately without a collapse of epic proportions (can't say I'm not crossing my fingers here - even though I don't know what it means), it's a pipe dream. They've got us at every angle. Don't blame yourself, it's nothing personal. We were all born into a situation which stifles our desire to be individuals, to be human. The problem is that those in power have been playing the game of staying in power for centuries. They are damned good at it, and they share secrets. We the under-compensated are left reinventing the wheel ad nauseum.



I don't think we need a collapse of epic proportions, and I think it's rather silly to sit around and wait for one. This rampant belief that they've got us backed into a corner is holding us back more than "they" are themselves (and I really believe they are rather pleased by this fact). It would be splendid if we didn't have The Government to compete with, sure, but by simply dismissing its power we can gain quite a bit. The people themselves control the social atmosphere; just because we live under the supposed control of a massive government doesn't mean we're prohibited from being anarchists. Personally, I don't want their power. They do have armies and guns and henchmen, etc., and that's fine by me. They can have all the power they want. Because I think the more people actually live as anarchists, more people will follow suit. It's learning (or teaching, or, *gasp*, leading) by example. Maybe we won't need an epic collapse at all. Maybe we can become a social amoeba and absorb it peacefully.

And Chris, what you said reminds me of the title of that Propagandhi song: Ordinary People Do Fucked Up Shit When Fucked Up Shit Becomes Ordinary. I've always thought this was shockingly accurate.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

Woah! lobotomy3yes! Your section on qualia is sadly mistaken. The definition of colour you provide is not a complete one, because there is a gap between "photons exciting specific proteins in my retina, going down my optic nerve, being interpreted by my brain" and "I am experiencing red." we do not understand that gap and that is a gap that qualia addresses, that watching particular parts of the process in no way (seem to) relate to the end product. Please don't denounce the colour-qualia example; it is a very good one, and a still very valid one.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

=0 I done been wrong.

Tell meh more.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

Okay, so! (Please excuse me if I become emphatic, I'm wasted as fuck) You must read the glorious book of V.S. Ramachandran's M.D. Ph.d. called "Phantoms in the brain". He has an entire section called "do martians see red" in which he uses the colour-qualia example to great affect. I cannot detail it all for you here, but is a must read for someone as bright as you, and indeed the whole book would enrich your already sharp mind. That goes for everyone! (I am SO...SO...drunk...It's not even cool...)


----------



## Franny

Lord. Chompsky. Drink water, eat burned toast.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

Franny-Chan said:


> I don't think we need a collapse of epic proportions, and I think it's rather silly to sit around and wait for one. This rampant belief that they've got us backed into a corner is holding us back more than "they" are themselves (and I really believe they are rather pleased by this fact). It would be splendid if we didn't have The Government to compete with, sure, but by simply dismissing its power we can gain quite a bit. The people themselves control the social atmosphere; just because we live under the supposed control of a massive government doesn't mean we're prohibited from being anarchists. Personally, I don't want their power. They do have armies and guns and henchmen, etc., and that's fine by me. They can have all the power they want. Because I think the more people actually live as anarchists, more people will follow suit. It's learning (or teaching, or, *gasp*, leading) by example. Maybe we won't need an epic collapse at all. Maybe we can become a social amoeba and absorb it peacefully.


^This. Dear god this!


----------



## macks

Franny-Chan said:


> That empty gap won't be an empty gap at all. This is what my whole argument about anarchism being human nature was about. If all formally structured government suddenly disappeared, I'm sure there would be a period of shock, chaos, and dismay. But out of that would quickly emerge the grower, experimenter, thinker, inventor in every one of us. I feel that this is built into us. Once we don't have some elusive higher power doing everything for us, we'll be driven to do it ourselves. But better. And maybe that's when we'll figure out what freedom on a large scale really is.



I kind of meant that in a different way. I'd love to think that there is a creative flame of justice, truth and hard work in the average joe schmoe. Maybe there is, but I think the seed of self interest, lust for control and shiny things have taken over many people's psyche to the point where they would be too scared of or uninformed about doing things for themselves to not run back to a power structure. Would something productive come out of a collapse? Fuck if I know, on a large scale I don't think so for the reasons above. Maybe you could escape the derranged masses and find a quiet spot in the woods to live with your loved ones. In that case, why wait for the collapse? 

What I was going for in my post was that people who despise the culture we live in need to start learning how to do things on their own. In my more punked out days a good friend of mine said "You spend all this time and energy hating so many things; why not put some time and energy into the things you _do_ believe in?" It took me a few years to come up with an answer, but I got it. I was punk fucking rawk, and being posi-core doesn't win punk points. I just think that's something that we as a subculture or whatever need to keep tabs on. Sure, throw a brick, but go back and use it to build something awesome. As for the philosophers, I just went to college with too many fucksticks who would sit around, smoke cigarettes and complain about everything all day, go get drunk at night, rinse and repeat. Putcher money wherr yer mouth is! Maybe a bad saying given the topic, haha.




Franny-Chan said:


> I don't think we need a collapse of epic proportions, and I think it's rather silly to sit around and wait for one. This rampant belief that they've got us backed into a corner is holding us back more than "they" are themselves (and I really believe they are rather pleased by this fact). It would be splendid if we didn't have The Government to compete with, sure, but by simply dismissing its power we can gain quite a bit. The people themselves control the social atmosphere; just because we live under the supposed control of a massive government doesn't mean we're prohibited from being anarchists. Personally, I don't want their power. They do have armies and guns and henchmen, etc., and that's fine by me. They can have all the power they want. Because I think the more people actually live as anarchists, more people will follow suit. It's learning (or teaching, or, *gasp*, leading) by example. Maybe we won't need an epic collapse at all. Maybe we can become a social amoeba and absorb it peacefully.



I agree with most everything you wrote here, a little heavy on the optimism at the end maybe but it's definitely refreshing to hear. I was sort of referring more to the original post about "Is it realistic to believe that human beings could unwrite this fundamental proclivity and create a governing system which equalized everyone?" To which I say yes, there are too many damned people and other variables to create a governing system which will equalize everyone. Especially given that this governing system as a whole will fight tooth and nail for the control they covet so much. Fuck the everyone thing, get out while you still can!


-------
edit : Let me be add too that it was probably me not being clear enough if you misunderstood what I was trying to get at, it was late when I wrote that long post and I was a little drunk, if you didn't already guess, haha.


----------



## yarn and glue

Reading everything that's already been written here sort of takes the wind out of my sails as far as offering my own perspective (no need to be redundant). But I love you all, that was a good read.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

I know eh, yarn and glue, the people here are breathtaking. It is so refreshing to talk to people with brains!


----------



## adragonfly

chompchompchomsky said:


> I was having a conversation the other day with a friend of mine, and he brought up an interesting point. People are not fallen angels, we are sophisticated apes. All the apes create hierarchal governing structures with "Alphas" (In our case those would be investors and policy writers), and with subservient parties (workers, mostly). Is it realistic to believe that human beings could unwrite this fundamental proclivity and create a governing system which equalized everyone? Would anarchism, upon happening, _stay_ anarchism? Or would various power-hungry weirdos come in an take control? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?



I believe everyone is born inherently the same and equal. Through genetics and enviroment when growing up, some people have grown to be more "alpha"; assertive, decisive, etc. At the same time, others have grown to be creative, nurturing, loving, intelligent, etc. We all have the same traits, it just more pronounced in some people than others. Anarchy and consensus will benefit from diversity since everybody is putting in their unique input in the decision making process. If the people who ruled are only alphas who got where their because of their alpha trait, governance will have the narrow perspective of the alpha trait.

I do think it in our nature for alphas to become leaders tho. If there was a catastrophe a people were dying many people would freakout. People who have developed an alpha trait would lead people into safety.

It is also in our nature to think intelligently and evolve to create an egalitarian society


----------



## chompchompchomsky

NegroCommando said:


> It is...in our nature to think intelligently and evolve to create an egalitarian society


^Could you elaborate on that point?


----------



## adragonfly

I believe that point comes from self-awareness, knowing our own capabilities. In the begging of capitalism the resources on this world seemed almost endless. people thought nothing else than how they could get more money. right now i believe we are on the brink of something new. a new step in global consciousness. 

just as it is in our nature for self preservation, we also have species preservation. We understand that our resources are limited and are becoming more limited each day. We know our consumerist society is extremely wastefull. We are watching the earth get trashed more and more but since we can still be comfortable we haven't really cared yet. but its in the back of our minds.

its not just the enviroment. its society as a whole. Its us looking at society and fixing it. I think more people are waking up and realizing that we can fix society. Its probably happening because society has been changing so much over these past decades that we become more aware of it.

EDIT: WHOOPS after reading my last post i know now what to say LOL my B... aight... It is also in our nature to know what works best, etc. We humans are self-aware. Right now we know that monarchy/being ruled by an alpha is not very sufficent for todays world since all ideas come from one man. so we decided to create and spread democracy where more people have input into their governance. As our awareness grows, so will our democracy. hopefully we will achieve the truest form of democracy, anarchy, thru our awareness.

Its in our nature to change and evolve. as our awerness grows, we become more empowered to change.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

I'm totally with you on that last post, I'm just not convinced that we're headed for "egalitarian society." 
For one thing, it's ridiculous to suggest that everyone should get equal treatment. Consider treating a single mother of six with no income the same way you treat Donald trump. Consider investing your money equally in the American and Zimbabwean stock market. (One is equivalent to making money; the other is equivalent to throwing money at fascists) 
Neither people, nor institutions, nor situations are equal, and it's therefore pretty silly to treat them all equally.


----------



## adragonfly

just because a society is egalitarian doesn't mean money is distributed equally. it just means everyone has the same rights.

i think anarchisms best bet is where america is anarchist on the inside but it still has a government for foreign relations and security. so rest assured no money will be lost in Zimbabwe


----------



## chompchompchomsky

We are living (North America) in a place where everyone has the same "rights", it doesn't translate especially well into practice. 
I totally agree that a government is a good idea for things like foreign relations, but that kind of negates anarchy, does it not?


----------



## Franny

NegroCommando said:


> just because a society is egalitarian doesn't mean money is distributed equally. it just means everyone has the same rights.
> 
> i think anarchisms best bet is where america is anarchist on the inside but it still has a government for foreign relations and security. so rest assured no money will be lost in Zimbabwe



um...wat?


----------



## Gypsybones




----------



## HIS HERO IS GONE

excellent post, heavens_fall!!! haha


----------



## codym

Anarchy is human nature. Anarchy is nature. Put down the Chomsky (who advocates government), he introduced me to anarchism but he's not much of an anarchist. Read some primitivist stuff, that's kind of the newer current. I'm of the opinion that civilization is the root of our global crisis (200 species gone every day, DDT everywhere even in the Antarctic, global warming, etc, I'm sure everyone here know's things are fucked up), thus the enemy of human nature although humans are its cause. With the onset of civilization (starting with agriculture) you get heirarchy, patriarchy, war, poverty, property, domestication, subjugation of the environment... it was a shift so drastic that it's in the bible (commonly known as the fall from grace). Anyway, that's my schpiel on "anarchy", I think it's a political word for true human nature and I think it's hella sexy. Check out www.insurgentdesire.org.uk and www.primitivism.com for some good readin'.


----------



## IBRRHOBO

Gypsybones said:


>



that's the IWW; the first union in the US and the only union of true hobos (has diversified since the days of Big Bill. sorry to remind you, though, that IWW was/is a socialist group (i actually hold a card).

i want to issue this caveat first: the brian, even in the abstract sense, is a linear and logical biochemical organ. i cannot seem to grasp how it relates to human 'nature' as applied in this thread?! the _mind_, though, in terms of psychoanalytic applications is more where your debates/interrogatories should lie. the supposition that ogranic v inorganic; that environmental conditions _may_ comport to say anarchism vis a vis the brain are speculative at best. supplant mind for brain and maybe i could bite; the problem, once again, is that one would have to make an argument for an all left or all right hemisphere society for ANY ism to survive.

a simple quantum of the affect of anxiety from a matrix of physiological and psychic interrelationships during infancy shows a complex and significant issue. all of our genetic formulations regarding psychological health and illness, and many dynamic formulations regarding interactions (and bear in mind my musings here are aimed _specifically_ at the infant level and human 'nature' is, as posited here, a _genetic_ achievement), rest upon our understanding the process of this emergence. hmnn, so let's look at the data for a moment: freud (circa 1909) really started the initial recording of systematic DSM criteria (and i take him w/a grain of salt) so that gives us about 100 years of data. juxtapose this w/anarchy (basically a libartarian variation on socialism and circa 1700's --- don't argue w/me simply consult your own flavor) and what are you making your BROAD assumptions on? a) 100 years of data (conservatively); or b) 300 years of data. to even _attempt_ to justify a position like this is ... well, indicative to the discussion. i digress, though, as i like being the devil's advocate and let's take a stroll...........

i have to say that any 'ism' contradicts human 'nature'. isms are manmade are regardless of whether or what wants to paint them out to be they ALL require hierarchy. humans require maslow's hierarchy of needs (basic triad at least) of food, clothing and shelter. to obtain those you have to have to have delegation of authority (whether you go back to pre agrarian societies (hunter-gatherer) or post agrarian). measuring of human 'nature' was tested quite extensively by hitler (most of our hardcore medical data comes from his butchers (don't take this as a glorification as i am a Jew). isolated, but well nourished infants died w/o human contact; the supposition was that contact is necessary at an unmeasurable level (examine documentation of nanogram detection in weight upon death).

anarchy, no matter how you slice it is dependent upon hierarchy and then increases accordingly by the flavor you paint it in. not a slam as i really could give a fuck what ism controls as i don't interact w/many anyway. spin can be made on any ism to make it relate however one wants.

anarchy (and i really hesitate to apply this word as it is a pretty ambiguous term) is a means to an end. let's take portland as most of ya are from there. tomorrow there is an anarchist revolution and viola pdx is under anarchist control. you end up w/something like south africa. sure mandella got control but the nation went to hell. why? ALL isms (and colors) were quashed except his. so, back to pdx: the point is that some anarchist is going to have to first tell others what they will do. take water. well'p, someone has to clean the sewage to make clean water. and don't fucking bore me w/the consensus bullshit unless in your reply you're gonna state that FREE OF CHARGE you will spend the rest of your life cleaning shit, piss, cum and blood outta the pits and purify it. crude and harsh? you bet because if you're gonna hype up an ism you need to deal w/the stark realities and water is one of the most basic of them. yeah, problematic there. next you have social issues: who's gonna teach what? well'p, you gotta appoint folks there too! who's gonna tell the obese that they can't eat as long and as much as they want because it deprives the equal portions to all? the rapist? hmnn, someone has to establish a judicial council (and now you have a REAL power struggle) to say what is right and wrong. and how about commerce? yeah, you still want the power grid right? i mean do you have any CLUE how much disease and death will come about when the revolution just turns off the switch? nah, can't do that so you still have to interact w/the rest of mainstream society to buy shit like power, gas, food (until you can grow your own---and here you have to establish yet ANOTHER council to determine who looses their land to put in agriculture)....yeah, ok.

there is a reason why since the recorded history of man tribalism has occurred and the basic reason traces right back to maslow: it's easier to get food, clothing and shelter in numbers and that you will defend those three items.

the thread has been a nice read; lots of thought and i congradualte those whom have examined their copy(s) of Grey's Anatomy, DSM VII, et al. i believe, though, that there is a blurring of the lines between a hodgepodge of communism, socialism and anarchism.

the verdict on human nature vis a vis anarchy? hmnn, i wouldn't be an anarchist if i told you how to think, now would i? ;-)


----------



## Beegod Santana

You're all on crack.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

IBRRHOBO said:


> a simple quantum of the affect of anxiety from a matrix of physiological and psychic interrelationships during infancy shows a complex and significant issue. all of our genetic formulations regarding psychological health and illness, and many dynamic formulations regarding interactions (and bear in mind my musings here are aimed _specifically_ at the infant level and human 'nature' is, as posited here, a _genetic_ achievement), rest upon our understanding the process of this emergence. hmnn, so let's look at the data for a moment: freud (circa 1909) really started the initial recording of systematic DSM criteria (and i take him w/a grain of salt) so that gives us about 100 years of data. juxtapose this w/anarchy (basically a libartarian variation on socialism and circa 1700's --- don't argue w/me simply consult your own flavor) and what are you making your BROAD assumptions on? a) 100 years of data (conservatively); or b) 300 years of data. to even _attempt_ to justify a position like this is ... well, indicative to the discussion.



This comparison you draw is not a fair one. "100 years of psychoanalysis" is not directly comparable with "300 years of libertarian ideals." those things do not match up; and one does not "defeat" the other.
Also, *What* about the impact of anxiety? That sentence is monstrous, and I'm really interested to know what you mean that. Could you clarify?


----------



## IBRRHOBO

not fair? let's look at the timeline: 100/300 years. each are a drop in the bucket of the 5 to 6,000 years of recorded history (probably several hundred thousand years that's undocumented). one would have thought that w/all the brilliant folks hanging out on Terra Firma anarchy would have become self evident. it did not. anarchy is a response to the anxiety which certain segments of society experience from due or undue power and control. my point is that it's pretty naieve to think that w/only a drop in the bucket of documentation we can extrapolate the fact that a man made political ideology is representative of human nature. i heard a lot of posturing about how the indiginous tribes did/do this and that, but that is NOT anarchy. a simple scan of webster's will tell u what anarchy is. to simply grab the black flag, drink some 40z and kick in starbuck's windows is NOT anarchy; it is, though, anarchistic. my comments here are not to CONDEMN anarchy as i could give a rat's ass about it. what my comments are about (and here i would've thought that any true anarchist would've already been raising hell) are this: if you're going to spout of a bunch of crazed shit, justify it. wanna be an anarchist? great! wanna step into the arena of intellectual debate and that's a whole different world. i'm a libertarian myself so i am rather well versed on anarchy as that's where it draws its ideological roots. limited gov't, centralized power w/in the people, etc. so, to fly off and try to convince folks that anarchy has now become synonymous w/human nature is ludicrous; dangerous i would state. why? because it's much like the flat earth society; no logical reasoning for their arguements, but they have quite a following. no danger there, but when you apply your rationale to anarchists, whom quite frankly most of society dislikes anyway, you bring ammunition to future battles. keep it real in a nutshell.

i want to take a minute here to clarify something as well: StP is, by and large, an anarchist's POV site. i mainly hang out here as i hop freights and play devil's advocate. i am NOT slamming anarchy as an ideology; each ism has good and bad. what i AM doing is trying to bring some responsibility to the table. if someone is gonna make broad sweeping statements and all the little kiddies jump on board so they can be cool; that my friend is bad news. what the message being sent is this: make the most outlandish bullshit up and all will follow like the pied piper. if i _was_ an anarchist i certainly wouldn't want some two bit huxters preaching the new gospel that anarchy is genetically encoded because the next step is that you're gonna institute the Holy Writ. 

the sentence (and pardon me here for not being on the scholar level in english as apparently i should be) rather explains itself. anxiety is the precursor for _most_ change; take muscular development, u gotta tear muscle apart to build larger ones. anyways, it's easiest to monitor a developmental cycle in a child v. adult as there are controlled stimuli and environmental conditions. this is why i used anxiety (our precursor) at the infantile level. where i went w/it (and i would have thought you understood as this is psychology 202; second semester, and you seem to be fluent in science) is that if anarchy is the symbiotic representation; an equal when juxtaposed, with human nature we would see this manifest in an ABSOLUTE rebellion of the infant to the power and control exerted by its familial members. we do not. 

this isn't a slam on you or the thread; this is a wake up call about making outlandish statements. there is probably 15-20% of us on here that are not all glassy eyed kidz. i really don't care if you change your mind or not; being that the thread posited some static principles such as christianity (angels), darwinism/scopes monkey trial (the apes), and political science. if one takes a real look at ANY form of government, monarchy is the longest running form and it's only several thousand years. oh, ill give u anarchy had its heyday in spain for a moment, but none will last. you see, my friend, THAT is the beauty of _human nature_! that untouchable thing which reponds to anxiety. it CANNOT be bound nor represented by anything man made and thus is ironic.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

I guess I don't think of psychoanalysis as a "gathering data" sort of science. It has always seemed to me to be more theoretical than factual, _especially_ concerning an infants development. 

I do not see a child's development as occurring within "controlled" conditions and stimuli.

I totally agree with the statement you made beginning on line 26 and ending on line 28, about the non-occurrence of absolute rebellion.

I also agree that anarchy is not equivocal to human nature, as we've been around too long for it not have shown up, and that change is initiated by anxiety. 

Nice post.


----------



## IBRRHOBO

fair enough; we both feel we have valid points. completely agree, but from a different angle. psycology/psychiatry are soft sciences meaning that the data collected is quite subjective as opposed to statically objective. the child's environment is controlled to the extent that they will have food, clothing and shelter (in first world countries) provided and a modicum of discipline. that's one of the beauties about StP is the ability to discuss/debate things. 

welcome aboard and you have a very good head on your shoulders!


----------



## hg14

here is some that have points of views on this topic and ETC :

++++


----------



## chompchompchomsky

That first article reminds me sharply of the Russian communists before they seized power. And actually, a lot of anarchist literature I've seen is of the "It will all be flowers and frolicking through meadows once we murder a bunch of people" vein. I guess it's like that Lennon lyric "You say you want a revolution, well you know we'd all love to see the plan."


----------



## IBRRHOBO

yup. some of the basic anarchistic philosophies/ideologies would be considered a form of utopia. a prominent, fairly modern anarchist, noam chomsky discusses a lot of stuff (_Red & Black Magazine_, circa 1995) that would be pretty good ideas if possible (he actually spoke on anarchism, marxism and the future as he kinda saw it).

we 'call' what happened in russia communism; it wasn't. true communism is a type of utopia. what actually occurred over there was a combination of marxism, leninism, stalinism and a smattering of trotskyism. the fucked up melange created totalitarianism.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

IBRRHOBO said:


> we 'call' what happened in russia communism; it wasn't. true communism is a type of utopia. what actually occurred over there was a combination of marxism, leninism, stalinism and a smattering of trotskyism. the fucked up melange created totalitarianism.


I would venture to say that any of those "isms" act as a forum by which people can create totalitarian states. In the act of instating, say, "communism", what one is actually doing is bringing people around to the idea that "these people" (revolutionaries) are allowed to call all the shots. Democracy differs from this only slightly, in that we bother to create the illusion of people being in control. I think this is among the most imperative lies that exist, as it keeps us from _total_ docility.


----------



## IBRRHOBO

agreed. in actuality we don't have democracy; we have federalism. has always amazed me how folks are lulled into a belief system that they don't understand.

communism actually functioned in america. the oneida commune (http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/travel/escapes/03Oneida.html) used to make silverware to primarily finance their needs. case in point, though, that here is an ism hated so and yet contributed to society: they invented the Victor mousetrap (has NEVER been improved upon), the lazy susan and it is almost DEFINATE that anyone over the age of 40 who comes from a home has eaten using some of their flatware.

yeah, i've never been down on isms of any flavor; i just always look to open the dialogue so folks know _what_ ism they are talking about.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

I'm musing now, but I wonder what a "rule by the people" democracy would be like.... I get visions of wayward religious fanatics burning people and chanting. I don't really know though, I've always been in favour of a "meritocracy" (rule by the best), just because that seems the most reasonable. As in, for a fianance minister, some international third party would find the most adept financial mind in the country, and appoint that person. It would not be without it's kinks, but I think it would improve a few things.


----------



## veggieguy12

chompchompchomsky said:


> ...I wonder what a "rule by the people" democracy would be like.... I get visions of wayward religious fanatics burning people and chanting.



Probably; I'm sure that would exist in some places (Mississippi, Alabama: I'm looking at you), but anarchy is about giving people that space, isn't it? I mean, abortion is legal because of federal power, people vote for a President based on whether he/she will install a judge who will preserve that power over states that would rather outlaw it. Similarly, overt institutional racism was ended by federal marshalls and an army dispatched by DC's centralized power. What do we want, *really*?



LovelyAcorns said:


> What exactly are these base instincts? Be more specific.



Oh, I dunno: to be social, to be in a group; to vocalize and make noises with wielded implements, to fuck (mostly post-pubescents of the opposite sex, but that's not the draw for all - and in some situations, anything will do, it seems). We flee from danger (lion hunters & bear killers & bull wranglers are made, not born); to fear, be hesitant and/or suspicious of what is different or unknown (hesitation of entering the darkness persists today, as we've had indoor artificial lighting for only since candles, but the chance that your death is lurking in the dark is probably not as likely as nothing lurking in the dark); to not eat other people - except for _extremes_ of circumstance or disposition.
There is some programming to compete and fight ("Me and my family are getting the last loaf of bread"), but clearly there is a naturally-developed and self- & group-rewarding aspect to cooperation ("There's plenty to go around, help yourself"). We are neither peaceful nor evil and harmful, but a balance, as we determine our needs require us to be (or as we choose).
We usually make life-long bonds with some people while we reject and shun others. (It's easy to see how/why we do this in modernity, but I'm imagining tribes of today or the eradicated tribes of N.America's yesteryear.) Lying/deception is probably in us, or maybe what we learn to do because of guilt or want to avoid conflict - so maybe guilt, or regret?
It's also clear that we are encouraged to consume things we don't need, but I'm not sure we don't have some in-born, "instinctive" compulsion to collect things. Other creatures do this (the magpie, the pack rat), and I have to wonder if the homeless pushing two shopping carts filled with stuff are really victims of marketing or perhaps just overboard on the genetic programming to gather.

As for what is human nature and what is anarchism and what are base instincts, and keeping all terms well-defined, I regard instinct as that which is known without teaching, so I'm not even sure that such a thing exists. Maybe we know to put something in our mouths when we're starving, even as toddlers, but getting to that stage requires being fed (trained) as a baby. Birds don't instinctively fly, mama knocks 'em out the nest if they sit around too long.
We are the third chimpanzee, and in these creatures can be seen most of what I've described above. They have a leader, and I think we - maybe not you, your friend, me, but we human beings overall - need such persons, and they (those predisposed to step forward and be responsible for and make decisions and guide and preserve a group) need followers, it's a symbiotic relationship. And many mammals operate this way, certainly the primates. It doesn't prescribe oppression, for them or us.
Also, I'm never too sure what people mean when they say "dogs are _pack animals_" as though it distinguishes canines from humans. I think we are _pack animals_ too, unless that term is loaded with some meaning I don't yet find within.
Finally, who cares about anarchy? If we don't stop destroying the planet, it matters little whether we work for ourselves or our boss, whether we elect national Presidents or meet as villages to decide by consensus. Am I the only one to have met anarchist fundamentalists?


----------



## chompchompchomsky

Good post.  
And no, I have met fundamentalist anarchists and they are fully as terrifying as orthodox Jews, and fundamentalist Christians.


----------

