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.

\

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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.