Does Anarchism Contradict Human Nature?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

...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?

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.