Does Anarchism Contradict Human Nature?

[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]

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.

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:

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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