NationStates Jolt Archive

If you consider yourself an anarchist, try this quiz:

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=37281

Both of my results:


You scored as Anarcho-Capitalist.

Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Syndicalist
60%
Anarcho-Capitalist
60%
Anarcha-Feminist
40%
Anarcho-Primitivist
35%
Anarcho-Communist
25%
Christian Anarchist
15%



You scored as Anarcho-Syndicalist.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labour movement. Syndicalists believe in workers' solidarity, self-management and direct action. This movement is most commonly associated with France and key thinkers include Rudolf Rocker.

Anarcho-Syndicalist
60%
Anarcho-Capitalist
60%
Anarcha-Feminist
40%
Anarcho-Primitivist
35%
Anarcho-Communist
25%
Christian Anarchist
15%


I present two results because the quiz had me answer a "tie-breaker" question, in which I can only pick one of the following statements as "most" true:



'Collective' or 'Communist' modes of anarchism will innevitably lead to tyrany of the majority.
Direct action is the best tool available to anarchists.



I want to pick both of them as equally true. :headbang:

Anyway, I thought the quiz was interesting as the results seem to reflect my Political Compass economics score, which is basically dead center (see sig). Half of me can't stand socialists, while the other half can't stand capitalists. (edit: I also think the results reflect my belief that, given the proper construction of society and government, the two become essentially indistinguishable).

I'm no anarchist at all, but according to this test, I'm a strong anarcho-capitalist.

But that's mostly because I think anarchism and communism are basically bullshit and that the groups that hop onto their coat tails are wrongheaded and ignorant.

surprise, surprise


You scored as Anarcho-Communist.

Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.

Anarcho-Communist - 85%
Anarcho-Syndicalist - 75%
Anarcha-Feminist - 45%
Anarcho-Primitivist - 35%
Christian Anarchist - 20%
Anarcho-Capitalist - 15%

Anarcho-communist.

But I don't like the questions dealing with whether the workers or society should own the means of production; the best answer is "both," in concert, with worker self-management on the factory level tied to community-based grass-roots democratic institutions.

Anarcho-Communist 55%

Anarcho-Syndicalist 50%

Anarcha-Feminist 40%

Anarcho-Primitivist 15%

Anarcho-Capitalist 0%

Christian Anarchist 0%

But I don't like the questions dealing with whether the workers or society should own the means of production; the best answer is "both," in concert, with worker self-management on the factory level tied to community-based grass-roots democratic institutions.

yeah, i always have that issue with this particular test

But that's mostly because I think anarchism...[is] basically bullshit

We are in agreement regarding communism. However, I used to feel similarly about anarchism, until I read the following by Pierre Joseph Proudhon:

"[Anarchy is] a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon )

Anarchy is explicitly defined as a form of minarchist, decentralist, law enforcing government. I had always supported minarchism and decentralization, even while supporting the continued existance of government as being necessary for keeping order and protecting individual liberties. According to the definition above, "anarchism" is not in conflict with those values, but is those values.

It has given me something to think about, anyway.

You scored as Anarcho-Communist.

Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.

Anarcho-Communist 90%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 80%
Anarcha-Feminist 70%
Christian Anarchist 30%
Anarcho-Primitivist 10%
Anarcho-Capitalist 0%

That's interesting, I thought I was more of a primitivist than that.

But I don't like the questions dealing with whether the workers or society should own the means of production; the best answer is "both," in concert, with worker self-management on the factory level tied to community-based grass-roots democratic institutions.Ideally I would agree, however if the community is set up via Proudhon's style of anarchism, I would choose the workers owning the means of production as opposed to the community.

and now i steal stuff from duke:


You scored as Anarcho-Loser. Anarcho-Loserism is based on living in your mom's basement at least into your early forties and asking for donations to support your website so you can buy a car and a new laptop without having to work for a living. It is perhaps the most disastrous development within the anarchist movement.

......

Anarcho-Loser
....................100%........

Anarcho-Mama's Boy
....................90%........

Anarcho-Freak
....................90%........

Anarcho-Retardo
....................60%........

Anarcho-Cheeseball
....................55%........

Anarcho-Diddler
....................15%..........

You scored as Anarcho-Capitalist.

Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Capitalist
80%
Anarcho-Syndicalist
55%
Christian Anarchist
50%
Anarcho-Communist
30%
Anarcho-Primitivist
30%
Anarcha-Feminist
25%
It's all about the individual. Goverment has some purpose (police/fire/rescue to protect and serve the people and military to defend against any external threat) but in most other matters it needs to keep out. People don't need governments so much as governments need people. People should not serve governments, governments should serve the people.

That's interesting, I thought I was more of a primitivist than that.

I tend to reject the prescriptive conclusions of anarcho-primitivism while recognizing the truth of many of their observations regarding modern society.

Ideally I would agree, however if the community is set up via Proudhon's style of anarchism, I would choose the workers owning the means of production as opposed to the community.

I thought you were against markets?

That aside, the problem as I see it is the implications of the private ownership and allocation of capital. If the workers wholly own and control a factory that they've contributed capital to themselves, how would they hire? For a profit, in which case the possibility of exploitation would come into play, or on equal terms? If they're hiring on equal terms, why would they hire? It would not improve their economic condition, certainly not if the potential employee does not have access to capital to contribute.

The solution is to have social ownership of the means of production, social allocation of capital, and social guarantees of employment, with the maintenance, at least for the most part, of direct worker control over most decisions that affect them. Such a solution would also ensure that the "winners" on the market (if there is one) would not become overprivileged and that the losers would not become desperate.

There would still be a need to enforce some sort of consumer accountability over the producers. That can be done through limited market mechanisms, through social oversight, or through some combination of the two.

It's all about the individual. Goverment has some purpose (police/fire/rescue to protect and serve the people and military to defend against any external threat) but in most other matters it needs to keep out. People don't need governments so much as governments need people. People should not serve governments, governments should serve the people.This is an anarchist thread, why are you talking about governments?

I tend to reject the prescriptive conclusions of anarcho-primitivism while recognizing the truth of many of their observations regarding modern society.Yes, same here. It's not technology that's the problem, it's how it's used that's the problem.

I thought you were against markets?I am, however, the community may not be.

That aside, the problem as I see it is the implications of the private ownership and allocation of capital. If the workers wholly own and control a factory that they've contributed capital to themselves, how would they hire? For a profit, in which case the possibility of exploitation would come into play, or on equal terms? If they're hiring on equal terms, why would they hire? It would not improve their economic condition, certainly not if the potential employee does not have access to capital to contribute.The potential employee would have labor to contribute. It's conceivable that the new employee could increase the revenue that a company brings in to a greater degree than the employee would receive in compensation.

We are in agreement regarding communism. However, I used to feel similarly about anarchism, until I read the following by Pierre Joseph Proudhon:

"[Anarchy is] a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon )

Anarchy is explicitly defined as a form of minarchist, decentralist, law enforcing government. I had always supported minarchism and decentralization, even while supporting the continued existance of government as being necessary for keeping order and protecting individual liberties. According to the definition above, "anarchism" is not in conflict with those values, but is those values.

It has given me something to think about, anyway.

But the nature of "anarchy" is the disolution of all heierarchy within society. That means getting rid of the border between those who control, and those who don't. While that sounds good in theory, in practice it creates a system where the powerful rise unhindered to the top.

Minarchism I'm a big fan of. I certainly don't beleive in giving the government any more power than is necessary to prevent the abuse of an anarchistic system, but anarchism itself is just stripping away one form of heierarchy so that another will form. The thing is that the "system" which exists has been honed for years so that it is not abused, and it can further be reformed to be better. To return to anarchy and have that system try to rebuild itself would take 6000 years (or, alternatively, 2 weeks when people get bored/sick of it).

This is an anarchist thread, why are you talking about governments?

Perhaps for a similar reason (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11580956&postcount=6) as I do.

Perhaps for a similar reason (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11580956&postcount=6) as I do.Well, it's possible, but I didn't get that impression. I apologize to Dosuun if that was the reason.

Yes, same here. It's not technology that's the problem, it's how it's used that's the problem.

I would go further than that. The effects of technology on our society, and the disconnect between our modern technological societies and human nature, is a severe problem, and one that can only be mitigated to a very limited degree within the structure of any post-industrial society.

That said, it has also brought about immense benefits.

The potential employee would have labor to contribute. It's conceivable that the new employee could increase the revenue that a company brings in to a greater degree than the employee would receive in compensation.

Well, that amounts to one of two things.

If you mean that the new employee would be above average and would thus generate more revenue than the egalitarian payscale would give her in compensation, that may be true, but such an employee would not be the norm (and if you permit some sort of labor market, such arrangements may not be possible.)

If you mean that it would be typical for a new employee to generate more revenue than she receives in compensation, that is simply hiring for a profit.

This is an anarchist thread, why are you talking about governments?
I was saying that I don't like governments and think that society can mostly get along without them. A society largely without rulers; is that not the definition of anarchy?

I would go further than that. The effects of technology on our society, and the disconnect between our modern technological societies and human nature, is a severe problem, and one that can only be mitigated to a very limited degree within the structure of any post-industrial society.

That said, it has also brought about immense benefits.Yes, I can agree with this.

Well, that amounts to one of two things.

If you mean that the new employee would be above average and would thus generate more revenue than the egalitarian payscale would give her in compensation, that may be true, but such an employee would not be the norm (and if you permit some sort of labor market, such arrangements may not be possible.)

If you mean that it would be typical for a new employee to generate more revenue than she receives in compensation, that is simply hiring for a profit.And if it's typical that an employee generates more revenue than compensation received, but would receive less money working somewhere else, where is the exploitation?

I was saying that I don't like governments and think that society can mostly get along without them. A society largely without rulers; is that not the definition of anarchy?I society completely without rulers (or alternatively, where everyone is a ruler) is the definition of anarchy. I can agree with your first sentence.

But the nature of "anarchy" is the disolution of all heierarchy within society.


It is my understanding that the desire to destroy hierarchy really amounts to nothing more than a massive and profound decentralization of power toward the individual. Sure, ultimately some level of power and hierarchy will still exist, but the idea is to make it as small and as close to the individual as possible; essentially very pronounced minarchism.

Ideally, everyone is on the same footing when it comes to directing society. There is no one individual, or small group thereof, who can say "this is the way it's going to be, period." No ruler, not no rules.


While that sounds good in theory, in practice it creates a system where the powerful rise unhindered to the top.


I have yet to discover a system of social organization employed by homo sapiens sapiens that isn't prone to this danger.

And if it's typical that an employee generates more revenue than compensation received, but would receive less money working somewhere else, where is the exploitation?

"Better than the other alternative" does not translate into "good," as those who extol the capitalist labor market all too often forget.

The exploitation lies in the fact that she is being denied equal treatment for arbitrary reasons - her position in the class system of the workplace. The surplus revenue created by the labor of the employee is granted to those who hired her simply because they happened to be there first, and decisions regarding employment were put into their hands.

I society completely without rulers (or alternatively, where everyone is a ruler) is the definition of anarchy. I can agree with your first sentence.
Well I'm more of a libertarian than an anarchist. At least we can agree about something though.

"Better than the other alternative" does not translate into "good," as those who extol the capitalist labor market all too often forget.

The exploitation lies in the fact that she is being denied equal treatment for arbitrary reasons - her position in the class system of the workplace. You have re-created an essentially capitalist class system. The surplus revenue created by the labor of the employee is granted to those who hired her simply because they happened to be there first, and decisions regarding employment were put into their hands.She isn't being denied equal treatment; she is receiving the same treatment as everyone else in the company.
The surplus revenue created by her labor doesn't go to those who hired her simply because they were there first, but rather that the surplus labor wouldn't have been possible without the rest of the people in the company. This is different than a capitalist system because the nature of ownership means that there are barriers to someone starting their own company on an unused piece of land.

With all of that said, I don't support this type of system, however the community might.

Well I'm more of a libertarian than an anarchist. At least we can agree about something though.Oh, well that's fine, then. I thought from your original post that you were implying that there would always be a government, not that you prefer a government, however small that government may be. My mistake.

She isn't being denied equal treatment; she is receiving the same treatment as everyone else in the company.
The surplus revenue created by her labor doesn't go to those who hired her simply because they were there first, but rather that the surplus labor wouldn't have been possible without the rest of the people in the company. This is different than a capitalist system because the nature of ownership means that there are barriers to someone starting their own company on an unused piece of land.

I see - so it's a reward for the contribution of capital? But the nature of private ownership of the means of production, at least in a society with limited access to capital, leads to exploitation; anyone who is not an owner is dependent on the owners for employment, and is thus vulnerable to their exploitation.

It's true that theoretically such a person can farm on unused land, but where will she find the equipment, or the training? How will she compete with farms that are far more productive because of their greater access to capital?

With all of that said, I don't support this type of system, however the community might.

I certainly don't, either. If the community does want to implement such a system, I suppose they would have that right, as long as they permitted free association to their members. Then again, I have the same opinion of communities deciding to embrace anarcho-capitalism.

I see - so it's a reward for the contribution of capital? But the nature of private ownership of the means of production, at least in a society with limited access to capital, leads to exploitation; anyone who is not an owner is dependent on the owners for employment, and is thus vulnerable to their exploitation.It's more of a reward for labor. The company is built already, so the new hire doesn't have to expend the labor to build it herself.

It's true that theoretically such a person can farm on unused land, but where will she find the equipment, or the training? How will she compete with farms that are far more productive because of their greater access to capital?It depends on what she is farming for - subsistence, or profit. With that said, you outline perhaps the biggest problem with mutualism.

I certainly don't, either. If the community does want to implement such a system, I suppose they would have that right, as long as they permitted free association to their members. Then again, I have the same opinion of communities deciding to embrace anarcho-capitalism.Yes, my thoughts exactly.

It's more of a reward for labor. The company is built already, so the new hire doesn't have to expend the labor to build it herself.

Well, in a mutualist society the workers who own the factory could also have bought it, or paid for others to build it.

It depends on what she is farming for - subsistence, or profit.

It doesn't matter. Even with land, she will not be self-sufficient; she will need to sell the product of her labor to maintain her equipment and gain access to necessities that farming doesn't give her (say, health care.)

With that said, you outline perhaps the biggest problem with mutualism.

There are others. It doesn't address the issue of externalities, doesn't eliminate inequality of opportunity, and assumes that the free market will bring about positive results.

Surprise, surprise, I'm not a commie. Is it just me who dislikes tests where you can already spot the result by looking at the questions?

Anarcho-Capitalist 100%
Anarcha-Feminist 35%
Christian Anarchist 20%
Anarcho-Communist 20%
Anarcho-Primitivist 15%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 5%

Is it just me who dislikes tests where you can already spot the result by looking at the questions?

For tests of political ideologies, I don't see how it's avoidable.

For tests of political ideologies, I don't see how it's avoidable.
Well, one's gotta be smart about it. That's why I'm not making random tests. :p

You scored as Anarcha-Feminist.



Anarcha-feminists put a strong emphasis on the importance of patriachy, arguing that all forms of hierachy can be traced back to man's domination over woman. Although associated with the 1960s, the movement has its roots in the theories of Emma Goldman and Voltarine DeCleyre.

Anarcha-Feminist

90%
Anarcho-Syndicalist

75%
Anarcho-Primitivist

60%
Anarcho-Communist

55%
Anarcho-Capitalist

40%
Christian Anarchist

20%

Anarcho-Primitivist 95%
Anarcho-Communist 80%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 70%
Anarcha-Feminist 40%
Anarcho-Capitalist 30%
Christian Anarchist 15%

In reality, I am more of an anarcho-communist than a primitivist. Regardless, I'd support most anarchic movements.

Practically all the self-labeled "anarchists" that I know who are around my age (17... just) are self-centered scenesters obsessed with their cell phones, their iPods, and how long they've been vegan for. :(

I had 4 results, they are:
You scored as Anarcho-Communist.

Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.
You scored as Anarcha-Feminist.

Anarcha-feminists put a strong emphasis on the importance of patriachy, arguing that all forms of hierachy can be traced back to man's domination over woman. Although associated with the 1960s, the movement has its roots in the theories of Emma Goldman and Voltarine DeCleyre.
You scored as Anarcho-Syndicalist.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labour movement. Syndicalists believe in workers' solidarity, self-management and direct action. This movement is most commonly associated with France and key thinkers include Rudolf Rocker.
You scored as Anarcho-Primitivist.

Anarcho-Primitivism questions not only the state and capitalism but all the institutions which make up 'civilisation' including technology. It is perhaps the most recent development within the anarchist movement and key thinkers include John Zerzan.
Anarcho-Syndicalist
100%
Anarcho-Communist
100%
Anarcha-Feminist
100%
Anarcho-Primitivist
100%
Christian Anarchist
40%
Anarcho-Capitalist
0%

Anarcho-communist.

But I don't like the questions dealing with whether the workers or society should own the means of production; the best answer is "both," in concert, with worker self-management on the factory level tied to community-based grass-roots democratic institutions.

'mmm, I agree. I had to sit in the middle of a few questions.


You scored as Anarcho-Communist.

Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.

Anarcho-Communist 75%

Anarcho-Syndicalist 65%

Anarcha-Feminist 50%

Anarcho-Primitivist 45%

Christian Anarchist 10%

Anarcho-Capitalist 0%


I suppose that's fairly accurate.

Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Capitalist

90%
Anarcho-Communist

85%
Christian Anarchist

80%
Anarcho-Syndicalist

75%
Anarcho-Primitivist

70%
Anarcha-Feminist

60%

I'm drunk, I didn't read past question 2, now please excuse me, I need to puke.

http://images.quizfarm.com/1116588784anarchocapitalism.jpg

Anarcho-Capitalist 95%
Anarcha-Feminist 40%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 30%
Anarcho-Primitivist 30%
Christian Anarchist 20%
Anarcho-Communist 0%

Anarcho-Capitalist 85%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 70%
Anarcha-Feminist 35%
Anarcho-Primitivist 25%
Anarcho-Communist 10%
Christian Anarchist 5%

Practically all the self-labeled "anarchists" that I know who are around my age (17... just) are self-centered scenesters obsessed with their cell phones, their iPods, and how long they've been vegan for. :(

I lol'd.

anarchists are unrealistic, so are democratic communists. Theres just no point in me taking a test to see how anarchic I am. Without order there is no society. And electing people to deal with our economy and our money, isn't very reassuring to my needs. Not only that, why would I perform a job such as a computer engineer, and still get as much as someone who works in construction. It's people who deserve high paying jobs who want high paying jobs for their work, why on earth would they give half their paycheck to someone who didn't give as much time and work to becoming who you are. This is why anarchists, and communists are unrealistic.

Without order there is no society.

Most anarchists, including those who post here on NS General, would agree 100% with that statement. Those that do so advocate the elimination of arbitrary/unnecessary hierarchy and authority, while supporting peace, order, and the enforcement thereof, if necessary.

(edit: in the "circle-A" symbol used to represent anarchism, the circle is actually the letter "O." Guess what it stands for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Circle-A). :D )


Not only that, why would I perform a job such as a computer engineer, and still get as much as someone who works in construction.


Under forms of anarchism that employ free and competitive market systems, this most likely is not the case.


It's people who deserve high paying jobs who want high paying jobs for their work, why on earth would they give half their paycheck to someone who didn't give as much time and work to becoming who you are.


Because the individual in question chooses to do so.

As far as I can tell, the concepts of involuntary redistribution and anarchism are incompatible. If anarchism is based on non-coercion, non-violence, and voluntary cooperation, then an individual cannot be placed under any involuntary obligation to give up any part of his labor (paycheck) to another. Others in society may choose to not associate with (and withhold the goods and services produced by said society from) an individual who doesn't give voluntarily, but, of course, this is also their right.

Anarcha-Feminist 85%
Anarcho-Communist 70%
Anarcho-Capitalist 50%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 40%
Anarcho-Primitivist 30%
Christian Anarchist 5%

Haha! Looks like im an evil femmy:rolleyes:Yay!

You scored as Anarcho-Capitalist.



Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Capitalist

65%
Anarcha-Feminist

60%
Anarcho-Syndicalist

55%
Christian Anarchist

30%
Anarcho-Communist

25%
Anarcho-Primitivist

25%

100% anarcho-capitalist.

After all, we're the only real anarchists. The rest are collectivist, which require a government, or chaos, which is what "anarcho-primitivism" is.

(knows how that will make all the collectivists go rabid-foaming, but doesn't care)

You scored as Anarcho-Capitalist.



Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Capitalist

75%

Anarcho-Communist

65%

Christian Anarchist

60%

Anarcho-Primitivist

50%

Anarcha-Feminist

50%

Anarcho-Syndicalist

20%

You scored as Anarcho-Capitalist.

Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Capitalist

95%
Anarcho-Syndicalist

60%
Anarcha-Feminist

60%
Anarcho-Primitivist

25%
Christian Anarchist

5%
Anarcho-Communist

0%

100% Anarcho-Capitalist
0% Anarcho-Communist


What a shocker.

Hmmm...I seem to have got a different one from everyone else thus far:
You scored as Anarcho-Syndicalist.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the anarchist wing of the labour movement. Syndicalists believe in workers' solidarity, self-management and direct action. This movement is most commonly associated with France and key thinkers include Rudolf Rocker.

Anarcho-Communist 45%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 45%
Anarcho-Primitivist 40%
Anarcho-Capitalist 30%
Anarcha-Feminist 25%
Christian Anarchist 20%

http://images.quizfarm.com/1116585774syndicalism.png

No idea who Rudolf Rocker is/was. I wonder if any of his followers ever called him 'Office Rocker"?

Well, in a mutualist society the workers who own the factory could also have bought it, or paid for others to build it.Yes, I suppose that is conceivable; there's nothing about mutualism that implies equal profits, simply an equal reward for labor.

It doesn't matter. Even with land, she will not be self-sufficient; she will need to sell the product of her labor to maintain her equipment and gain access to necessities that farming doesn't give her (say, health care.)Conceivably she would be able to learn how to be a mechanic and a doctor in addition to a farmer; of course, this is difficult and nearly impossible to do.

There are others. It doesn't address the issue of externalities, doesn't eliminate inequality of opportunity, and assumes that the free market will bring about positive results.Yes, those are also important issues, too.

(edit: in the "circle-A" symbol used to represent anarchism, the circle is actually the letter "O." Guess what it stands for. :D)Heh, SaboCat is on there (listed as black cat).

You scored as Anarcho-Capitalist.



Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcha-Feminist 70% DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY!!!!!
Anarcho-Capitalist 70%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 65%
Anarcho-Communist 25%
Anarcho-Primitivist 10%
Christian Anarchist 10%

Anarcha-Feminist is a new one on me, but I do believe an anarchist society would completely eliminate gender roles.

Was I the only one completely blindsided by the question: "Property is not theft, it is a natural right."? I completely disagree that it is a natural right, but I also do believe that not only can it be legitimized, but that the phrase "Property is theft", is self-contradictory nonsense.

You scored as Anarcha-Feminist.

Anarcha-feminists put a strong emphasis on the importance of patriachy, arguing that all forms of hierachy can be traced back to man's domination over woman. Although associated with the 1960s, the movement has its roots in the theories of Emma Goldman and Voltarine DeCleyre.

Anarcha-Feminist 70%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 55%
Anarcho-Capitalist 50%
Anarcho-Communist 45%
Anarcho-Primitivist 25%
Christian Anarchist 10%

I'm not sure where the 10% Christian Anarchist came from, though.

I'm not sure where the 10% Christian Anarchist came from, though.

I quite literally have no respect for christianity (or any other religion) and I got 10% as well.

I also am not much of a feminist and got 70% on that.

I used to think I was an anarchist. This thread has convinced me that I must be someting else. Maybe "free-thinker"?

I quite literally have no respect for christianity (or any other religion) and I got 10% as well.

I also am not much of a feminist and got 70% on that.
Hmm ... I admit I wasn't wearing my tin-foil helmet when I took the quiz (they don't like it when I wear that around the office, go figure), so maybe ...

Nah, probably they throw in 10% for your least score because the guy who wrote the program behind it couldn't figure out how to handle a zero in the mix.

Hmm ... I admit I wasn't wearing my tin-foil helmet when I took the quiz (they don't like it when I wear that around the office, go figure), so maybe ...

Nah, probably they throw in 10% for your least score because the guy who wrote the program behind it couldn't figure out how to handle a zero in the mix.I have a zero for anarcho-capitalist.

I am strongly and fiercly anti-Anarchism,, but I took the test, and im 80% Anrcho-Capitalist and 0% Communist and Syndicalist

There is really only one "kind" of anarchism, and it is the umbrella anarchism.

It is called "anarcho-waaaahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh," where "waaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh" is the crying noise a little kid makes.

the phrase "Property is theft", is self-contradictory nonsense.

Unless you understand it in the sense Proudhon used it.

In the book, Proudhon most famously declared that “property is theft”. Proudhon believed that the common conception of property conflated two distinct components which, once identified, demonstrated the difference between property used to further tyranny and property used to protect liberty. He argued that the result of an individual's labor which is currently occupied or used is a legitimate form of property. Thus, he opposed unused land being regarded as property, believing that land can only be rightfully possessed by use or occupation (which he called "possession"). As an extension of his belief that legitimate property (possession) was the result of labor and occupation, he argued against such institutions as interest on loans and rent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Property%3F

As far as I can tell, the concepts of involuntary redistribution and anarchism are incompatible.

If I thought so, my Marxist leanings would be much stronger.

If anarchism is based on non-coercion, non-violence, and voluntary cooperation,

It's based on a lack of hierarchy and on free association. Plenty of anarchists have advocated violence as a means. "Non-coercion" is either false, because it ignores that people who try to impose their will on others will be coerced into halting their actions, or it is meaningless, amounting to "no coercion we don't like" through terminology that defines away the necessary coercion in an anarchist society.

then an individual cannot be placed under any involuntary obligation to give up any part of his labor (paycheck) to another.

Except his labor is not the same thing as his paycheck. His paycheck represents property, not labor. It's true that in an anarchist society he would have the choice of whether to labor or not to labor, and would be able to labor elsewhere if he made that choice, but it is not true that some sort of natural right to property by labor would need to be respected. An anarchist society could have some sort of compulsory taxation as long as it had non-compulsory and freely associated labor.

anarchists are unrealistic, so are democratic communists. Theres just no point in me taking a test to see how anarchic I am. Without order there is no society.

The question is not whether or not a society has order. The question is who makes the order - an elite empowered by hierarchical systems of organization, or individuals participating in free and egalitarian associations.

And electing people to deal with our economy and our money, isn't very reassuring to my needs.

Who would you prefer to deal "with our economy and our money"?

Not only that, why would I perform a job such as a computer engineer, and still get as much as someone who works in construction.

Because you enjoy computer engineering more than construction?

It's people who deserve high paying jobs who want high paying jobs for their work, why on earth would they give half their paycheck to someone who didn't give as much time and work to becoming who you are.

The fact that they are high-paying is an aspect of our current society. It is not natural law, and does not mean that they actually deserve such high levels of compensation.

This is why anarchists, and communists are unrealistic.

Except that anarchism certainly doesn't require precisely equal renumeration for labor, and you can remain within the general framework of communism with limited wage differentiation.

There is really only one "kind" of anarchism, and it is the umbrella anarchism.

It is called "anarcho-waaaahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh," where "waaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh" is the crying noise a little kid makes.Wow, still got your blinders on? Ah, well, only you can remove them, and only if you want to.

Unless you understand it in the sense Proudhon used it.
Even when you do, it's still self-contradictory nonsense. Bohm-Bawerk nicely annihilates the idiotic idea of loans and rent being immoral/exploitative/whathaveyou.


It's based on a lack of hierarchy and on free association.
It's based on lack of a ruler/state.


Except his labor is not the same thing as his paycheck. His paycheck represents property, not labor. It's true that in an anarchist society he would have the choice of whether to labor or not to labor, and would be able to labor elsewhere if he made that choice, but it is not true that some sort of natural right to property by labor would need to be respected. An anarchist society could have some sort of compulsory taxation as long as it had non-compulsory and freely associated labor.
Compulsory taxation annihilates the idea of security of property.

Unless you understand it in the sense Proudhon used it.


Yes, people (mostly communists and capitalists, it seems) like to quote the "property is theft" line while forgetting (or conveniently ignoring) the fact that Proudhon also said that "property is freedom."


If I thought so, my Marxist leanings would be much stronger.


Explain further.


It's based on a lack of hierarchy and on free association. ..."Non-coercion" is either false, because it ignores that people who try to impose their will on others will be coerced into halting their actions...


I would recognize a distinction between the initiation of unjustified force (coercion; basically what current government does which anarchists object to), and legitimate self-defense. In this sense, non-coercion and non-violence seem to be necessary elements of any conception of "free association" (I could have been more precise in my original post, yes). One cannot force me to associate in anything against my will (assuming I have done nothing to warrant having force used against me in self-defense) and still claim to promote freedom.


Except his labor is not the same thing as his paycheck. His paycheck represents property, not labor.


His labor is his property, and a paycheck (and money) is just a more convienient method or tool for trading said property with other free individuals/laborers.


An anarchist society could have some sort of compulsory taxation as long as it had non-compulsory and freely associated labor.


"Compulsory" only to the extent that I am allowed to leave the society at will, thereby choosing to stop paying said taxation at any given time (which in reality makes said taxation voluntary in nature). Whereas current governments are more likely to try to track me and/or my assets down and take the tax by force, whether I like it or not.

The rest are collectivist, which require a government...


How will an anarcho-capitalist society keep order? Competition among various organizations that provide security and other services on the market. Assuming for the moment that such a system is viable, what exactly prevents a "collectivist" society from essentially following the same or similar model?

Is collectivism involuntary by definition? (any number of past and present cooperative, mutual/benevolent/fraternal/friendly socieities, charities, religious organizations, non-profits, and other entities and structures suggest otherwise)

Yes, people (mostly communists and capitalists, it seems) like to quote the "property is theft" line while forgetting (or conveniently ignoring) the fact that Proudhon also said that "property is freedom."

The distinction between personal property and private property is one that is far too often ignored.

Explain further.

Just that a typical Marxist argument against left-anarchism is that anarchists won't use force, if necessary, to subdue the capitalist system of exploitation. The accusation is a straw man.

I would recognize a distinction between the initiation of unjustified force (coercion; basically what current government does which anarchists object to), and legitimate self-defense.

The problem is the word "unjustified." A statist does not think that the use of force by states is "unjustified," and some anarchists would deny that any force is ever justified; you have crafted a word that means whatever what you want it to, and is thus meaningless. I tend to use "coercion" without any moral element. "Legitimate self-defense" is coercive; it coerces others into not violating your rights. That does not, of course, mean that it is wrong.

In this sense, non-coercion and non-violence seem to be necessary elements of any conception of "free association" (I could have been more precise in my original post, yes). One cannot force me to associate in anything against my will (assuming I have done nothing to warrant having force used against me in self-defense) and still claim to promote freedom.

I would disagree with that. There are circumstances when it is morally appropriate to violate a person's right to free association even without a self-defense justification; in order to protect more essential freedoms, for instance. I happen to think that such circumstances can be effectively minimized, which is why I remain an anarchist despite thinking so.

His labor is his property,

Okay, but I was talking about material property.

and a paycheck (and money) is just a more convienient method or tool for trading said property with other free individuals/laborers.

Who get their material property from where? Exchange requires a system of property prior to it.

"Compulsory" only to the extent that I am allowed to leave the society at will, thereby choosing to stop paying said taxation at any given time (which in reality makes said taxation voluntary in nature).

Sure. But it is questionable how much material property the community would permit you to take with you.

Whereas current governments are more likely to try to track me and/or my assets down and take the tax by force, whether I like it or not.

To the extent that it is the assets, they may have a claim. Your property is not you.

Anarcho-Capitalist 100%

Not surprising. I've been flirting with the idea of anarcho-capitalism for a while, but I just think it would end up creating a state once more. Still, I rather like the concept.

Christian Anarchist 60%

I can see this, being conservative in my character.

Anarcho-Primitivist 20%

I don't know how I got anything at all in such hippy nonsense.

Anarcho-Communist 0%

Anarcho-communist, like stupid genius. Not surprised.

Anarcho-Syndicalist 0%

The above, with a different flavor. Again, not surprised.

Anarcha-Feminist 0%

They can't even get Greek grammar correct (Anarcha? They're just being cute), much less have a coherent ideology. 0%, and thank God.

Anarcho-Primitivist 20%

I don't know how I got anything at all in such hippy nonsense.


"being conservative in my character"

that's how

"being conservative in my character"

that's how

Ah, alright. 80% hippy nonsense, then. :D

Wow, still got your blinders on?

it something slightly worse than mere blinders. ng has some serious issues with any talk of self government and free association.

How will an anarcho-capitalist society keep order?
Private security services.


Competition among various organizations that provide security and other services on the market. Assuming for the moment that such a system is viable, what exactly prevents a "collectivist" society from essentially following the same or similar model?
They eschew a market.


Is collectivism involuntary by definition?
From a politico-economic standpoint--yes.

The distinction between personal property and private property is one that is far too often ignored.
There is no such distinction. It's a false dichotomy created by people who have no grasp of economics.




I would disagree with that. There are circumstances when it is morally appropriate to violate a person's right to free association even without a self-defense justification; in order to protect more essential freedoms, for instance.
Such as?


Okay, but I was talking about material property.
There's such a thing as immaterial property?


Who get their material property from where? Exchange requires a system of property prior to it.
And that can't be established?


Sure. But it is questionable how much material property the community would permit you to take with you.
Would permit. How interesting.


To the extent that it is the assets, they may have a claim. Your property is not you.
You are your own property.

But I don't like the questions dealing with whether the workers or society should own the means of production; the best answer is "both," in concert, with worker self-management on the factory level tied to community-based grass-roots democratic institutions.I was bothered by those questions as well, but for a different reason. Because I oppose the division of labor, I do not conceive any difference between "the workers" and "the community."

I was bothered by those questions as well, but for a different reason. Because I oppose the division of labor, I do not conceive any difference between "the workers" and "the community."
Division of labor allows for specialization, which allows for higher output, which allows for more items to be made. So by being against the division of labor, you are for low-output autarky.

I was bothered by those questions as well, but for a different reason. Because I oppose the division of labor, I do not conceive any difference between "the workers" and "the community."

How would you reconcile that with the need for specialized skills in a modern economy? What if certain people prefer to do certain tasks over others? And how would you deal with differences in talent for certain tasks?

Furthermore, even without the division of labor there would still be a distinction between those who work and those who do not, due to age, disability, etc.

Yes, same here. It's not technology that's the problem, it's how it's used that's the problem.You say you agree with many of the criticism of anarcho-primitivism, but I hardly see how that can be true if you accept the "neutral technology" thesis.

The central tenets of primitivism are:

1) Divided labor is fundamentally alienating and oppressive.
2) Therefore, ALL technology that cannot be developed, understood, produced and maintained by individuals without socially coordinated divided labor has to go.

In other words, it's not so much how you use technology that's the problem; rather, it's how you produce it. The primitivist argument is that divided labor is technicized labor: the individual her/himself becomes part of the social machine. "We don't use technology, technology uses us," that sort of thing.

But the nature of "anarchy" is the disolution of all heierarchy within society.Right.That means getting rid of the border between those who control, and those who don't. Right. While that sounds good in theory, in practice it creates a system where the powerful rise unhindered to the top.Nope. In an anarchist society, there is no "top". How can anyone "rise unhindered" to a position that doesn't exist? First they would have to create the position itself, and it is precisely this move that anarchism resists.

I would go further than that. The effects of technology on our society, and the disconnect between our modern technological societies and human nature, is a severe problem, and one that can only be mitigated to a very limited degree within the structure of any post-industrial society.I don't even think it can be mitigated.That said, it has also brought about immense benefits.Really? Like what?

And bear in mind that when you respond, you'll need to explain to me how everyone benefits. Take a random person from anywhere on the globe today, and convince me that her/his life is likely to be better than that of a randomly selected individual, say, twenty thousand years ago.

Also bear in mind that your answer must conform to the findings of contemporary archaeology that the gatherer-hunter lifestyle was generally one of good health and leisure.

I don't even think it can be mitigated.Really? Like what?

And bear in mind that when you respond, you'll need to explain to me how everyone benefits. Take a random person from anywhere on the globe today, and convince me that her/his life is likely to be better than that of a randomly selected individual, say, twenty thousand years ago.

Also bear in mind that your answer must conform to the findings of contemporary archaeology that the gatherer-hunter lifestyle was generally one of good health and leisure.
And they lived how long?

And they were able to cope with what diseases?

In fact, how many diseases had they eradicated?

How large of a population was it?

Division of labor allows for specialization, which allows for higher output, which allows for more items to be made. So by being against the division of labor, you are for low-output autarky.Yeah, so?

Yeah, so?
So if you like toiling from sunup-to-sundown, barely eking out a subsistence-level of existence, then by all means: implement what you propose.

How would you reconcile that with the need for specialized skills in a modern economy?I wouldn't. I would do away with the modern economy. What if certain people prefer to do certain tasks over others?In a society without divided labor, there would not be "certain tasks" over "others"... Different tasks only appear when the social product is something that requires them.

And how would you deal with differences in talent for certain tasks?If the "tasks" involved are things like gathering food and sweeping out the (temporary?) den, I doubt any differences in "talent" amount to much about which to be concerned.

Furthermore, even without the division of labor there would still be a distinction between those who work and those who do not, due to age, disability, etc.That's fine. That's part of the life process... how can that be alienating? Quite the reverse.

Serious anarcha-feminism for me, but then I already knew that.

And they lived how long?Life-expectancy in the post-industrial nations has only recently returned to what it was in prehistory. Medicine took that long to catch up to the horrifying things civilization does to our bodies.

And they were able to cope with what diseases?I think the appropriate question is, "they suffered from what diseases?" The answer is, "very few, being that disease developed in concert with civilization." Most human diseases were contracted from contact with domesticated animals--this being the primary reason that European disease so easily decimated the population of North America.

In fact, how many diseases had they eradicated?Again, how many diseases had appeared?

How large of a population was it?Very small, which is the way it should be. And contrary to popular opinion, modern science has discovered that agriculture did not develop as a "response" to a population "explosion." Rather, the causal relation goes the other way.

So if you like toiling from sunup-to-sundown, barely eking out a subsistence-level of existence, then by all means: implement what you propose.You must have missed the part where I directed you to the scientific evidence: the gatherer-hunter lifestyle was one of great leisure and play. Gatherer-hunters did not know the meaning of "toil" as we know it.

I don't even think it can be mitigated.

There is nothing stopping us from consciously trying to reconcile society at its present technological level with human nature. I don't claim to know the best way to do it, but to write off the possibility entirely seems extreme.

Really? Like what?

Health care is the clearest example. While it's true that much of modern medicine is a response to health problems that modern society is responsible for, it has surpassed that point, at least in developed countries, leading to human beings who live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate than hunter-gatherers ever did. It is true that most people in the world do not have access to the most advanced forms of health care, but that is not technology's fault, it is the fault of an unjust social order that can be overthrown even within the present technological framework.

And bear in mind that when you respond, you'll need to explain to me how everyone benefits. Take a random person from anywhere on the globe today, and convince me that her/his life is likely to be better than that of a randomly selected individual, say, twenty thousand years ago.

That is not exactly the question. Even if the quality of life of hunter-gatherers twenty thousand years ago was better than the quality of life of humanity today, that does not mean that our best course of action now is to attempt to revert to that state. We may end up even worse off - through, say, mass starvation - or we may be missing an opportunity to achieve a society that is better off than ours and that of human beings twenty thousand years ago.

Also bear in mind that your answer must conform to the findings of contemporary archaeology that the gatherer-hunter lifestyle was generally one of good health and leisure.

I'm aware of such findings.

I wouldn't. I would do away with the modern economy.

I wasn't aware you were advancing a primitivist critique at that point.

In a society without divided labor, there would not be "certain tasks" over "others"... Different tasks only appear when the social product is something that requires them.

If the "tasks" involved are things like gathering food and sweeping out the (temporary?) den, I doubt any differences in "talent" amount to much about which to be concerned.

Even in a primitive society, there are different tasks: gathering food, hunting, child-rearing, making tools, etc. There are definitely differences in talent for such tasks.

That's fine. That's part of the life process... how can that be alienating? Quite the reverse.

I didn't say it was alienating. I was pointing out that you would still end up with a distinction between the workers and the community for that reason.

There is nothing stopping us from consciously trying to reconcile society at its present technological level with human nature. I don't claim to know the best way to do it, but to write off the possibility entirely seems extreme.If you can find a way to make computers without someone being in the mines, maybe. Maybe. But it seems rather extreme indeed to believe that all of "this" can be preserved without someone having to suffer for it. Nevermind the questions of sustainability!

Health care is the clearest example. While it's true that much of modern medicine is a response to health problems that modern society is responsible for, it has surpassed that point, at least in developed countries, leading to human beings who live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate than hunter-gatherers ever did.Who cares if we live longer and fewer infants die, if life is miserable? Are we so afraid of death?

Socrates asserted that all of philosophy is "learning how to die." I disagree. I'm with Rousseau: every creature on Earth knows how to die except modern humans. And we know perfectly well how to die, until culture convinces us to be afraid of it. If the only thing this monstrosity has ever given us is a longer life, then I say good riddance. I would rather live well than live long.

That is not exactly the question. Even if the quality of life of hunter-gatherers twenty thousand years ago was better than the quality of life of humanity today, that does not mean that our best course of action now is to attempt to revert to that state. We may end up even worse off - through, say, mass starvation - or we may be missing an opportunity to achieve a society that is better off than ours and that of human beings twenty thousand years ago.Maybe... but the burden of proof is yours. Tell me how we can improve this society without destroying it, and I'll reconsider my opinion. Until then, it seems so monstrous to me as to preclude any possibility of healing without dismantling the whole thing.

Life-expectancy in the post-industrial nations has only recently returned to what it was in prehistory.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bullshit, and you know it. Lifespan in a hunter-gatherer society was somewhere around 35 TOPS.


I think the appropriate question is, "they suffered from what diseases?" The answer is, "very few, being that disease developed in concert with civilization."
Biologists disagree with you.


Very small, which is the way it should be.
Then do the world population a favor and kill yourself.


And contrary to popular opinion, modern science has discovered that agriculture did not develop as a "response" to a population "explosion." Rather, the causal relation goes the other way.
And who holds the opinion that agriculture developed as a response to a population explosion? Answer: no one at all.

You must have missed the part where I directed you to the scientific evidence:
You must have missed the part where you provided said evidence.

Even in a primitive society, there are different tasks: gathering food, hunting, child-rearing, making tools, etc. There are definitely differences in talent for such tasks.Surely. But I'm saying that the differences in skill will not be so compelling as to make a "better" society by having one person make tools, another rear children, and so on.

I am certainly stronger than my girlfriend, and she has better handwriting than I do... but not so much so that either of us would prefer that I ALWAYS carry everything or that she ALWAYS writes our notes. Both of us feel better about ourselves for carrying what we can carry and writing what we can write.

Of course, if there is something especially large or bulky to carry, I will volunteer. And if we need to send a beautifully scripted thank-you card, she will do it. But volunteering for these special tasks is not the same as a system of divided labor and specialization.

I didn't say it was alienating. I was pointing out that you would still end up with a distinction between the workers and the community for that reason.Perhaps, but I think it's a spurious distinction. Just as Aristotle calls people still "citizens" when they have retired from public life, I call these people still "workers" when they do the same. The distinctions that worry me are the ones between "miners" and "farmers" and "teachers" and "the community."

(Actually, I should not say that I call them all "workers"... I think that in a properly constituted society, there is no real concept of "work." People are simply "people," not "workers" and "non-workers.")

If you can find a way to make computers without someone being in the mines, maybe. Maybe. But it seems rather extreme indeed to believe that all of "this" can be preserved without someone having to suffer for it.

Why is it impossible to compensate someone sufficiently for "being in the mines"? What if that person consents?

Nevermind the questions of sustainability!

Now that is perhaps the best anarcho-primitivist argument. There's that lurking possibility of the human species destroying itself through environmental destruction. What is not clear to me, however, is that environmental devastation is intrinsic to advanced technology; it may only be intrinsic to a certain stage in technology, one we may already be escaping with the possibilities of clean, renewable energy. Furthermore, it is possible to get rid of unsustainable technologies while preserving the sustainable ones.

Who cares if we live longer and fewer infants die, if life is miserable? Are we so afraid of death?

Shouldn't we be? Death is the end of our freedom, of our being.

Socrates asserted that all of philosophy is "learning how to die." I disagree. I'm with Rousseau: every creature on Earth knows how to die except modern humans. And we know perfectly well how to die, until culture convinces us to be afraid of it. If the only thing this monstrosity has ever given us is a longer life, then I say good riddance. I would rather live well than live long.

And are you willing to make that choice for others? Like infants?

Maybe... but the burden of proof is yours. Tell me how we can improve this society without destroying it, and I'll reconsider my opinion.

A more egalitarian and non-hierarchical mode of social organization would be a start. Distributing the benefits of technologies like health care to everyone, slashing work hours, and distributing disliked tasks according to a fairer system than "whoever's most desperate" would help even further. Expanding personal freedom might help counter alienation.

Furthermore, even if a primitive society is preferable to the current one, how many people are you willing to kill in transition?

Until then, it seems so monstrous to me as to preclude any possibility of healing without dismantling the whole thing.

But some of the monstrous aspects of our society - like the class system - are not intrinsic to technological societies, they are simply elements of our social order that can (and should) be abolished.

You scored as Anarcho-Capitalist.



Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Capitalist 65%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 55%
Christian Anarchist 45%
Anarcho-Communist 40%
Anarcho-Primitivist 35%
Anarcha-Feminist 25%

Christian anarchism is one of the oldest anarchist philosophies, arguably dating back to the early Christian church. Christian anarchists emphasise non-violence and oppose the state as God is the only legitimate source of authority. Key thinkers include the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy.

Christian Anarchist

70%
Anarcho-Syndicalist

65%
Anarcho-Primitivist

65%
Anarcho-Communist

55%
Anarcho-Capitalist

55%
Anarcha-Feminist

55%

Probably the only one on this entire site, too.


Actually, I'm not really an anarchist of any kind. Not because I don't think it is a just system at it's basis, but because I think that there is no way to create it, or, if there is a way to create it, no way to sustain it, or, if there is a way to create and sustain it, there is no way to justify the probable huge wars it will go through just to create and sustain itself. The government that is currently in control in whatever country the anarchist revolution occurs in won't exactly support the anarchists, and there could be a full scale civil war. If so, the country's enemies will see this and exploit it, and the country will fall back into authoritarianism and tyranny probably far worse than before the revolution.

Lifespan in a hunter-gatherer society was somewhere around 35 TOPS.No, if anything you're thinking of life-expectancy at birth, a low average due to high infant mortality. (Although even this science is over twenty years old and has been subject to dispute.) And that doesn't concern me. If only the strongest children survive infancy, and the cost of preserving them is a disastrously oppressive totality? Well, infant mortality makes us only the same as almost every other species on Earth, and I don't think the price is worth the "benefit" of being different.

Consider them nature's late abortions.

Biologists disagree with you.No they don't. It's not my job to do your homework for you, but just google something with the terms "civilization" and "disease" and you can find any number of biological sources, from Johns Hopkins to MIT.

Then do the world population a favor and kill yourself.I would, but it's a much bigger favor to the world to kill as many of you capitalist pigs as I can on the way out. ;)

And who holds the opinion that agriculture developed as a response to a population explosion? Answer: no one at all.Well, not scientist at least, within the last twenty years.

But ask any random undergraduate to justify civilization, and you will see just how deeply the old "state of nature" theories still run. Very early in their exposition, you will tend to hear things like "but when families/tribes became too large, they had to settle down to farm the land because they could not get enough food in the wild."

It may not be right, but it's certainly popular.

You must have missed the part where you provided said evidence.If this were a controversial opinion, I would dig up the evidence you desire.

But when it is the established opinion of a modern scientific discipline, I trust that you can find relevant sources on your own.

Of course, I would also provide sources if I actually thought you would read them--that is, if I judged that you really want to know. But I have experienced your style of discussion before, which has nothing to do with learning anything. Thus, I don't want to waste my time.

No, if anything you're thinking of life-expectancy at birth, a low average due to high infant mortality.
I'm thinking of no such thing.


No they don't. It's not my job to do your homework for you, but just google something with the terms "civilization" and "disease" and you can find any number of biological sources, from Johns Hopkins to MIT.
IOW: you have no evidence. Gotcha.


I would, but it's a much bigger favor to the world to kill as many of you capitalist pigs as I can on the way out. ;)
So you're a hypocrite. Gotcha.


Well, not scientist at least, within the last twenty years.

But ask any random undergraduate to justify civilization, and you will see just how deeply the old "state of nature" theories still run.
No, I wouldn't.

Look, if you have nothing other than blatant assertions, I've better things to do.

If this were a controversial opinion, I would dig up the evidence you desire.

But when it is the established opinion of a modern scientific discipline,
Then you can provide the evidence. Now.

Surely. But I'm saying that the differences in skill will not be so compelling as to make a "better" society by having one person make tools, another rear children, and so on.

I am certainly stronger than my girlfriend, and she has better handwriting than I do... but not so much so that either of us would prefer that I ALWAYS carry everything or that she ALWAYS writes our notes. Both of us feel better about ourselves for carrying what we can carry and writing what we can write.

Of course, if there is something especially large or bulky to carry, I will volunteer. And if we need to send a beautifully scripted thank-you card, she will do it. But volunteering for these special tasks is not the same as a system of divided labor and specialization.

Fair enough. There are definitely things preferable to maximum efficiency.

Perhaps, but I think it's a spurious distinction. Just as Aristotle calls people still "citizens" when they have retired from public life, I call these people still "workers" when they do the same. The distinctions that worry me are the ones between "miners" and "farmers" and "teachers" and "the community."

Well, it isn't necessarily spurious. As far as the question of self-management goes, what's relevant is not whether a person falls into the general category of "worker," but whether he or she is actively involved in the production process.

(Actually, I should not say that I call them all "workers"... I think that in a properly constituted society, there is no real concept of "work." People are simply "people," not "workers" and "non-workers.")

The question of worker self-management versus public ownership would definitely lose most of its relevance in a primitive society.

Why is it impossible to compensate someone sufficiently for "being in the mines"? What if that person consents?I don't believe a person can meaningfully "consent" to that degree of alienation. The harm done to the body alone by such work should suggest that a person must be either mad or deceived to agree to it.

If it were necessary work, then this would not be the case. There is no arguing against necessity. But the human race does not need the technology that depends on such activities as mining--as evidenced by the fact that the longest-lasting societies have been precisely those that have retained a primitive level of technology.

That mining (and many other forms of labor) are oppressive should be obvious from the fact that they are never performed by the power-elites in a society. All of society's "compensations" (whether these take the form of monetary compensations, honors, or otherwise) are merely devices employed by the powerful to get other people to do the things they don't want to do for themselves.

What is not clear to me, however, is that environmental devastation is intrinsic to advanced technology; it may only be intrinsic to a certain stage in technology, one we may already be escaping with the possibilities of clean, renewable energy. Furthermore, it is possible to get rid of unsustainable technologies while preserving the sustainable ones.Scientists used to think that ancient modes of agriculture were more sustainable than modern forms--that ancient agriculturalists lived more in tune with nature than we do.

Recent evidence has overturned this idea. Agriculture inherently takes more from the ground than it puts back--agrarian societies survive either by expanding their soil base through deforestation or by extensive use of fertilizers (whether natural or artificial) which merely steal resources from elsewhere to support the agricultural base--and most of which are severe pollutants as well.

Agriculture is the root of all divided labor necessary for technological "progress." If it cannot be sustained, neither can the rest of it. We have not been destroying the Earth for 200 years. We have been destroying it for 10,000.

Shouldn't we be? Death is the end of our freedom, of our being.Yes, but everyone dies. All creatures die. Only human beings have invented gods who promise us that it will continue--or we have attempted to be gods by preventing its occurrence.

We're going to die. Unfortunately, we spend so much time worrying about it, so many resources attempting to prevent it, that we have forgotten how to live.

And are you willing to make that choice for others? Like infants?I'm not willing to make life an end-in-itself, especially not to the point of subordinating all other goods to its preservation. I do not want infants to die. Whatever simple methods can be used to prevent this (e.g. sanitation, healthy diets for expecting mothers, and so on) should be used. But we should not deform ourselves, our entire way of being, simply to prevent something that happens to every living animal on Earth.

Most species have many children that die in their early years. The human species got on just fine for many millenia without expending every resource to save them. We will get on just fine by going back to our previous state.

I prefer a good life to simply a life.

A more egalitarian and non-hierarchical mode of social organization would be a start. Distributing the benefits of technologies like health care to everyone, slashing work hours, and distributing disliked tasks according to a fairer system than "whoever's most desperate" would help even further.But that will always be the system. Who else is going to be in the mines? Do you ever expect the wealthy to volunteer?

Of course, perhaps you want to draft people for this service. Perhaps everyone will spend a few years in the mines. Try that: with every task that you force everyone to do, you will have narrowed the scope of your precious "freedom" another step--and all for the use of gadgets we don't really need.

Why is it that so many "anarchists" think the best way to make men free is to enslave them?

Expanding personal freedom might help counter alienation.Free people wouldn't become alienated in the first place. But the only way you will get them to preserve your technology is by teaching them submission, not freedom. At every step, they must submit to the social decision: they must work in the mines, in the fields, in the nursery. The slavish souls your system will produce will not know freedom when they see it.

Furthermore, even if a primitive society is preferable to the current one, how many people are you willing to kill in transition?
As few as possible; as many as necessary.

But some of the monstrous aspects of our society - like the class system - are not intrinsic to technological societiesShow me a technological society that does not have them.

Well, it isn't necessarily spurious. As far as the question of self-management goes, what's relevant is not whether a person falls into the general category of "worker," but whether he or she is actively involved in the production process.You're missing the point. There is no "management."

In gatherer-hunter society, I may collect a little extra food to feed my grandmother, not because there has been a social choice (whether just among present workers, or among us all) compelling me to do so, but because it is the perfectly natural thing to do. If you want to put an ethical slant on it, I behave out of commiseration with those who not too long ago worked with me, and who occupy a position in life that I too will someday occupy.

This is the very nature of non-alienated existence: I do things not because I must, but because this is the only natural way to do things.

The question of worker self-management versus public ownership would definitely lose most of its relevance in a primitive society.Precisely.

What I find most funny is there is AnarchyeL--advocating for hunter-gatherer--on a computer.

Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Communist

70%

Anarcho-Capitalist

70%

Anarcha-Feminist

45%

Christian Anarchist

45%

Anarcho-Syndicalist

30%

Anarcho-Primitivist

15%

Then you can provide the evidence. Now.No. It serves no purpose for me to list a hundred sources that you could find easily on your own.

Mutual benefit can only arise from discussion of points (scientific or ethical or whatever) that actually merit dispute. The point that you wish to attack, however, is so well established that it serves me no good to merely educate it about it. You may obtain your education from any recent textbook. It is a waste of my time to be a textbook for you.

If it serves your amour-propre to consider this some kind of victory, then I truly pity you.

What I find most funny is there is AnarchyeL--advocating for hunter-gatherer--on a computer.It's hard to advocate for anything from a cave.

Petty critics of social change activists always complain that our methods do not reflect our ideals, suggesting that this makes us inauthentic idealists.

On the contrary, the essence of idealism is to subordinate means to ends. The only inauthentic (hypocritical) relation to ideals is to pull one's punches on account of them.

No. It serves no purpose for me to list a hundred sources that you could find easily on your own.
Then you have none.

If it serves you to believe that you actually have evidence, I truly pity you.

It's hard to advocate for anything from a cave.
Sucks to be you. But a cave is what you desire. So be in one.

It's hard to advocate for anything from a cave.

Petty critics of social change activists always complain that our methods do not reflect our ideals, suggesting that this makes us inauthentic idealists.

On the contrary, the essence of idealism is to subordinate means to ends. The only inauthentic (hypocritical) relation to ideals is to pull one's punches on account of them.
What you could do, to spread livinginacaveism it to actually move into a cave, ignoring all of society. Best kidnap some women too. Reproduction would be helpfull if you want this to last.

I don't believe a person can meaningfully "consent" to that degree of alienation. The harm done to the body alone by such work should suggest that a person must be either mad or deceived to agree to it.

If it is impossible to get people to consent to that sort of labor, then it should not be done. If the result of that sort of freedom is primitivism, so be it. I don't think it will be, though; even if compensation doesn't work, technology is probably capable of eliminating the most awful forms of labor. Make robots do the mining.

That mining (and many other forms of labor) are oppressive should be obvious from the fact that they are never performed by the power-elites in a society. All of society's "compensations" (whether these take the form of monetary compensations, honors, or otherwise) are merely devices employed by the powerful to get other people to do the things they don't want to do for themselves.

That may be in our present capitalist system, but there would be no "powerful" in a left-anarchist society.

Scientists used to think that ancient modes of agriculture were more sustainable than modern forms--that ancient agriculturalists lived more in tune with nature than we do.

Recent evidence has overturned this idea. Agriculture inherently takes more from the ground than it puts back--agrarian societies survive either by expanding their soil base through deforestation or by extensive use of fertilizers (whether natural or artificial) which merely steal resources from elsewhere to support the agricultural base--and most of which are severe pollutants as well.

Agriculture is the root of all divided labor necessary for technological "progress." If it cannot be sustained, neither can the rest of it. We have not been destroying the Earth for 200 years. We have been destroying it for 10,000.

When this unsustainability becomes catastrophic, technology can still offer solutions - emigration to other planets, for instance. Furthermore, reducing population levels may also be a solution.

Yes, but everyone dies. All creatures die. Only human beings have invented gods who promise us that it will continue--or we have attempted to be gods by preventing its occurrence.

We're going to die. Unfortunately, we spend so much time worrying about it, so many resources attempting to prevent it, that we have forgotten how to live.

But that is our choice to make.

I'm not willing to make life an end-in-itself, especially not to the point of subordinating all other goods to its preservation. I do not want infants to die. Whatever simple methods can be used to prevent this (e.g. sanitation, healthy diets for expecting mothers, and so on) should be used. But we should not deform ourselves, our entire way of being, simply to prevent something that happens to every living animal on Earth.

Human life is essential to everything else. How is it morally acceptable to increase some people's freedom at the expense of the very lives of others? Those infants would have been denied all freedom, not just that which modern society necessarily restricts.

Most species have many children that die in their early years. The human species got on just fine for many millenia without expending every resource to save them. We will get on just fine by going back to our previous state.

That which is natural is not necessarily good.

I prefer a good life to simply a life.

That is your choice. But, again, how is it legitimate for you to impose it on everyone else?

But that will always be the system. Who else is going to be in the mines? Do you ever expect the wealthy to volunteer?

I do not expect there to be wealthy. And good riddance.

I expect well-paid, well-compensated workers to be willing to do the necessary labor of their own accord.

Of course, perhaps you want to draft people for this service. Perhaps everyone will spend a few years in the mines.

Never. Again, if there were no incentives sufficient to get anyone to do it, then it wouldn't be done unless it were absolutely necessary - as it probably isn't.

Free people wouldn't become alienated in the first place. But the only way you will get them to preserve your technology is by teaching them submission, not freedom. At every step, they must submit to the social decision: they must work in the mines, in the fields, in the nursery. The slavish souls your system will produce will not know freedom when they see it.

The "social decision"? They will have the right to work where they choose. Again, if it turns out that freedom is incompatible with some of the forms of labor we currently have, so be it. Let's get rid of those forms of labor, and replace them with machines or with some other alternative.

As few as possible; as many as necessary.

Six billion?

Show me a technological society that does not have them.

The fact that no such society exists is not proof that no such society can exist.

Isn't it pathetic when the best argument you can muster is the puerile "just go away and leave us alone"?

Isn't it pathetic when the best argument you can muster is the puerile "just go away and leave us alone"?
*looks*

*cannot find any post suggesting that, from anyone*

*shrugs, and assumes AnarchyeL is wearing a tin-foil hat*

If it is impossible to get people to consent to that sort of labor, then it should not be done. If the result of that sort of freedom is primitivism, so be it. I don't think it will be, though; even if compensation doesn't work, technology is probably capable of eliminating the most awful forms of labor. Make robots do the mining.I find it hard to believe that the solution to the problems created by technology will be more technology. This is just buying into the whole myth of progress.

So you're going to take this disastrously resource-intensive society... and make it more resource-intensive by using more resources to obtain resources?

I'd be willing to listen to proposals that substitute universal recycling for mining--I'm still dubious, but at least something in that makes sense.

That may be in our present capitalist system, but there would be no "powerful" in a left-anarchist society.If you're collectively organizing labor, then at a minimum it is majoritarian.

When this unsustainability becomes catastrophic, technology can still offer solutions - emigration to other planets, for instance.How is that a solution? So we can rape that planet, too? Moreover, how is anarchism going to follow through on its promise to minimize labor and decentralize when it also promises to maintain the accumulation of capital necessary to fund a space program thousands of times more expansive and advanced than the one we have now? One that can transport billions of people to another planet, terraform it and establish colonies? What if half of your communes don't want to contribute resources to the project... what if the project cannot succeed without a full mobilization of resources (which seems likely)?

Furthermore, reducing population levels may also be a solution. I think it's the only solution. But you cannot sustain current levels of technology, with the many specialized tasks and exploitation of resources it requires, AND reduce the population to sustainable levels. It's one or the other.

But that is our choice to make.Yes, it is. That's why I am presenting arguments advocating the road less travelled. I am arguing that the extension of life by a few years is not worth the degradation of all of them. I am arguing that the millions of dollars in resources we expend on sustaining life beyond its natural end are not worthwhile. And if you make an egalitarian use of these resources, you will (by definition) be spending EVEN MORE.

Human life is essential to everything else. How is it morally acceptable to increase some people's freedom at the expense of the very lives of others? Those infants would have been denied all freedom, not just that which modern society necessarily restricts.I look around, and I see a world in which freedom does not exist so that life can.

It is not a matter of buying some people's freedom at the cost of some people's lives. It is a matter of retaking freedom for the human race at the cost of ill-bought lives.

I can preserve the lives of many rabbits who would have been eaten by predators by confining all rabbits to predator-free enclosures. But I would not do that, because I believe that the rabbits would rather be free.

That which is natural is not necessarily good.No, but I'd say the burden of proof is decidedly against the unnatural.

That is your choice. But, again, how is it legitimate for you to impose it on everyone else?I can't. Some people may prefer lying in a hospital bed for a few more years to simply living a robust life and finding their natural end. But I do not believe that the labor of millions should be spent on giving them that opportunity.

I am making an argument about the kinds of ends toward which society directs its resources. What people do within those limits is their choice--but the limits are the subject of political debate.

I do not expect there to be wealthy. And good riddance.Then you should not expect there to be miners, or you should expect everyone to be slaves.

I expect well-paid, well-compensated workers to be willing to do the necessary labor of their own accord.Payment is alienation. You would have them degrade themselves in order to buy things that make up for their loss. Would you expect everyone to do this? Or would some people say, "I think mining is for me... the darkness, the disease. I like the pay, so I'm willing to put up with that." Anyone who can make that kind of calculation is already lost. This is the thought of every slave who does not throw himself at his master, thinking instead "at least I'm alive," or "there are worse masters in the world."

You merely dress up your slaves with the nicer clothes they can buy on their wages. They are slaves nonetheless, and even more so for not even knowing it: you have enslaved not only their bodies, but even their very wills. They do what they want, but only because they want what you want them to want. Economists talk about "incentives." So do dog-trainers.

Never. Again, if there were no incentives sufficient to get anyone to do it, then it wouldn't be done unless it were absolutely necessary - as it probably isn't.Right. My prediction is that if you actually work to eliminate alienation, no one will sell their body for any kind of profit. If they do, they are already alienated, body from mind.

Six billion?Not all at once, surely. We wouldn't know what to do with the bodies, anyway. :)

The fact that no such society exists is not proof that no such society can exist.No, but it does suggest a place for the burden of proof.

I find it hard to believe that the solution to the problems created by technology will be more technology. This is just buying into the whole myth of progress.

So you're going to take this disastrously resource-intensive society... and make it more resource-intensive by using more resources to obtain resources?

The same way you could theoretically reduce shortages of, say, wood by using wood to make tools capable of producing even more wood. I am not saying that all labor can be mechanized, but I do think it is possible for the worst kinds of labor to be replaced by machines.

I'd be willing to listen to proposals that substitute universal recycling for mining--I'm still dubious, but at least something in that makes sense.

That is another possibility.

If you're collectively organizing labor, then at a minimum it is majoritarian.

Not if you retain free association and voluntary labor.

How is that a solution? So we can rape that planet, too?

Yes. The planet itself does not have value.

Moreover, how is anarchism going to follow through on its promise to minimize labor and decentralize when it also promises to maintain the accumulation of capital necessary to fund a space program thousands of times more expansive and advanced than the one we have now? One that can transport billions of people to another planet, terraform it and establish colonies? What if half of your communes don't want to contribute resources to the project... what if the project cannot succeed without a full mobilization of resources (which seems likely)?

That is their choice. Admittedly, there might be problems with a lack of an economy of scale.

As for your question about minimization of labor, I have no good answer to it, except perhaps that technology may bring enough efficiency into production that the question is immaterial. But I'll grant that in the timeframe we are likely talking about here, that may be too utopian.

I think it's the only solution. But you cannot sustain current levels of technology, with the many specialized tasks and exploitation of resources it requires, AND reduce the population to sustainable levels. It's one or the other.

Because we need to starve people in order to get a sustainable population? Already much of the developed world has negative population growth; encourage feminism and expand access to birth control and abortion, and the problem will be solved.

Yes, it is. That's why I am presenting arguments advocating the road less travelled. I am arguing that the extension of life by a few years is not worth the degradation of all of them. I am arguing that the millions of dollars in resources we expend on sustaining life beyond its natural end are not worthwhile.

Fair enough.

And if you make an egalitarian use of these resources, you will (by definition) be spending EVEN MORE.

On that. Why couldn't we match it with the reduction in the production of other goods?

I look around, and I see a world in which freedom does not exist so that life can.

And I see a world where many people have a good deal of freedom, a substantial degree of leisure, and a quality of life at which happiness is possible. Even if we can be freer in other circumstances, I don't think it's worth the cost in life. Furthermore, how can we be sure that life will be all that much better at all in primitive societies? I've been going with elements of this assumption because I think there's a good deal of truth to it, but you are portraying it to an extreme that I think is unjustified.

It is not a matter of buying some people's freedom at the cost of some people's lives. It is a matter of retaking freedom for the human race at the cost of ill-bought lives.

I can preserve the lives of many rabbits who would have been eaten by predators by confining all rabbits to predator-free enclosures. But I would not do that, because I believe that the rabbits would rather be free.

And will you get the people whose lives you decry as "ill-bought" to agree to this theft of life for some alleged greater good?

No, but I'd say the burden of proof is decidedly against the unnatural.

I think the mass loss of life is a pretty strong case.

I can't. Some people may prefer lying in a hospital bed for a few more years to simply living a robust life and finding their natural end. But I do not believe that the labor of millions should be spent on giving them that opportunity.

So you would just let them die en masse - whatever their wishes?

I am making an argument about the kinds of ends toward which society directs its resources. What people do within those limits is their choice--but the limits are the subject of political debate.

Okay.

Then you should not expect there to be miners, or you should expect everyone to be slaves.

I would choose the former over the latter. If the result of that choice is primitivism, then I am with you.

Payment is alienation. You would have them degrade themselves in order to buy things that make up for their loss.

That is their choice. You may think it degrading; they may not agree.

Would you expect everyone to do this? Or would some people say, "I think mining is for me... the darkness, the disease. I like the pay, so I'm willing to put up with that." Anyone who can make that kind of calculation is already lost. This is the thought of every slave who does not throw himself at his master, thinking instead "at least I'm alive," or "there are worse masters in the world."

No, it's not. The slave is in a state of slavery that she has not chosen. Such would not be the case with the miner.

You merely dress up your slaves with the nicer clothes they can buy on their wages. They are slaves nonetheless, and even more so for not even knowing it: you have enslaved not only their bodies, but even their very wills. They do what they want, but only because they want what you want them to want. Economists talk about "incentives." So do dog-trainers.

And so does anyone who wants to talk about freedom. If there is nothing I prefer, what good is choice?

Right. My prediction is that if you actually work to eliminate alienation, no one will sell their body for any kind of profit. If they do, they are already alienated, body from mind.

Or perhaps they simply prefer the reward to the cost. You can come up with any fancy label you want to attack someone else's choice, but it does not change the fact that it is their choice, not yours.

Not all at once, surely. We wouldn't know what to do with the bodies, anyway. :)

How else do you propose to do it?

No, but it does suggest a place for the burden of proof.

How many societies of advanced technology have successfully made the transition into anarcho-primitivism?

Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.

Anarcho-Communist

75%
Anarcho-Capitalist

60%
Anarcho-Primitivist

50%
Anarcha-Feminist

40%
Christian Anarchist

30%
Anarcho-Syndicalist

30%

I think that a major point about anarchism is that anyone who doesn't support it wouldn't be doing it. So it's not like a bunch of republicans would be forced into a hand-built house in a room with dirty kids playing instruments saying "God dammit, I hate this." They can just leave. In America, people are so impersonal anymore that it's like they can't see having compassion for a complete stranger but I feel that like anarchism would create an enviroment where everyone would become friends. I imagine it would be a group of friends working during for each other and themselves during the day and writing poetry, books, and music at night. And the world is what we make it....Free thought is certainly the best breeding ground for culture and art.


A gift economy is the best idea I've ever heard of in my life because when I think about it, you're working for the good of yourself and your friends and that's far more rewarding than money which has limited value.

In the book Days of War Nights of Love, they use an amazing example where 3 kids hangout, one kid brings popcorn the other brings the movie and they all go over the third kid's house. This is the perfect example of the type of society anarchism would create.

And it's like this, the people who wouldn't want this to happen wouldn't have to live under it. So the people that would want it to happen would probably be happy. So I say the world just lets us do our thing.

Technology isn't a problem at all, people who would want to take up a certain profession would just learn it. People would be so much more productive doing what they want without having to worry about pay, COLLEGE education, or finding a position. It also encourages people having immense knowledge on multiple topics.

And finally, I'm obviously not talking about anarcho-capitalism. Heh.

In the book Days of War Nights of Love

just be careful with the crimethinc

Unless you understand it in the sense Proudhon used it.

I understand what Proudhon was getting at, however, even if its justification doesn't fit your particular speck on the morality spectrum, by its very definition, property cannot be theft.

Even when you do, it's still self-contradictory nonsense. Bohm-Bawerk nicely annihilates the idiotic idea of loans and rent being immoral/exploitative/whathaveyou.

The Bohm-Bawerk work on the value accruing nature of investments and capital is not a justification for property, only a denial of Marx's ideas of exploitation.

EDIT: It's nice that you are reading up on Wiki, though.

The same way you could theoretically reduce shortages of, say, wood by using wood to make tools capable of producing even more wood. I am not saying that all labor can be mechanized, but I do think it is possible for the worst kinds of labor to be replaced by machines.Those would have to be pretty complex machines. Who builds them? Who maintains them?

Presumably, some specialists with expert knowledge, right? Well, then these specialists have power, whether you like it or not. You may try to find ways to keep them from abusing it, but it remains in fact. Whenever specialists exercise exclusive control over necessary resources, they have power: they can claim special privileges with ease. How will you stop them?

Not if you retain free association and voluntary labor.These are only words. Capitalists today insist that our market is composed of free associations and voluntary labor. What do these words mean? That labor is "voluntary" because a person might have chosen an alternative occupation? That it is "voluntary" because the social threat is poverty rather than death? If so, then this species of "voluntary" behavior has nothing to do with freedom.

Yes. The planet itself does not have value.Perhaps not to you.

More importantly, I do not think a species of interplanetary locusts is any more sustainable--and certainly no less degraded--than is our current civilization. In no way do I see how it could possibly work according to remotely anarchist principles. The entire civilization would be enslaved to the purpose of providing the means for its next retreat.

That is their choice. Admittedly, there might be problems with a lack of an economy of scale.It's not just a problem of economy of scale.

Every hour of labor you put into your space program, every resource devoted to its success, is a resource that you cannot use for supplying food, not to mention your universal medicine. Can you afford to have robots in the mines AND keep your former miners on life-support AND colonize Mars... AND avoid people working forty-hour weeks? Something has to give.

As for your question about minimization of labor, I have no good answer to it, except perhaps that technology may bring enough efficiency into production that the question is immaterial.Since its inception technology has promised "labor-saving" devices that would make work more efficient and eliminate the need for labor. So far, market economics has turned every ounce of that "efficiency" into increased production and consumption rather than increased leisure. What is it about your market of "free association" that would change any of this?

Because we need to starve people in order to get a sustainable population?Where are you getting that? We don't need to starve anyone. We just need a lot fewer of them. Already much of the developed world has negative population growth; encourage feminism and expand access to birth control and abortion, and the problem will be solved.No, it won't. The sustainable human population of the Earth is MUCH, MUCH lower than what it is right now--especially at "developed" levels of consumption. Get the entire population of the world to live the lifestyle of the United States middle class, and the planet wouldn't last a decade. Even at one-sixth of the current population this could not be sustained. And below that... well, you no longer have the population to maintain the various specialized jobs necessary to this oh-so "efficient" technology.

Why couldn't we match it with the reduction in the production of other goods?Which ones? And how will you decide without the collective decision making that you claim to oppose in favor of "free association"? Won't the market decide, as it does now?

I have been stating it in a roundabout way, but here is my real prediction: give people an authentic existence, eliminate alienated labor and give them the opportunity to really live, and they will not be so terrified of death. They will not want to sacrifice living well to dying badly. The comparative anthropological evidence suggests that simpler societies do, in fact, have a much more authentic relationship to death as an inevitability.

Perhaps more importantly, in a healthy society many of the causes of "early" death could be prevented rather than treated. Why do we need open-heart surgery? Because we have forgotten how to live a healthy life. Remember that, and we can forget the surgery.

And I see a world where many people have a good deal of freedom, a substantial degree of leisure, and a quality of life at which happiness is possible.Then I think you are blind. Increasingly people medicate away their misery in our culture of denial. Depression and anxiety (not to mention suicide) are increasingly common. And what freedom! The freedom to choose Coke over Pepsi. The freedom to choose one form of slavery over another--and all of this dependent on someone else (many someone else's, in fact) doing the worst jobs of all.

Happiness? Pleasure, maybe. Enough pleasure to distract most people from their own misery. But it is the pleasure of drugs--among which I would include the refined sugar that appears in virtually every food we consume today. Our pleasures deaden our senses, they deaden our minds, and they deaden our capacity to appreciate real freedom.

What efforts it takes to make people forget freedom!! We pack our children into schools at the earliest age possible, accomodating their love of freedom to the demands of the workaday world. We must beat it out of them. We must convince them that by sacrificing freedom and joy for the great bulk of their lives, they will be "rewarded" with "good" jobs and consumer products.

I see no freedom here. Indeed, I do not believe I have ever seen a free human being in my entire life.

Even if we can be freer in other circumstances, I don't think it's worth the cost in life.If it were a matter of degree ("freer") I might agree with you. I see it as a difference in kind.

Furthermore, how can we be sure that life will be all that much better at all in primitive societies? I've been going with elements of this assumption because I think there's a good deal of truth to it, but you are portraying it to an extreme that I think is unjustified.One answer, an all too obvious one I think, is that it can hardly be worse than this.

A more appropriate answer is that I think a careful examination (more careful than I can make here, but which you should undertake for yourself) of the evidence proves that the gatherer-hunter lifestyle is the mode of true abundance and liberty.

And will you get the people who lives you decry as "ill-bought" to agree to this theft of life for some alleged greater good?Considering that most people living in the world today are the victims rather than the beneficiaries of the current state of affairs, I hardly think I need to.

I think the mass loss of life is a pretty strong case.Imagine for a moment that human beings suffer from a disease that kills one-third of all children within the first two weeks of life. Now suppose that I tell you that these deaths can be prevented, but as a result of the disease these people will live a life constantly occupied with procedures designed to preserve themselves. They will never know the joys of freedom you have, of living to truly enjoy the world around them--but rather they must constantly obsess over taking a wrong step lest they should perish.

I go on to tell you that the only way this "cure" can be implemented is for all of the rest of us to agree to the same existence. We must give up our natural liberty so that more of us can live at all.

Had I been around to reject that choice, you can be sure I would have. Unfortunately, the free people probably had little choice in the matter. As Freud so aptly put it, civilization must have been forced on a resisting majority by a minority with the means to employ coercion.

The modern analogue is abortion. Should a woman be forced to live a life of unfreedom so that another child can be born? Do we privilege mere life to freedom?

I don't. Neither should anyone who would lay claim to the term "anarchist."

So you would just let them die en masse - whatever their wishes?What wishes? Every individual choice is structured by the social means to implement it. Our society invests massive resources into prolonging life, which gives those who would have it the choice to so prolong it. I prefer a society that does not so invest its resources. Individuals may still make whatever choices they want to make: I don't expect that $10,000/day life-support will be available to them without enslaving someone else to make it possible.

If they want to prolong life, they can do their best to avoid dangerous situations. They can live in a padded room for all I care. Prevent alienation, however, and I don't think anyone would want to.

That is their choice. You may think it degrading; they may not agree.The problem is that it is objectively degrading: it literally degrades their body, ruins their health, destroys their vigor. Anyone who is not alienated from his own body--who does not regard it as merely a "thing" to be "used"--could not see it any other way. If people in your society are willing to think of their bodies as mere things, you have to wonder what it is in your culture that got them thinking this way. People are not naturally inclined to want to hurt themselves. No animal is.

No, it's not. The slave is in a state of slavery that she has not chosen. Such would not be the case with the miner.Did he/she choose the social relation? Did he/she decided to be born into a society with miners?

It doesn't matter if the miner decides to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher instead. Even if some are less alienating than others (and they are all alienating), they all depend on someone being a miner.

And so does anyone who wants to talk about freedom. If there is nothing I prefer, what good is choice?I was talking about "incentive," not "choice." "Incentive" is a word of mastery, of control. It asks how one gets people to do things that they would not choose to do on their own; it asks how to make slavery more attractive.

If I make a proposal to free and equal individuals and it is attractive to them, they join me in it. Otherwise they do not. I only begin to think of "incentives" when I ask that they do for me what I will not do for myself; when I ask them to take on a project that does not provide its own rewards; or when I ask that they take on a project the rewards (profits) of which will go to me.

I provide an "incentive" when I know that they will be at war with their own nature--when I know that to get them to do something, I must give them the means with which to oppose the instinct within themselves that resists. This is the very definition of alienated as opposed to "free" activity.

Or perhaps they simply prefer the reward to the cost.Society invents "rewards" to paint over costs. I assert that among people who are free and equal, such rewards will count for nothing. The exploitative intent will be transparent to people who are honest with themselves: they will not do for you what you refuse to do for yourself.

How else do you propose to do it?While the transition must be total and uncompromising, it need not (indeed cannot) be instantaneous. Food production must shift to local communities, and people must leave the cities in favor of more sustainable agrarian lifestyles. In the meantime, much of the cities can be quickly turned over to food production--if we're not so obessed with moving cars, trains and buses around, we'll quickly discover that it's all still dirt just beneath the surface.

It will take a long time to fully reclaim the cities. Portions of them might, in our future primitive, become a kind of "museum" to remind us of the horrors of civilization, so that we know better than to repeat the experiment.

How many societies of advanced technology have successfully made the transition into anarcho-primitivism?None. But at least we already know that anarcho-primitivism can work, sustainably, for thousands of years--if only we can get there.

The Bohm-Bawerk work on the value accruing nature of investments and capital is not a justification for property, only a denial of Marx's ideas of exploitation.
And the idea I was attacking was the idiotic notion that loans (interest) and rent are wrong. So what's your problem, again?


EDIT: It's nice that you are reading up on Wiki, though.
I happen to own some of Bohm-Bawerk's works (http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=&parentid=&stocknumber=AU8343&page=1&itemsperpage=24).

The distinction between personal property and private property is one that is far too often ignored.

Because it is muddy as shit.

A pizza delivery boy's car, personal or private property?

Your property is not you.

But you are your own property, and where do you end? You can find a little bit of yourself in everything you touch.

*looks*

*cannot find any post suggesting that, from anyone*

*shrugs, and assumes AnarchyeL is wearing a tin-foil hat*
Yeah, who said that?

And the idea I was attacking was the idiotic notion that loans (interest) and rent are wrong. So what's your problem, again?

I'm sorry, I didn't think those ideas had been brought up, especially not in the selection that you quoted.

I'm sorry, I didn't think those ideas had been brought up, especially not in the selection that you quoted.
It was from part of a Wiki article that had been quoted.

Those would have to be pretty complex machines. Who builds them? Who maintains them?

Presumably, some specialists with expert knowledge, right? Well, then these specialists have power, whether you like it or not. You may try to find ways to keep them from abusing it, but it remains in fact. Whenever specialists exercise exclusive control over necessary resources, they have power: they can claim special privileges with ease. How will you stop them?

If absolutely necessary, by withholding from them other services. Having control of the mines does not in itself give them a decent life; they need the contributions of others.

These are only words. Capitalists today insist that our market is composed of free associations and voluntary labor. What do these words mean? That labor is "voluntary" because a person might have chosen an alternative occupation? That it is "voluntary" because the social threat is poverty rather than death? If so, then this species of "voluntary" behavior has nothing to do with freedom.

All too true for comfort, I'll give you that.

But the point is that, unlike in capitalist society, the democratic and free nature of the society would provide for genuine alternative opportunities.

Perhaps not to you.

More importantly, I do not think a species of interplanetary locusts is any more sustainable--and certainly no less degraded--than is our current civilization. In no way do I see how it could possibly work according to remotely anarchist principles. The entire civilization would be enslaved to the purpose of providing the means for its next retreat.

It's not just a problem of economy of scale.

Every hour of labor you put into your space program, every resource devoted to its success, is a resource that you cannot use for supplying food, not to mention your universal medicine. Can you afford to have robots in the mines AND keep your former miners on life-support AND colonize Mars... AND avoid people working forty-hour weeks? Something has to give.

I'll concede this point, at least at our current or near-future technological level.

Since its inception technology has promised "labor-saving" devices that would make work more efficient and eliminate the need for labor. So far, market economics has turned every ounce of that "efficiency" into increased production and consumption rather than increased leisure. What is it about your market of "free association" that would change any of this?

That's because the insanity of the capitalist labor market permits the powerful to superexploit the desperate. Why would a truly democratic society choose to enslave itself to maximum production? And even if it did, that would be its free choice.

Where are you getting that? We don't need to starve anyone. We just need a lot fewer of them.

And we can achieve "a lot fewer of them" at our current technological level. Is there a reason we can't?

No, it won't. The sustainable human population of the Earth is MUCH, MUCH lower than what it is right now--especially at "developed" levels of consumption. Get the entire population of the world to live the lifestyle of the United States middle class, and the planet wouldn't last a decade. Even at one-sixth of the current population this could not be sustained.

Then lower the population. I have no objection to that.

And below that... well, you no longer have the population to maintain the various specialized jobs necessary to this oh-so "efficient" technology.

Five hundred million people (say) isn't sufficient? Fine, then; some efficiency can be sacrificed. But getting rid of all technologies, especially life-preserving ones, is not the solution.

Which ones? And how will you decide without the collective decision making that you claim to oppose in favor of "free association"? Won't the market decide, as it does now?

I don't oppose collective decision-making, I support it quite strongly. Collective decision-making regarding the allocation of resources is perfectly legitimate; collective decision-making compelling people into working in, say, mining is not legitimate.

As for which ones, we can start with televisions, cell phones, and iPods and work our way from there. All the worthless junk we consume without any real need. There's a lot of it.

I have been stating it in a roundabout way, but here is my real prediction: give people an authentic existence, eliminate alienated labor and give them the opportunity to really live, and they will not be so terrified of death. They will not want to sacrifice living well to dying badly. The comparative anthropological evidence suggests that simpler societies do, in fact, have a much more authentic relationship to death as an inevitability.

So you will get the dying infants to sign a death contract? "I'm okay with being denied any real life at all, because other people will have more authentic existences because of it"?

What about the disabled, and others who can't be supported without a sufficient surplus in resources? Do you really think they will consent to their deaths for the sake of other people's freedom?

How many lives are you willing to abolish before the cost becomes too high?

Perhaps more importantly, in a healthy society many of the causes of "early" death could be prevented rather than treated. Why do we need open-heart surgery? Because we have forgotten how to live a healthy life. Remember that, and we can forget the surgery.

I will acknowledge that civilization bares a substantial portion of responsibility for our current unhealthy states.

Then I think you are blind. Increasingly people medicate away their misery in our culture of denial. Depression and anxiety (not to mention suicide) are increasingly common.

I can't argue with that.

And what freedom! The freedom to choose Coke over Pepsi. The freedom to choose one form of slavery over another--and all of this dependent on someone else (many someone else's, in fact) doing the worst jobs of all.

Under capitalism, perhaps. If this slavery is so awful - and in many ways it is - a genuinely democratic economy will abolish it of its own free accord, without any need to abolish technology.

Happiness? Pleasure, maybe. Enough pleasure to distract most people from their own misery. But it is the pleasure of drugs--among which I would include the refined sugar that appears in virtually every food we consume today. Our pleasures deaden our senses, they deaden our minds, and they deaden our capacity to appreciate real freedom.

Going on a walk with a friend, arguing some obscure point of On the Genealogy of Morals and its relevance to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and enjoying each other's company... that is "happiness," and has nothing to do with drugs.

I could give you a dozen similar examples. Our culture is not so vile that there are no opportunities for pleasure independent of drugging ourselves.

I would add, on a subject of great personal relevance, in a primitive society, without access to books and sufficient people of similar interests, my mind would be imprisoned. You might call this an end to its alienation, but to me, it would be a profound and devastating loss.

Am I willing to enslave millions of others to guarantee me that? Of course not. But I do not think that is the choice.

What efforts it takes to make people forget freedom!! We pack our children into schools at the earliest age possible, accomodating their love of freedom to the demands of the workaday world. We must beat it out of them. We must convince them that by sacrificing freedom and joy for the great bulk of their lives, they will be "rewarded" with "good" jobs and consumer products.

Don't they value "good jobs and consumer products"? For that matter, don't you? I certainly do.

Is that not a choice they are entitled to make?

I see no freedom here. Indeed, I do not believe I have ever seen a free human being in my entire life.

No one is ever perfectly free.

If it were a matter of degree ("freer") I might agree with you. I see it as a difference in kind.

How exactly are you using the word "freedom" here? I think we may be conceiving it in different ways.

One answer, an all too obvious one I think, is that it can hardly be worse than this.

Sure it can. Our current society functions, if badly, and provides for the material needs of an immense number of people. It has the highest life expectancy ever and the expanse of communication allows for greater knowledge and understanding than ever before.

What guarantee do you have that the labor of a primitive society is one that is substantially less awful than it is for us today?

A more appropriate answer is that I think a careful examination (more careful than I can make here, but which you should undertake for yourself) of the evidence proves that the gatherer-hunter lifestyle is the mode of true abundance and liberty.

How can you know whether they experienced the kind of freedom you are talking about? You can only guess.

Considering that most people living in the world today are the victims rather than the beneficiaries of the current state of affairs, I hardly think I need to.

Yes, you do. You are talking about what will amount to mass slaughter.

Imagine for a moment that human beings suffer from a disease that kills one-third of all children within the first two weeks of life. Now suppose that I tell you that these deaths can be prevented, but as a result of the disease these people will live a life constantly occupied with procedures designed to preserve themselves. They will never know the joys of freedom you have, of living to truly enjoy the world around them--but rather they must constantly obsess over taking a wrong step lest they should perish.

I go on to tell you that the only way this "cure" can be implemented is for all of the rest of us to agree to the same existence. We must give up our natural liberty so that more of us can live at all.

I don't know how I'd answer that question. I've never experienced the freedom (or lack of it) in a primitive society, so I can't make a certain claim either way.

I have very strong doubts that the "joys" of such freedom would outweight the immense cost in life.

Had I been around to reject that choice, you can be sure I would have. Unfortunately, the free people probably had little choice in the matter. As Freud so aptly put it, civilization must have been forced on a resisting majority by a minority with the means to employ coercion.

That is true. And until recently, civilization was definitely a criminal abomination.

The modern analogue is abortion. Should a woman be forced to live a life of unfreedom so that another child can be born? Do we privilege mere life to freedom?

I don't. Neither should anyone who would lay claim to the term "anarchist."

There is no freedom without life. Death is the enemy of freedom; the dead person is not free.

If recognizing this makes me something other than an anarchist, so be it.

What wishes? Every individual choice is structured by the social means to implement it. Our society invests massive resources into prolonging life, which gives those who would have it the choice to so prolong it. I prefer a society that does not so invest its resources. Individuals may still make whatever choices they want to make: I don't expect that $10,000/day life-support will be available to them without enslaving someone else to make it possible.

Then they do not have a real choice in the matter.

The problem is that it is objectively degrading: it literally degrades their body, ruins their health, destroys their vigor. Anyone who is not alienated from his own body--who does not regard it as merely a "thing" to be "used"--could not see it any other way. If people in your society are willing to think of their bodies as mere things, you have to wonder what it is in your culture that got them thinking this way. People are not naturally inclined to want to hurt themselves. No animal is.

It usually doesn't benefit an animal to hurt themselves, either. Yet modern society is such that some potentially harmful jobs can benefit society, and if people are willing to do such jobs for sufficient compensation, what is the problem?

Did he/she choose the social relation? Did he/she decided to be born into a society with miners?

Does it matter? No one is forcing her to be a miner.

It doesn't matter if the miner decides to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher instead. Even if some are less alienating than others (and they are all alienating), they all depend on someone being a miner.

But by leaving the options open, you are ensuring that if in fact mining is so awful, people will choose other jobs instead, and no one will be subject to such horrors.

I was talking about "incentive," not "choice." "Incentive" is a word of mastery, of control. It asks how one gets people to do things that they would not choose to do on their own; it asks how to make slavery more attractive.

If I make a proposal to free and equal individuals and it is attractive to them, they join me in it. Otherwise they do not. I only begin to think of "incentives" when I ask that they do for me what I will not do for myself; when I ask them to take on a project that does not provide its own rewards; or when I ask that they take on a project the rewards (profits) of which will go to me.

I provide an "incentive" when I know that they will be at war with their own nature--when I know that to get them to do something, I must give them the means with which to oppose the instinct within themselves that resists. This is the very definition of alienated as opposed to "free" activity.

So what? If the individuals are indeed free and equal, they will not undertake the task unless they prefer the reward to the cost of doing an unnatural thing. That is their choice to make. Incentives, in a just society, are simply tools of free exchange.

Society invents "rewards" to paint over costs. I assert that among people who are free and equal, such rewards will count for nothing. The exploitative intent will be transparent to people who are honest with themselves: they will not do for you what you refuse to do for yourself.

What is "exploitative" about it? It is a free exchange between equals. As you pointed out to me quite accurately in a conversation a few months ago, profit is not zero-sum; I can do a favor for someone as an incentive for her doing a favor for me, and because we both prefer getting the other person's favor to not doing a favor for the other person, we both profit. What is your objection?

While the transition must be total and uncompromising, it need not (indeed cannot) be instantaneous. Food production must shift to local communities, and people must leave the cities in favor of more sustainable agrarian lifestyles. In the meantime, much of the cities can be quickly turned over to food production--if we're not so obessed with moving cars, trains and buses around, we'll quickly discover that it's all still dirt just beneath the surface.

Enough to feed how many people?

None. But at least we already know that anarcho-primitivism can work, sustainably, for thousands of years--if only we can get there.

That's true.

Darn it, AnarchyeL; why is it so hard to argue against you? You may end up convincing me again. You are reminding me of all the things about modern society that I can't stand, and it is at least conceivable that you have a reasonable solution to them.

Because it is muddy as shit.

A pizza delivery boy's car, personal or private property?

Private.

Edit: Oh, I see what you're getting at. It's both; it has a personal role and a private role.

If absolutely necessary, by withholding from them other services. Having control of the mines does not in itself give them a decent life; they need the contributions of others.True, but the expert always has the edge, if only because there are fewer of them. It is easier for them to coordinate their efforts to refuse their expertise: the collective action problem is on their side.

Moreover, even if you suppose a distribution of expertise such that each and every expert really needs all the others, you have committed yourself not so much to the absence of power as to a more or less "balanced" competition of powers. While that may be possible in theory, I think it leaves itself vulnerable to the most common criticism against anarchism: the opportunist may struggle to obtain dominance, which is at least structurally possible.

So long as power exists, it can be monopolized. Hence I say we should abolish it altogether.

But the point is that, unlike in capitalist society, the democratic and free nature of the society would provide for genuine alternative opportunities.Words only. Why should "democratic" societies be any more free than undemocratic ones? My concern is with the individual: is he/she forced to do what he/she would not choose of her/his own free will? This is coercion, and it begins with the child: tell the child when to eat, when to play; force the child to attend schools the reasons for which it has no concern.

Why should democratic political relations be any different with respect to the individual? Society decides. I obey.

That's because the insanity of the capitalist labor market permits the powerful to superexploit the desperate. Why would a truly democratic society choose to enslave itself to maximum production? And even if it did, that would be its free choice.I do not believe that 51% can rightly choose slavery for the remaining 49%.

And we can achieve "a lot fewer of them" at our current technological level. Is there a reason we can't?"A lot fewer," perhaps. But not enough to make the planet livable.

Five hundred million people (say) isn't sufficient?Probably not, but I have no desire to quibble over it.

I don't oppose collective decision-making, I support it quite strongly. Collective decision-making regarding the allocation of resources is perfectly legitimate; collective decision-making compelling people into working in, say, mining is not legitimate.I don't see how you're going to be able to separate the two. If you want ore, someone has to mine. And no one wants to mine. So you'll have to come up with some way to get them to do it anyway.

As for which ones, we can start with televisions, cell phones, and iPods and work our way from there. All the worthless junk we consume without any real need. There's a lot of it.All of it, I say.

So you will get the dying infants to sign a death contract? "I'm okay with being denied any real life at all, because other people will have more authentic existences because of it"?It's not a matter of killing them, it's a matter of refusing to take actions that would save them--very different things.

We already make these decisions all the time. With sufficient resources, it is conceivable that we could prevent ALL infant deaths--yet at some point the costs outweigh the benefits. The question is where you draw the line. The resources used to save one hundred children per year might be used otherwise (or not used at all) to benefit the lives of millions. Perhaps you decide to save them. What if it had been fifty children? Ten children? One? Must that one child sign a "death contract" saying that we may choose to use our resources in a manner other than saving its life?

What about the disabled, and others who can't be supported without a sufficient surplus in resources?I'm not inhuman. Disabled people who require the care that can be provided by a small society--basically, food that they cannot obtain themselves--will no doubt be cared for by people who love them. There is evidence that this happened 100,000 years ago in human prehistory--the evidence being that we have found remains of disabled humans who survived to adulthood.

As for disabilities that require machines and advanced medications to prolong their lives? Yes, I'm willing to say that society should not enslave itself to the preservation of these lives. I'll bite that bullet.

Do you really think they will consent to their deaths for the sake of other people's freedom?It would be one thing if we were killing them. I'm not advocating murder. But I don't require their consent to not save them any more than I need someone's consent to not give him my kidney. It's my kidney. I'm the one whose consent is at stake.

How many lives are you willing to abolish before the cost becomes too high?As few as possible. As many as it takes.

Under capitalism, perhaps. If this slavery is so awful - and in many ways it is - a genuinely democratic economy will abolish it of its own free accord, without any need to abolish technology.If by "genuinely democratic" you mean that the majority will assert its will over a resisting minority, then I'm not so sure. Of course, I thought you were an anarchist--in which case you should not be so thrilled with this "genuine democracy." You should push instead for true self-rule by individuals, with any collective endeavors entered into by truly free association. Advanced technology cannot survive this kind of freedom. Technology requires "binding" decisions that free people cannot make.

As some theorists have remarked, I can freely work today, but I cannot freely promise you I will work tomorrow.

Going on a walk with a friend, arguing some obscure point of On the Genealogy of Morals and its relevance to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and enjoying each other's company... that is "happiness," and has nothing to do with drugs.You are quite right, at least about the walk and the friend... the discussion suggests alienation, but I won't argue the point.

I will argue that there should be a lot more of that, and a lot less work and consumption.

But if the rewards of life are leisure and pleasant talk, what "incentives" will get people into mines? Will they do it for money, for things? Drugs, both. Will they do it for "extra" vacation days, periods without work? You had no right to force them to work in the first place.

I could give you a dozen similar examples. Our culture is not so vile that there are no opportunities for pleasure independent of drugging ourselves.No, we have our moments of freedom. But all of the "economic incentives" are premised on pleasures, not happiness.

I would add, on a subject of great personal relevance, in a primitive society, without access to books and sufficient people of similar interests, my mind would be imprisoned. You might call this an end to its alienation, but to me, it would be a profound and devastating loss.You would not have to flee into books to find the world. The entire environment, which you would know with enlivened senses as you have never known anything before, would be your philosophical text. If you need the thoughts of others to spur your own, how can you claim your mind is alive? No. You must first imprison your mind to understand the world of books. Then they convince you that the world itself is the prison.

Can we not walk together discussing our own thoughts, our own philosophy? Why must we always be elsewhere than in our own heads, walking with our own feet?

The specialists have convinced us that we only really "think" if we do it their way, in their specialized terms--if, in fact, we discuss the topics established as important in their canon. End the division of labor, and there will be no philosophers. Rather, we will all philosophize.

Free your mind.

Don't they value "good jobs and consumer products"? For that matter, don't you? I certainly do.Drugs, both.

Is that not a choice they are entitled to make?Not at the expense of us all.

No one is ever perfectly free.Every animal on Earth, with the exception of Homo sapiens, is perfectly free.

How exactly are you using the word "freedom" here? I think we may be conceiving it in different ways.Probably. I define freedom as doing always precisely what I will, and willing always precisely what I do.

For a more robust explanation of what I mean by this, see Kant or Rousseau... especially Rousseau's Emile. (I recommend them not because their thought is better than mine, but because they have already written entire treatises that I could not match with any concision in this forum.)

Our current society functions, if badly, and provides for the material needs of an immense number of people.You're so concerned with material needs: save the life, feed the body. I am concerned, instead, with the quality of life: the distribution of happiness, the realization of freedom.

It has the highest life expectancy ever and the expanse of communication allows for greater knowledge and understanding than ever before.What does this communication, knowledge and understanding do for us? It always takes us outside ourselves, alienating us from our own existence, our own needs and feelings. Understand yourself first, and the rest will be superfluous.

What guarantee do you have that the labor of a primitive society is one that is substantially less awful than it is for us today?First, the fact that the modern primitives most comparable to the ancient ones I have in mind generally have no concept of "labor." Secondly, the fact that the archaeological evidence reveals lives of leisure and play for our ancient ancestors.

I do not want labor that is "substanially less awful" than labor today. I want to abolish labor altogether.

How can you know whether they experienced the kind of freedom you are talking about? You can only guess.I can do more than guess. I can judge by the evidence. My own wage-slave existence is that of a scientist, after all. What more can I do?

You are talking about what will amount to mass slaughter.Do I slaughter deer if I do not prevent the wolves from eating them? I think not.

I have very strong doubts that the "joys" of such freedom would outweight the immense cost in life.Let the people be free, and then see if they will sacrifice their freedom for the lives of some others. The choice is not that of those who die, but that of those who would live.

There is no freedom without life. Death is the enemy of freedom; the dead person is not free.That's true. But isn't that all the more reason for those who have freedom to cherish it? Why should they give it up for the short period it would be theirs, so that others may share in their slavery?

Yet modern society is such that some potentially harmful jobs can benefit society, and if people are willing to do such jobs for sufficient compensation, what is the problem?First, we're not talking about "potentially" harmful work. Scaling a mountain is potentially harmful, but there's nothing alienating about that.

What we're talking about are immediately harmful and alienating forms of existence. It's like paying someone to donate their kidney--it doesn't matter that they're willing to do it, the problem is that the exchange itself is corrupt, inhuman, contrary to freedom. If a person would not give a kidney without pay (for, say, other reasons such as their own compassion), then they do not will the taking of their kidney.

Paying someone for a kidney is in no way different than paying them for an hour of labor.

But by leaving the options open, you are ensuring that if in fact mining is so awful, people will choose other jobs instead, and no one will be subject to such horrors.Everyone has a price. That's the first rule of mastery.

True freedom is to live in a world without prices.

If the individuals are indeed free and equal, they will not undertake the task unless they prefer the reward to the cost of doing an unnatural thing. That is their choice to make. Incentives, in a just society, are simply tools of free exchange.No, free exchange occurs when you give me something I want but you don't want, and I give you something I don't want but you do. Or, more generally, just when one of us gives something to the other without wanting it her/himself--that is, as a freely given gift.

Market exchange is not free exchange. In the market, I am willing to give you something I want in exchange for something I want more. What I will (in the Rousseauan sense) is that I should get what I want without giving up what I also want. In a gift economy, I do not give anything with which I do not wish to part.

What is "exploitative" about it? It is a free exchange between equals. As you pointed out to me quite accurately in a conversation a few months ago, profit is not zero-sum; I can do a favor for someone as an incentive for her doing a favor for me, and because we both prefer getting the other person's favor to not doing a favor for the other person, we both profit. What is your objection?A truly free person does not go about trying to figure out what he/she can "get" out of other people, because he/she regards others as ends-in-themselves rather than mere means to ends.

As for our earlier conversation, I have since changed my mind. I believe I am entitled, as it is my mind. ;)

Darn it, AnarchyeL; why is it so hard to argue against you? You may end up convincing me again.Ahh... If I had to guess, I'd say it's "hard" because I only argue things that I fervently believe--and I only change my own opinion when I've become thoroughly convinced. If you'll consider it a compliment, I'd like to add that it's always most challenging to argue my point against your objections... and I suspect that this is so for similar reasons.

It seems to me that the strongest arguments are always the most sincere, and the best debaters are the most honest. In other words, the best way to be right is to admit when you're wrong. :p

Soheran:

To answer the questions that lie between the lines of my previous post, I want to point out that my "conversion experience" vis-a-vis anarcho-primitivism consists in my reading Rousseau's Emile. He has convinced me that it is possible to educate children for social life without forcing them to struggle against their own nature--that it is possible, in fact, always to do what one wills and always to will what one does: to be perfectly free.

While Rousseau does not intend it as an argument for primitivism, aspects of it certainly tend in this direction--and the only reason for Rousseau's rejection of the primitivist impulse seems to be his prejudice to the effect that we cannot "go back." Being as I see no real basis for this belief, I am prepared to embrace the ideal of the future primitive.

Actually, I'm not really an anarchist of any kind. Not because I don't think it is a just system at it's basis, but because I think that there is no way to create it, or, if there is a way to create it, no way to sustain it, or, if there is a way to create and sustain it, there is no way to justify the probable huge wars it will go through just to create and sustain itself. The government that is currently in control in whatever country the anarchist revolution occurs in won't exactly support the anarchists, and there could be a full scale civil war. If so, the country's enemies will see this and exploit it, and the country will fall back into authoritarianism and tyranny probably far worse than before the revolution.

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame.. as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world.. aware that his efforts will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failiure."

-- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein

They eschew a market.


Granted, many, if not most, of the "collectivist" "anarchist" ideologies do exactly that.

However, I don't think that this need necessarily be the case. A little while ago, I finished reading a book called From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State by David T. Beito. Mr. Beito documents the history of the "friendly societies" in the United States. These where essentially non-profit democratically-operated organizations whereby members (who were so voluntarily) contributed financial resources for the purposes of providing insurance, health care, and a whole host of other sorts of social welfare-type services to its members. Of course, these organizations competed against each other, as well as against the usual set of for-profit business (insurance, etc.) and professional (doctors, medicine, etc.) organizations. In fact, the friendly societies were so successful in providing services at far lower prices that professionals and for-profit businesses worked vigorously to get new state regulations installed in order to eliminate the competition. The concept of "charity," which many friendly organizations denounced as detrimental to individual responsibility and self-reliance, was proposed as an alternative. This was cited as one of the factors leading to the rise of the welfare state in the United States.

I would argue that these mutual/beneficial/friendly organizations, as well as similar models, represent a sort of non-business/non-profit collectivist entity which is perfectly capable of competing in a free market environment. At the very least, they provide evidence that it is possible to approach such an entity or standard. But then, the communists would prefer that we not remember this because of the exemplification of the free individual and voluntary cooperation there amongst. And, indeed, the capitalist would prefer that we not remember, because the capitalist does not appreciate the extra competition.

(edit: just take the above and place it inside an overall anarchist framework. No, it's not "collectivist" in the same sense that anarcho-communism is. But then, it's not really "individualist" in the same sense that anarcho-capitalism is either. I kind of like it for exactly those reasons.)


From a politico-economic standpoint--yes.


Again, it seems that this conclusion is highly likely (which is why I tend to favor the individual, as my own quiz results show), but I am not yet convinced of the impossibility of the concept of voluntary collectivism.

*snip*

I'm not going to respond to your post in the point-by-point fashion we've been using so far; it seems to me that its unintentional function in this discussion has mostly been to make the discussion more incoherent. I don't want this to look like an excuse to ignore pertinent points, though, so if I miss any, please point them out.

I can't argue with many of your criticisms of modern society. I think they hit all too close to truth. Though I am still far from convinced, what they have done is bring back something that I haven't thought about for a long time - the notion of alienation with unresponsive, bureaucratic institutions and with general modern society that has long motivated at least some of my radicalism.

I think you are right that the current economic structure of society (whatever the class structure associated with said economic structure) cannot be maintained without a partial suppression of individual sovereignty. Civilized society institutionalizes modes of behavior that are incompatible with a fully free society. It turns us into producers manipulated or outright coerced into producing for the benefit of others, at the instigation of a will not our own. In order to maintain its efficiency and material abundance, it necessitates the constant regulation of our lives, and this oppressive regulation produces a sense of alienation that turns us into reckless and destructive consumers.

I also think that you are right that the division of labor implies at least a potential power inequality. I'll admit to being at a loss to think of a good way out of that problem. Any solution ends up doing exactly what I object to so strongly - overregulating the lives of others, turning them into the slaves of others' wills.

Where your analysis starts to weaken, I think, is in your critique of more or less libertarian socialist methods of political and economic organization.

Firstly, your attack on democracy misses the point. No one is making you obey. You have the option of obeying or not obeying - but if you do not obey, you cannot expect the community to associate with you. To deny the community this right is to deny the community the right to free association. You do, of course, have other options.

Furthermore, democratic societies promote freedom because people want freedom; they will vote for it.

Secondly, I don't think your notion of freedom is fully coherent. What you seem to be saying is that if I pay a cost that I do not want to pay, I am being deprived of freedom because I don't want to pay it. Yet there are few choices that are wholly good or wholly bad. Any choice I make is likely to involve at least an opportunity cost, and thus a weighing of pros and cons. As I said, we are not perfectly free. We cannot make reality suit our will. What is the difference between doing something I don't particularly want to do for a motive like love for another, and doing it for money? (There are moral differences, but I'm asking about the implications for freedom.) Even an activity that I enjoy doing involves forgoing the doing of another activity that I enjoy doing.

Furthermore, as long as I have the option of refusing the deal, and will suffer no consequences for it, how has my freedom been suppressed? If I am in a free state and someone offers me a million dollars to do a task I don't want to do, I lose nothing by refusing. A society in which this offer can be made is not intrinsically an unfree society. Who is being denied freedom? Me? But I can refuse if I want to. The buyer? But she does not have to buy my labor if she so chooses. The exchange is perfectly consensual. Neither of us are being coerced in the slightest.

In order to treat a fellow human being as an end-in-herself, I need only restrain from imposing my will upon her. If she chooses to pursue her ends by pursuing mine, that is hardly a violation.

I do happen to be in favor of the idea of paying money for kidneys.

And leisure. It is true that we do not have the right to force them to work in the first place. But we do have the right to regulate it as far as it occurs within the framework of the community. The community can choose to deny a person certain goods and services if she refuses to work; that is its right to collective sovereignty. Increased vacation time is thus a potential reward.

You are missing my point regarding books. I do not read philosophy because I need to be told what to think. I read philosophy because I am not arrogant enough to suppose that my mind is capable of equaling the combined minds of dozens of others. It is better for my mind, and leads to a more enjoyable life, if I examine the thoughts of other intelligent minds. I would think independently of them. I do think independently of them, and that is a good thing. But I think better with the aid of their contributions. The same way I think better if I have the opportunity to discuss things with a friend, only multiplied in effect.

(And just out of random curiosity, how exactly was the subject matter suggestive of alienation?)

I am very skeptical of the moral distinction between "killing" and "starving" you present, but the reasons for this skepticism will likely get us substantially off-track.

The point, though, is that you are still writing off countless millions of lives, and furthermore you are eradicating the possibility of ever saving them. You have closed off all avenues to progress. Even if I were to agree with you that it is a legitimate choice of the individuals within a society to withhold aid from those who would need technology for it, it is still a monstrous choice, and furthermore it is one we have not made. You have to not only show that it is legitimate, but that it is good.

You are willing to acknowledge that in modern society there is some freedom and happiness. If there is indeed some, then you are denying that "some" to the people you seek to let die. And for what? If someone examined the urban US tens of thousands of years from now, after some environmental catastrophe wiped out the human species, that person may well conclude from the material abundance and high life expectancy that we lived in a utopia. We do not, of course.

What if primitive society is oppressive in ways that are distinct from the oppressions of modern culture, but are nevertheless oppressive? How can we know that this is not the case?

Private.

Edit: Oh, I see what you're getting at. It's both; it has a personal role and a private role.

Exactly, it is a means of production, but try convincing that delivery boy that it isn't personal property.

Sure there is a great deal of property that people have a claim to yet never use it personally, and that would be a somewhat easy division. I also admit that most items that are both personal and private property are owned by individuals who would benefit from an elimination of private property.

Nevertheless, it is a difficult division to make.

Firstly, your attack on democracy misses the point. No one is making you obey. You have the option of obeying or not obeying - but if you do not obey, you cannot expect the community to associate with you. To deny the community this right is to deny the community the right to free association. You do, of course, have other options.There are two possibilities here, and I want to make sure we understand each other.

Option One: People come together to discuss public projects. Anyone who wants to participate in the project may, and those who do not wish to participate in the project do not have to. This is organization by free association, and it should be distinguished, I think from "democracy" which is political rule "by the people" (however you want to define these terms, which is a problem in itself). There is no sanction for those who do not wish to participate.

Option Two: People deliberate on public policies, including both public projects and prescriptive or proscriptive rules (laws). If a majority of those included in the deliberation agree on a policy, they adopt it. This is democracy. Now, you say that I am not obliged by their rules so long as I do not "expect them to associate with me." Well, what if they pass a law proscribing public nudity, but I want to go about naked? I don't mind their going about their business clothed, and I don't mind if many of them choose not to "associate" with me because of my decision--I'm the self-reliant sort anyway.

But now they come along and tell me I must "either" obey the law or go elsewhere--because they have the right to refuse their association with me. I respond that they can refuse their association all they want, but that they have no right to kick me off the land--how is it theirs, anyway? They say that they are the majority, and they decided that in this land one must wear clothing. I say that I was never a part of their association, so why should I respect their territoriality and their claim to collective property?

You see the bind we get into? Under "democratic" rule, the rules must be binding or they are not "rules" at all. Every time I have heard this argument, the "freedom" to opt out ultimately boils down to the dubious freedom to "move along." Rule presupposes compulsion, which ultimately presupposes property.

Furthermore, democratic societies promote freedom because people want freedom; they will vote for it.Empirically speaking, democratic populations have proven to be very unreliable in voting for the things for which one would theoretically expect them to vote... I'm not sure making things "more" democratic is going to change anything. (E.g. it had always been supposed that democracies would vote for downward redistributive policies, since the majority of people are poor and such redistribution facilitates their well-being... and, ultimately, their autonomy and freedom. As it turns out, democracies are sometimes more economically regressive than nondemocracies.)

Secondly, I don't think your notion of freedom is fully coherent. What you seem to be saying is that if I pay a cost that I do not want to pay, I am being deprived of freedom because I don't want to pay it.Not exactly. I am saying that I cannot will the payment of alienating costs, namely those that treat myself and my body as means rather than ends. Simple exchange (payment in kind) may avoid this problem--I'll have to think more about that. But as soon as money and wages are introduced, I alienate my labor, therefore my body and myself.

Yet there are few choices that are wholly good or wholly bad.The point isn't good or bad. The point is that if a choice makes me divide against myself--if it makes me fight my own instincts, my natural inclinations--then "I" cannot be choosing it, for in the act of making the choice I summarily destroy the whole "I" capable of choosing. The worst part about the current state of affairs is that the world is structured so that all available choices are self-destructive. Even if I understand what it means to be whole, I am not allowed to be.

This may sound overly abstract, but what I mean is something quite concrete. I am talking about the repression of natural desire, the institution of artificial "discipline"--obedience to imposed rules, conformity to other wills rather than to necessity. At every step, from even before we can speak, our society cries at us "NO!" Do this, don't do what you want. We must constantly struggle against ourselves, forcing the obedient, servile parts of our person into power over our natural exuberance. If we are ever to work in a factory, or work in the field, or work in the office--even if it is only for a few hours at a time--our desire for freedom and play must be broken at the earliest possible age. We must deny half of what we are, even as our desires multiply a thousand-fold. We come to always want what we cannot have--the ultimate consumerist alienation in that it puts us always outside ourselves, always wishing we were someone other than we are, that we have something other than we have.

Will your people enter the mines? Only if you first teach them to deny nature, and then to cherish wealth. Leave them to their own devices, do not "educate" them, and see if you can get them to spend even ten minutes out of the sunlight toiling in the Earth. They would rather die.

Any choice I make is likely to involve at least an opportunity cost, and thus a weighing of pros and cons.It is not merely likely. ALL choice involves opportunity cost--this is the very nature of choice. As such, how can it be alienating? Obedience to necessity is not obedience at all.

As I said, we are not perfectly free. We cannot make reality suit our will.No, and for that very reason we should not have to conform our will to the will of another. As much as we want not to be controlled, we should not desire to control.

We can be perfectly free to the extent that we can do everything we will--provided we learn the meaning of (natural) necessity, we do not will what cannot be. Do I will that I can spread my arms and fly? I wish it, perhaps, but I cannot will it--I know that it is impossible. Do I will that I should not have to work tomorrow? Yes, for I know that I am only compelled to do so by the will of another--and being not of a slavish mindset I do not regard that as necessary. Shall I, however, perform the tasks that I do not will? Probably, given that the consequences of disobedience will be still worse than the sufferance of the will that is imposed on me. But this is not freedom.

What is the difference between doing something I don't particularly want to do for a motive like love for another, and doing it for money?Because if I love another and I will her recovery, if it is in my power to supply it I will the means along with the end--this is the very meaning of the verb "to will." I give my kidney, in the aforementioned example, not merely voluntarily, but willingly. I leap at the opportunity to be the one whose sacrifice will save my beloved--I am overjoyed that not only will she live, but I will have affirmed my love for her. I do not alienate myself--I do not oppose my instincts, but sublimate them. I experience a powerful human bond which affirms both my freedom and my humanity.

If I give up my kidney for cash (or some other award), I may do this voluntarily but not willingly. I will the end (the award), but there is no inherent connection between the end and the means--my giving of the kidney, therefore, is merely the means to an end. I do not, as a simple extension of willing the end, also will the means.* Rather than sublimating my self-preservative instinct through commiseration with someone with whom I identify (a "self-object," to use the psychologist's term), I must repress this instinct in order to satisfy some want. I must deny my humanity in order to obtain some prize that I do not really need. (If I do need it, then the exchange is one of force, plain and simple.)

*Note from above: To further explain, the ends and means are intimately connected in the first scenario (end=saving a loved one, means=giving a kidney) because presumably this is the only way to save her life--if a less drastic measure would serve, probably I would opt for it. This is a medical necessity--a fact of nature, something unaffected by human convention. In the latter case, the ends and means have only a conventional connection: sacrificing my kidney will earn me some prize because human conventions say so. Thus in the first case when I will the end (saving the life) I will also the means because of the necessary connection between the two. In the latter case I will the end (the reward), but when it comes to the means I find myself in conflict with other wills, not merely with immovable nature. In submitting to that will (whether individual or collective) I alienate my own.

I will admit that a properly democratic constitution MAY mitigate this problem to the extent that its decisions truly represent what Rousseau calls "the general will," which is in his definition what everyone (thinking rightly) would will for her/himself. But to get people to vote based on such a pure rational principle (Kant's categorical imperative is an application of Rousseau's thought) would require such a fundamental change in social thinking that I suspect its premise conflicts with the nature of political relations: as long as people are taught to obey, they cannot be taught also to rule. Rousseau thought this problem was soluble, but I'm not so sure. I think it may be better to simply teach them to be free, which isn't so hard at all once you stop trying to make them obey.

Even an activity that I enjoy doing involves forgoing the doing of another activity that I enjoy doing.Yes, but neither actually requires you to harm yourself.

Furthermore, as long as I have the option of refusing the deal, and will suffer no consequences for it, how has my freedom been suppressed? If I am in a free state and someone offers me a million dollars to do a task I don't want to do, I lose nothing by refusing.And by refusing you demonstrate your freedom. It is in accepting that you would prove yourself a slave to unnecessary desires. When desire conflicts with need and desire wins, the slave mentality is the only explanation.

TV shows like "Fear Factor" are the best evidence to date of the degradation of our species. Anyone who would eat a milkshake of rotting cow intestines, desperately suppressing her body's gag reflex--though she is not harmed by her refusal and she is greatly rewarded for her effort--cannot be said to be free. She has been enslaved by unnecessary desires (for wealth, fame...) that society has created in her. She is not free. She is well trained.

A society in which this offer can be made is not intrinsically an unfree society.No. Only a society in which it can be accepted is intrinsically unfree.Who is being denied freedom? Me? But I can refuse if I want to.You are denied freedom if you have been so well trained that you would actually accept.

Neither of us are being coerced in the slightest.Freedom, in my usage, is much broader than "non-coercion."

In order to treat a fellow human being as an end-in-herself, I need only restrain from imposing my will upon her. If she chooses to pursue her ends by pursuing mine, that is hardly a violation.We learn well how to manipulate without "imposing." If I cry not as a response to immediate pain or an upwelling of emotion, but to get affection, I am being manipulative--and I may not even realize this. If I make a study of the things that motivate other people, but only so I can play on those motivations by offering "incentives" to pursue my ends, I am being manipulative--and thereby treating others as means rather than ends.

To treat another as an end-in-herself is to wish her the same freedom and happiness that I wish myself, nothing more. To will that she serves me--no matter how I manage to have my will done--is to see her as a means to my ends.

I do happen to be in favor of the idea of paying money for kidneys.I don't... although I do happen to be in favor of donating more of them. ;)

The community can choose to deny a person certain goods and services if she refuses to work; that is its right to collective sovereignty.What gave it the right to those goods and services in the first place? What if I want to work a plot of land that "the community" has decided to reserve for housing instead? Will the community deny me that plot for farming and insist that I go to the mines? Or will it simply deny me my plot of land, and when I want money to procure another will it tell me that I can earn some by working in the mines? When I refuse to go to the mines, will they blame me for my poverty?

If I'm not "forced" to abide by the community's decision, how is it I've suddenly been forced into poverty?

Increased vacation time is thus a potential reward.Increased vacation time presumes that you could make me work in the first place. But earlier you denied coerced labor. I don't think you can have it both ways. The only way "time off" can be a "reward" is if "time on" was a necessity!!

(And just out of random curiosity, how exactly was the subject matter suggestive of alienation?)To the extent that philosophy takes us "out there," away from ourselves and our inclinations. The worst philosophy tells us that the body and its needs are bad, base things to be denied. The best (least alienating and, to some extent, attacking alienation) draws us inward toward self-examination, self-reflection, and self-discovery. I find that the latter is by far the most politically radical.

The point, though, is that you are still writing off countless millions of lives, and furthermore you are eradicating the possibility of ever saving them.If we saved every possible animal life by any means necessary, the ecosystem would collapse and the world would be ruined. Indeed, if we chose any individual species and saved every possible death among its members, the results (within the local ecosystem at least) might be equally disastrous. (The animals whose populations we have ourselves directly endangered are the exceptions.) I think that very few people would argue that we should go on a crusade to save every possible chimpanzee who would die without our help--no one would regard this as "progress."

Yet choose this one species--Homo sapiens--and suddenly people will abandon all reason and argue that "every life" must be preserved, at almost any imaginable cost. I think this is no more reasonable than saving every chimp, or every rabbit, or every deer. Save those which can reasonably be saved--this is the nature of compassion, and I would do it even for a rabbit lying in the road--but be ever mindful of the costs, and do not sacrifice your very dignity, your freedom, your humanity for the sake of those who will never know what they missed.

You have closed off all avenues to progress.Of course I have! I think "progress" is the problem!!Even if I were to agree with you that it is a legitimate choice of the individuals within a society to withhold aid from those who would need technology for it, it is still a monstrous choice,I don't see it as such at all.

Just for a second, forget that I am proposing what we have now in favor of a different kind of society. Imagine it rather from the perspective of a natural society in which many infants die, but in which they also know little of "work" as we know it. There's is an authentic existence of freedom and play. (Just grant me that, for the present.)

Now, they are surely sad that so many children die in infancy. Then someone announces that it is possible to fix this problem. It will take technology (and I will grant you, in exchange for the above, that this technology will deliver on its promise without the thousands of years in which it actually shortened life rather than prolonging it). "Some of you," says our would-be doctor, "will need to dig beneath the Earth for many hours to supply us with ore necessary to this endeavor. Others of you must destroy our beautiful forests, which we will use for building material and which we will burn for energy--at least until we can manage the even greater divisions necessary for nuclear power! We shall no longer freely roam the countryside, for we must settle in cities where we can build permanent structures in which to construct the many machines necessary to produce medicines and life-support machines. Some of you will spend hours on an assembly line producing and working on these machines. Others of you will spend many hours on the road, trucking supplies from one area to another. Others still will train to use this equipment, to produce these medications. Still others will spend many years of their lives learning to diagnose particular ailments--for no single treatment will serve every purpose. Indeed, all of our children must sacrifice their childhoods to many hours of daily schooling, learning the math and the science that makes this technology possible--and we must pay careful attention to observe them during this period to see which are the most loyal to their studies, the most obedient; which are the brightest mathematicians, scientists, and engineers: for these observations we will use to help each find the role in our new society in which he will excel. Many thousands of hours will we sacrifice, transforming ourselves into the sort who can stand these long hours of work without rebelling bodily against it. We must become obedient, dependent, and weak. Only then can we save the children who would otherwise be lost!"

If I were at this meeting, I would not strike this man. But I would laugh at him. And if others seemed to take him seriously, I would offer this counterproposal:

"No one likes to see an innocent child die, but death is a natural part of life. We should use the means available to us to prevent these tragedies, but we must not become means ourselves. Let us explore the wilderness that we know so well, and find what herbs we can to bolster the strength of expectant mothers as well as the bodies and immune systems of the newly born. Let us take reasonable precautions against bacterial infections--let us maintain sanitary conditions at birth and let us protect our children from the elements. But who among us will sacrifice his freedom for the lives of children he may never know? Who among us will agree to servitude for the sake of those who cannot blame us for our self-regard? If my own life were on the line, would I wish that all of my friends--and indeed many others besides--were forced to labor all their lives merely to supply a chance for my survival? Surely not!! For I would not wish on them any service that I would not choose for myself. This would be to use them as means only to my survival, not as ends in themselves whose happiness and freedom is valuable."

"Some will say that we sacrifice these innocent children when we could save them. Yet it is no willing sacrifice to lose them to the laws of nature when the cost of their preservation is more than we can willingly pay. Would we compel a person to give her hand against her will if it would save a life? Do we blame a man for choosing his own head over that of another? Yet you would have more: you would have our freedom; you would not merely end our lives, you would refuse to let us live them!! No one can ask this kind of sacrifice; no one can willingly give it. Perhaps, you say, for the sake of one he loves: but can one love all humankind? Can one give selflessly to future generations? This asks too much. Human love does not stretch so far. Do not demand of me my life, my freedom and my independence. These I cannot give."

That would be my speech to them, and it changes little given that society has already taken this path--through hardly any "choice," I think, by those who have suffered most of the labor.

But I'll give you this: return us first to a state of true freedom and independence. Let us start the journey over, remembering the horrors of our past so that we can avoid oppression in the future--and we will see what "progress" occurs. Whatever technology a free society develops, I think it will be radically different than anything we can imagine, for our imaginations have been suppressed for far too long under the delusion that this is what technology must necessarily be. If that free society devotes itself to the preservation of life rather than the enjoyment of it, I will be surprised indeed. But I will be satisfied that they will find a less alienating means to the end.

You have to not only show that it is legitimate, but that it is good.That has been my aim, yes.

You are willing to acknowledge that in modern society there is some freedom and happiness.Yes, though I think we are largely incapable of really enjoying it. We are too conflicted, too torn. Even when we are at rest, part of us feels we should be working. How many retirees insist that they cannot enjoy their leisure because they need to be "busy" with work? This is a disease, and civilization is its cause. If there is indeed some, then you are denying that "some" to the people you seek to let die. And for what?I am not denying them anything they have a right to claim! They have a right to claim that I do nothing to harm them--but what right do they have to insist that I subject myself to slavery for their benefit? None whatsoever, besides my own good will. This I am willing to give, so far as human compassion can take it: but there are necessary limits to compassion. I will not become a means to another's end--that is the definition of slavery.

If someone examined the urban US tens of thousands of years from now, after some environmental catastrophe wiped out the human species, that person may well conclude from the material abundance and high life expectancy that we lived in a utopia. We do not, of course.No, and anyone who reached this conclusion would be a very poor archaeologist indeed. Would he neglect to notice the many machines that require human labor? Would he find the consumer products, but not the cubicles? Would he be such a poor mathematician that he could not calculate how much labor is required to produce our wealth? (Would he not also notice that some dwellings are much larger and contain many more things than others, or that lifetimes on the most ornate tombstones are longer than those on smaller ones?)

What if primitive society is oppressive in ways that are distinct from the oppressions of modern culture, but are nevertheless oppressive? How can we know that this is not the case?We can only use the best empirical evidence we have. What else can we do? To turn the question on the questioner, how do we know that market socialism, anarcho-communism, or "real democracy"--or any other alternative you may support--is not oppressive in ways previously unimagined?

"Let's stick with what we have because something else might be worse--our best evidence notwithstanding," is the most essentially conservative argument in the history of politics.

You scored as Christian Anarchist.



Christian anarchism is one of the oldest anarchist philosophies, arguably dating back to the early Christian church. Christian anarchists emphasise non-violence and oppose the state as God is the only legitimate source of authority. Key thinkers include the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy

Soheran, if you'd be interested in something of an attractive "compromise" position between our two, you should read the novel Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy. Her depiction of future society is considered among the most significant feminist utopias: roughly anarcho-communist, hers is a deeply democratic federation of villages that at first glance appears to live simplistically, close to the Earth--but which turns out to have developed technology in a radically different fashion than what we know today. People may study specialized occupations as scientists or artists--and they may change at any time--but everyone must participate in food production and defense, no matter how "important" or "brilliant" they may seem to be.

I have my students read it for a course in democratic political theory, and they usually find it quite interesting--although they inevitably resist some of the more radical proposals, such as men breast-feeding and babies being grown in a "brooder" rather than a womb.

You might like it. :)

Soheran, if you'd be interested in something of an attractive "compromise" position between our two, you should read the novel Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy. Her depiction of future society is considered among the most significant feminist utopias: roughly anarcho-communist, hers is a deeply democratic federation of villages that at first glance appears to live simplistically, close to the Earth--but which turns out to have developed technology in a radically different fashion than what we know today. People may study specialized occupations as scientists or artists--and they may change at any time--but everyone must participate in food production and defense, no matter how "important" or "brilliant" they may seem to be.

I have my students read it for a course in democratic political theory, and they usually find it quite interesting--although they inevitably resist some of the more radical proposals, such as men breast-feeding and babies being grown in a "brooder" rather than a womb.

You might like it. :)

It sounds like a great future if I get boobs.

You scored as Anarcho-Communist.
Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.

Anarcho-Communist 70%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 60%
Anarcha-Feminist 45%
Anarcho-Primitivist 40%
Christian Anarchist 30%
Anarcho-Capitalist 25%

How the hell did this turn into a debate?

How the hell did this turn into a debate?

A few pages back I imagine, its a politcal thread and they always turn into deabate.

A few pages back I imagine, its a politcal thread and they always turn into deabate.
Well I hate it!

You say you agree with many of the criticism of anarcho-primitivism, but I hardly see how that can be true if you accept the "neutral technology" thesis.

The central tenets of primitivism are:

1) Divided labor is fundamentally alienating and oppressive.
2) Therefore, ALL technology that cannot be developed, understood, produced and maintained by individuals without socially coordinated divided labor has to go.

In other words, it's not so much how you use technology that's the problem; rather, it's how you produce it. The primitivist argument is that divided labor is technicized labor: the individual her/himself becomes part of the social machine. "We don't use technology, technology uses us," that sort of thing.I suppose I can't agree with this; I do agree that this is how technology is currently, but I don't see this as being inherent to technology. Rather, I see it as simply part of the system in which we live.
I don't see any reason why, if nobody is willing to choose to mine for a living, those individuals who wish to receive the benefits of mining couldn't each mine for 2 hours a week or so.

So long as power exists, it can be monopolized. Hence I say we should abolish it altogether.Impossible. You gave an example yourself of a person using emotional manipulation - crying to get affection. This is a form of power.
It is possible, however, to make it so that the imbalances of power are not so severe.

There are two possibilities here, and I want to make sure we understand each other.

Option One: People come together to discuss public projects. Anyone who wants to participate in the project may, and those who do not wish to participate in the project do not have to. This is organization by free association, and it should be distinguished, I think from "democracy" which is political rule "by the people" (however you want to define these terms, which is a problem in itself). There is no sanction for those who do not wish to participate.

Option Two: People deliberate on public policies, including both public projects
and prescriptive or proscriptive rules (laws). If a majority of those included in the deliberation agree on a policy, they adopt it. This is democracy. Now, you say that I am not obliged by their rules so long as I do not "expect them to associate with me." Well, what if they pass a law proscribing public nudity, but I want to go about naked? I don't mind their going about their business clothed, and I don't mind if many of them choose not to "associate" with me because of my decision--I'm the self-reliant sort anyway.

But now they come along and tell me I must "either" obey the law or go elsewhere--because they have the right to refuse their association with me. I respond that they can refuse their association all they want, but that they have no right to kick me off the land--how is it theirs, anyway? They say that they are the majority, and they decided that in this land one must wear clothing. I say that I was never a part of their association, so why should I respect their territoriality and their claim to collective property?

You see the bind we get into? Under "democratic" rule, the rules must be binding or they are not "rules" at all. Every time I have heard this argument, the "freedom" to opt out ultimately boils down to the dubious freedom to "move along." Rule presupposes compulsion, which ultimately presupposes property.

Yes, democracy in the sense I am using it is not consistent with absolute free association. Bur nor are any "rules" at all, as you point out - which would include such "rules" as prohibitions on murder and rape. Not all rules need be legitimized by the consent of free association. As long as you remain within the framework of a community, the community has a partial right to impose its rule upon you, even if you do not consent; that is part of its right to defend itself.

I am against laws against public nudity, even if they are made by communities where leaving is a realistic option. If I recall correctly, however, this train of the discussion concerns the democratic distribution of resources. To claim resources for yourself just on the basis of your desire for them, to the exclusion of the other members of the community, is to elevate yourself above them, to impose your will upon them. It is a kind of theft, because the other members of the community have a claim to them as well. There must be some way of mediating these claims, and thus democracy takes its role in the economy.

The point behind free association is that if this does not suit you, you can leave. The association must thus benefit everyone. It cannot exploit some for the benefit of others, because if it does, those who are exploited will leave and the exploiters will be left without anyone to exploit. It is a check on the power of collective institutions.

Empirically speaking, democratic populations have proven to be very unreliable in voting for the things for which one would theoretically expect them to vote... I'm not sure making things "more" democratic is going to change anything. (E.g. it had always been supposed that democracies would vote for downward redistributive policies, since the majority of people are poor and such redistribution facilitates their well-being... and, ultimately, their autonomy and freedom. As it turns out, democracies are sometimes more economically regressive than nondemocracies.)

But our societies are also constructed in a way that makes most manifestions of democracy distant from us. The state and its institutions are distinct from the people, and the exercise of their power is thus distant from us. Most of the time, we do not deal with the people at the top, whom we elect; we are not sure what they do, and even when we are, we are not sure of its effects on us. Democracy that is immediate, that is directly relevant, is democracy that can be far more meaningful than the statist, elitist "democracy" people have been subjected to so far.

As for "downward redistributive policies," there I would contest your assertion that democracy does not promote them; most of the left-wing reforms of capitalism have come from popular action, though not always expressed in an electoral manner. The present left-wing trend in Latin America, for one example, is the result of the democratic reforms that have occured there during the past few decades. When issues are directly relevant to people's lives, they will act.

Not exactly. I am saying that I cannot will the payment of alienating costs, namely those that treat myself and my body as means rather than ends. Simple exchange (payment in kind) may avoid this problem--I'll have to think more about that. But as soon as money and wages are introduced, I alienate my labor, therefore my body and myself.

The point isn't good or bad. The point is that if a choice makes me divide against myself--if it makes me fight my own instincts, my natural inclinations--then "I" cannot be choosing it, for in the act of making the choice I summarily destroy the whole "I" capable of choosing. The worst part about the current state of affairs is that the world is structured so that all available choices are self-destructive. Even if I understand what it means to be whole, I am not allowed to be.

This may sound overly abstract, but what I mean is something quite concrete. I am talking about the repression of natural desire, the institution of artificial "discipline"--obedience to imposed rules, conformity to other wills rather than to necessity. At every step, from even before we can speak, our society cries at us "NO!" Do this, don't do what you want. We must constantly struggle against ourselves, forcing the obedient, servile parts of our person into power over our natural exuberance. If we are ever to work in a factory, or work in the field, or work in the office--even if it is only for a few hours at a time--our desire for freedom and play must be broken at the earliest possible age. We must deny half of what we are, even as our desires multiply a thousand-fold. We come to always want what we cannot have--the ultimate consumerist alienation in that it puts us always outside ourselves, always wishing we were someone other than we are, that we have something other than we have.

Will your people enter the mines? Only if you first teach them to deny nature, and then to cherish wealth. Leave them to their own devices, do not "educate" them, and see if you can get them to spend even ten minutes out of the sunlight toiling in the Earth. They would rather die.

Would they? I think your analysis of the authoritarian nature of modern society has truth to it, but the fact remains that wealth and luxury are attractive to people. Some of that may be the result of alienation - but all of it? How is the desire for good food, or for shelter from the environment, or for access to knowledge, and so on, the result of alienation? Some desires in us are natural, and while the massive satisfaction of those desires may not be, so what?

If the massive satisfaction of those desires is a sufficient incentive for some people to perform labor that may be degrading, what is wrong with it?

It is not merely likely. ALL choice involves opportunity cost--this is the very nature of choice. As such, how can it be alienating? Obedience to necessity is not obedience at all.

And it is "necessity" that some objectives cannot be achieved without awful means. If we desire the objectives, what is the "alienation" in using awful means to achieve them?

No, and for that very reason we should not have to conform our will to the will of another.

Not unless it is necessary for some other aim of ours. And while nature does not have a literal "will," is not conformity to it a form of non-freedom when we can escape, through technology, aspects of it that we don't like?

We can be perfectly free to the extent that we can do everything we will--provided we learn the meaning of (natural) necessity, we do not will what cannot be. Do I will that I can spread my arms and fly? I wish it, perhaps, but I cannot will it--I know that it is impossible. Do I will that I should not have to work tomorrow? Yes, for I know that I am only compelled to do so by the will of another--and being not of a slavish mindset I do not regard that as necessary. Shall I, however, perform the tasks that I do not will? Probably, given that the consequences of disobedience will be still worse than the sufferance of the will that is imposed on me. But this is not freedom.

Yet, with technology, human beings are capable of flight. To destroy that technology restricts us - it takes away an opportunity from us and forces us to rely on what is natural.

Similarly, despite conforming to the will of another in your labor, the choice to labor may provide you with opportunities you would not otherwise get, opportunities that would be impossible without a social system that relied on incentives.

Because if I love another and I will her recovery, if it is in my power to supply it I will the means along with the end--this is the very meaning of the verb "to will." I give my kidney, in the aforementioned example, not merely voluntarily, but willingly. I leap at the opportunity to be the one whose sacrifice will save my beloved--I am overjoyed that not only will she live, but I will have affirmed my love for her. I do not alienate myself--I do not oppose my instincts, but sublimate them. I experience a powerful human bond which affirms both my freedom and my humanity.

If I give up my kidney for cash (or some other award), I may do this voluntarily but not willingly. I will the end (the award), but there is no inherent connection between the end and the means--my giving of the kidney, therefore, is merely the means to an end. I do not, as a simple extension of willing the end, also will the means.* Rather than sublimating my self-preservative instinct through commiseration with someone with whom I identify (a "self-object," to use the psychologist's term), I must repress this instinct in order to satisfy some want. I must deny my humanity in order to obtain some prize that I do not really need. (If I do need it, then the exchange is one of force, plain and simple.)

*Note from above: To further explain, the ends and means are intimately connected in the first scenario (end=saving a loved one, means=giving a kidney) because presumably this is the only way to save her life--if a less drastic measure would serve, probably I would opt for it. This is a medical necessity--a fact of nature, something unaffected by human convention. In the latter case, the ends and means have only a conventional connection: sacrificing my kidney will earn me some prize because human conventions say so. Thus in the first case when I will the end (saving the life) I will also the means because of the necessary connection between the two. In the latter case I will the end (the reward), but when it comes to the means I find myself in conflict with other wills, not merely with immovable nature. In submitting to that will (whether individual or collective) I alienate my own.

Here is where you start being too abstract.

It is true that in the first circumstance, there is a natural connection between saving a life and donating a kidney, while in the second circumstance, there is no natural connection between receiving a monetary reward and donating the kidney. The problem is that it doesn't seem to me as if there's much of a difference. Whether the connection is natural or unnatural, it is still a connection; I am still sacrificing something for some reward. The nature of the connection hardly seems relevant; why should I care?

There may be a difference in eagerness between the donor who donates out of love and the donor who donates out of a desire for wealth, but this is a difference of degree, not of kind, and it is a difference that has nothing to do with what is natural.

Let me give an example that may help illustrate this point. Say my brother needs a kidney in order to survive, but no donor appears. However, there is a nearby corporation that finds and pays people willing to donate their kidneys for money - for a price, of course. My brother doesn't have the money, but I do; I pay the price, and his life is saved.

There is no natural connection between my expenditure of money and my brother's life being saved, yet there is every reason to expect that I jump at the opportunity to save his life just as much as a donor who donates her kidney out of love would.

I will admit that a properly democratic constitution MAY mitigate this problem to the extent that its decisions truly represent what Rousseau calls "the general will," which is in his definition what everyone (thinking rightly) would will for her/himself. But to get people to vote based on such a pure rational principle (Kant's categorical imperative is an application of Rousseau's thought) would require such a fundamental change in social thinking that I suspect its premise conflicts with the nature of political relations: as long as people are taught to obey, they cannot be taught also to rule. Rousseau thought this problem was soluble, but I'm not so sure. I think it may be better to simply teach them to be free, which isn't so hard at all once you stop trying to make them obey.

I'll have to agree with you that the problem isn't soluble, but I also don't think it's as much of a problem as you make it out to be.

Yes, but neither actually requires you to harm yourself.

It involves a loss to me. "Harm" is subjective; perhaps it represents a greater loss, but that too can be overcome through greater rewards.

And by refusing you demonstrate your freedom. It is in accepting that you would prove yourself a slave to unnecessary desires. When desire conflicts with need and desire wins, the slave mentality is the only explanation.

TV shows like "Fear Factor" are the best evidence to date of the degradation of our species. Anyone who would eat a milkshake of rotting cow intestines, desperately suppressing her body's gag reflex--though she is not harmed by her refusal and she is greatly rewarded for her effort--cannot be said to be free. She has been enslaved by unnecessary desires (for wealth, fame...) that society has created in her. She is not free. She is well trained.

I don't watch television, and I can't claim to be particularly familiar with "Fear Factor." Yet it seems to me that in at least a substantial number of cases, the incentives that motivate us are naturally rooted, and the suppression of natural instincts in pursuit of those objectives is thus only socially created to the degree that the rewards themselves - as opposed to the desire for them - are socially created. When our state prior to accepting such a deal is not so awful as to make the deal coercive, our acceptance of it does not destroy our freedom - at least when the incentives are indeed naturally rooted. "Wealth" can fulfill at least some of our natural desires in ways nature never could. "Fame" can fulfill our desire to be respected by others, which is also a natural trait - we are, after all, naturally social animals.

No. Only a society in which it can be accepted is intrinsically unfree.You are denied freedom if you have been so well trained that you would actually accept.

How can you be sure that it is "training" that makes us undergo such ordeals?

We learn well how to manipulate without "imposing." If I cry not as a response to immediate pain or an upwelling of emotion, but to get affection, I am being manipulative--and I may not even realize this. If I make a study of the things that motivate other people, but only so I can play on those motivations by offering "incentives" to pursue my ends, I am being manipulative--and thereby treating others as means rather than ends.

Yet I am at the same time giving them opportunities to pursue their ends. My motives may be partially or even wholly selfish, but as long as the choice remains theirs, any pursuit of my ends by them will also be a pursuit of their ends by me.

To treat another as an end-in-herself is to wish her the same freedom and happiness that I wish myself, nothing more. To will that she serves me--no matter how I manage to have my will done--is to see her as a means to my ends.

Yet as long as her freedom and happiness is not violated, what is the problem?

I don't... although I do happen to be in favor of donating more of them. ;)

Perhaps it is an aspect of my mind-body alienation, but I do not see how our society can tolerate selling almost everything under the sun... but, for some reason, not organs. Furthermore, there is the loss of life that comes from the forcible reduction of supply.

What gave it the right to those goods and services in the first place?

The better question is, what gave you the right? Human beings being, at least at the start, equal, the collective (or egalitarian, but that is difficult in practice) right to resources seems a better default than the exclusive private right.

What if I want to work a plot of land that "the community" has decided to reserve for housing instead? Will the community deny me that plot for farming and insist that I go to the mines? Or will it simply deny me my plot of land, and when I want money to procure another will it tell me that I can earn some by working in the mines? When I refuse to go to the mines, will they blame me for my poverty?

If I'm not "forced" to abide by the community's decision, how is it I've suddenly been forced into poverty?

You would be able to find decent employment elsewhere; if not, then the society is indeed unjustly coercive. The incentives for mining in a free society would have to be above and beyond basic decent treatment.

Increased vacation time presumes that you could make me work in the first place. But earlier you denied coerced labor. I don't think you can have it both ways. The only way "time off" can be a "reward" is if "time on" was a necessity!!

Simply, in one case the labor of others in a community provides you with goods and services in trade for (say) thirty hours of work a week on your part, and in the other you are provided with those goods and services in trade for fifteen hours of work a week on your part.

Nothing, of course, is stopping you from leaving the community and attempting to secure what you desire from your own labor (or with the aid of others freely associating with you).

To the extent that philosophy takes us "out there," away from ourselves and our inclinations. The worst philosophy tells us that the body and its needs are bad, base things to be denied. The best (least alienating and, to some extent, attacking alienation) draws us inward toward self-examination, self-reflection, and self-discovery. I find that the latter is by far the most politically radical.

In which case Nieztsche qualifies as among the better ones. Some of what he says in On the Genealogy of Morals parallels the observations of modern society that you have been making, though from a substantially different perspective.

If we saved every possible animal life by any means necessary, the ecosystem would collapse and the world would be ruined. Indeed, if we chose any individual species and saved every possible death among its members, the results (within the local ecosystem at least) might be equally disastrous. (The animals whose populations we have ourselves directly endangered are the exceptions.) I think that very few people would argue that we should go on a crusade to save every possible chimpanzee who would die without our help--no one would regard this as "progress."

Yet choose this one species--Homo sapiens--and suddenly people will abandon all reason and argue that "every life" must be preserved, at almost any imaginable cost. I think this is no more reasonable than saving every chimp, or every rabbit, or every deer. Save those which can reasonably be saved--this is the nature of compassion, and I would do it even for a rabbit lying in the road--but be ever mindful of the costs, and do not sacrifice your very dignity, your freedom, your humanity for the sake of those who will never know what they missed.

I don't think human beings are morally equivalent to non-human animals.

I also don't think we should save lives at all costs - there are some costs that are too high - but I will admit to being adamantly in favor of saving lives at rather high costs. As I've said, life is the prerequisite for everything else; it is essential, and its needless destruction is usually an awful crime. Even chattel slaves did not all commit suicide.

Of course I have! I think "progress" is the problem!!

But by "progress" I did not mean technological progress. I meant genuine social improvement. Today, however horrific the problems that afflict us, it is at least conceivable that we may eventually find a solution to them. We are still progressing; the avenues have not been closed off. Yet a primitive society would have no such avenues; the infants would continue dying, year after year after year, and there would be no brilliant new methods to save them.

I don't see it as such at all.

Just for a second, forget that I am proposing what we have now in favor of a different kind of society. Imagine it rather from the perspective of a natural society in which many infants die, but in which they also know little of "work" as we know it. There's is an authentic existence of freedom and play. (Just grant me that, for the present.)

<snipped for length>

That would be my speech to them, and it changes little given that society has already taken this path--through hardly any "choice," I think, by those who have suffered most of the labor.

It is still a monstrous choice. It may be a choice we have a right to make, though I'm still skeptical of that - how can we ourselves justly will that we live, that we be free, without willing this for others as well? - but it is a choice that involves the loss of countless children. It is a choice that, today, would rest on some way to radically reduce the population of the world. It is a choice that would bar any way to improve things.

But I'll give you this: return us first to a state of true freedom and independence. Let us start the journey over, remembering the horrors of our past so that we can avoid oppression in the future--and we will see what "progress" occurs. Whatever technology a free society develops, I think it will be radically different than anything we can imagine, for our imaginations have been suppressed for far too long under the delusion that this is what technology must necessarily be. If that free society devotes itself to the preservation of life rather than the enjoyment of it, I will be surprised indeed. But I will be satisfied that they will find a less alienating means to the end.

How can you be sure that the preservation of life is necessarily in conflict with its enjoyment?

Yes, though I think we are largely incapable of really enjoying it. We are too conflicted, too torn. Even when we are at rest, part of us feels we should be working. How many retirees insist that they cannot enjoy their leisure because they need to be "busy" with work? This is a disease, and civilization is its cause.

I can't argue with this.

I am not denying them anything they have a right to claim! They have a right to claim that I do nothing to harm them--but what right do they have to insist that I subject myself to slavery for their benefit? None whatsoever, besides my own good will. This I am willing to give, so far as human compassion can take it: but there are necessary limits to compassion. I will not become a means to another's end--that is the definition of slavery.

They have the same right to life as you do. To save their lives at the expense of some of your freedom is legitimate, just as it is legitimate to protect potential victims at the expense of the freedom of those who would prefer to pollute and otherwise harm public health. You might argue that in one case the death is caused by nature, and in the other by human action, but do you think the victims care?

No, and anyone who reached this conclusion would be a very poor archaeologist indeed. Would he neglect to notice the many machines that require human labor? Would he find the consumer products, but not the cubicles? Would he be such a poor mathematician that he could not calculate how much labor is required to produce our wealth? (Would he not also notice that some dwellings are much larger and contain many more things than others, or that lifetimes on the most ornate tombstones are longer than those on smaller ones?)

Your point about economic inequality is well-taken. But as for the others, how would he know that there was anything wrong with this expenditure of labor, that it was awful for those who performed it? Indeed, might he not conclude, by its prominence, that it was an enjoyable activity of a strange species and culture?

We can only use the best empirical evidence we have. What else can we do? To turn the question on the questioner, how do we know that market socialism, anarcho-communism, or "real democracy"--or any other alternative you may support--is not oppressive in ways previously unimagined?

"Let's stick with what we have because something else might be worse--our best evidence notwithstanding," is the most essentially conservative argument in the history of politics.

There are three important differences, though.

The first is that I tend not to use arguments like the ones you are using when arguing for socialism. I don't say that socialism will bring about some profound change in human life that will greatly diminish all the things people hate about modern society. I don't say that it will create a society perfectly consistent with the way we all want to live, with full and genuine freedom and happiness. At most, I say that the relatively free and democratic nature of libertarian socialism will permit us to better tackle these problems than the hierarchical power relations under capitalism.

My focus is, rather, on economic injustice - on a criticism of the hierarchical nature of capitalism, and following from this understanding of the dynamics of a society with the private ownership of the means of production, developing an alternative based on collective ownership where, because democracy is a far more egalitarian mode of social organization than capitalist hierarchy, greater economic equality and justice can be achieved.

I stay away from utopian claims, because we really can't know. I can hope that socialism will liberate the human spirit in a way that will forever abolish alienation and oppression, but I can't promise it. I happen to think that it might, but until we can actually experience a libertarian socialist society, we can't know.

The second is that I do try to acknowledge that I could be wrong. In fact, I know that I'm wrong on some things. If today I thoroughly wrote out a blueprint for a libertarian socialist society, I would try my best and attempt to give the best answers I can, but I would still be wrong on some things. Thus, foremost in my understanding of a proper socialist social order is the capacity for flexibility. If things go wrong, different things can be tried. Ultimately, if the system doesn't work at all, the means of production can be privatized and capitalism can be returned to (though hopefully in a manner that isn't reminiscent of the brutal methods of capital accumulation that produced our present system.)

If I thought that socialism would be forever stuck in one place, I would oppose it. Improvement is essential to any decent social order, and radical choices should always have the capacity to be reversed. Anarcho-primitivism, however, has no such flexibility. It is too radical a change for a reversal to be possible. Whatever brings it about will not be conditional on success, and progress will be impossible.

Thirdly, the costs associated with bringing about socialism are far from as extreme as those associated with bringing about anarcho-primitivism. Even if violent revolution is the method, those killed by the violence would be a small cost in comparison to those who would be killed by a regression to primitive food production in today's world. Furthermore, you have explicitly acknowledged the costs in life that would occur in an anarcho-primitivist society - in infant mortality rates, etc. Those costs are certainties, and they are extreme. The benefits, however, are far less certain. Can you ask a skeleton how much freedom it enjoyed? Can you tell what forms of alienation it experienced? Can you tell how it viewed the labor it performed?

Perhaps the best argument for pacifism I have heard is that the negative consequences of violence are always definite, indisputable, while any potential benefits are mere possibilities. While the argument doesn't convince me with regard to pacifism, the principle is applicable here.

Soheran, if you'd be interested in something of an attractive "compromise" position between our two, you should read the novel Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy. Her depiction of future society is considered among the most significant feminist utopias: roughly anarcho-communist, hers is a deeply democratic federation of villages that at first glance appears to live simplistically, close to the Earth--but which turns out to have developed technology in a radically different fashion than what we know today. People may study specialized occupations as scientists or artists--and they may change at any time--but everyone must participate in food production and defense, no matter how "important" or "brilliant" they may seem to be.

I have my students read it for a course in democratic political theory, and they usually find it quite interesting--although they inevitably resist some of the more radical proposals, such as men breast-feeding and babies being grown in a "brooder" rather than a womb.

You might like it. :)

I think I would. I'll add it to my list.

I don't see any reason why, if nobody is willing to choose to mine for a living, those individuals who wish to receive the benefits of mining couldn't each mine for 2 hours a week or so.I guess it's just really hard for me to believe that a truly free, non-alienated individual would ever choose things over freedom. But, perhaps two hours a week is not so much to ask--what kind of technology can they build on two hours a week mining, anyway? Perhaps some simple tools.

As soon as people mine more than that, however, they are also going to start needing other people to grow extra food, etc. etc.

Impossible. You gave an example yourself of a person using emotional manipulation - crying to get affection. This is a form of power.Yes. But I think that once one does away with the many conventions by which we compare ourselves to one another--once we replace artificial education with natural education--people will not be so inclined to manipulation.

More importantly, the rest of us will not be so susceptible to it. If someone cries from an injury, we might help them treat it. If someone cries for attention, we should refuse it to him--we shall not subject ourselves to his whim.

I guess it's just really hard for me to believe that a truly free, non-alienated individual would ever choose things over freedom. But, perhaps two hours a week is not so much to ask--what kind of technology can they build on two hours a week mining, anyway? Perhaps some simple tools.

As soon as people mine more than that, however, they are also going to start needing other people to grow extra food, etc. etc.Yes, certainly.
I don't view it as a given that everyone would want simple tools. Perhaps everyone who mines for two hours a week would prefer that their ore be combined to make a life support machine?

Yes. But I think that once one does away with the many conventions by which we compare ourselves to one another--once we replace artificial education with natural education--people will not be so inclined to manipulation.So then we won't be noticing whether or not someone is a better hunter than someone else?

More importantly, the rest of us will not be so susceptible to it. If someone cries from an injury, we might help them treat it. If someone cries for attention, we should refuse it to him--we shall not subject ourselves to his whim.I'm not certain if it's possible to know if it's pain or getting attention, but even if it is, there are still other examples. If Person A is sexually attracted to Person B, Person B will have power over Person A, especially if the feeling isn't mutual. (This of course, doesn't mean that the power must be exercised, but it will be there.)

Yes, democracy in the sense I am using it is not consistent with absolute free association. Bur nor are any "rules" at all, as you point out - which would include such "rules" as prohibitions on murder and rape.Free people would not need "rules" prohibiting murder and rape. They would not harm others for the simple reason that they understand what it is to be hurt themselves, and they would not wish this on others. They would understand, moreover, that others' forebearance is to a large extent dependent on their own.

They would understand this immediately, not mediately as an external prohibition, a "moral" precept that demands a renunciation of desire. Perhaps more importantly, living for themselves and not alienated from themselves through the perceptions of others--without, that is to say, vanity--they will be proof against the worst of the human emotions: anger, jealousy, and so on.

Teach people to be self-sufficient, and they will not begrudge others' their talents, their freedom, or their things. Our society, on the contrary, teaches only dependency.

Not all rules need be legitimized by the consent of free association. As long as you remain within the framework of a community, the community has a partial right to impose its rule upon you, even if you do not consent; that is part of its right to defend itself.The right of self-defense has nothing to do with "rules." If you hurt me, I will hurt you back--that's the law of nature.

"Rules" only come in when the community decides to compel things besides what nature requires.

To claim resources for yourself just on the basis of your desire for them, to the exclusion of the other members of the community, is to elevate yourself above them, to impose your will upon them.Not if I allow them to do precisely the same thing for themselves. If they claim it for their exclusive use, they hold themselves above me--this would be equally an injustice.

Of course, I prefer the gatherer-hunter lifestyle in which no one "claims" anything at all.

There must be some way of mediating these claims, and thus democracy takes its role in the economy.The only time claims need to be "mediated" is when one group or individual wants to claim more than needed for subsistence. It only happens when your community decides that not only will it farm, but it will want to use plots of land for other things as well. Nothing in nature gives it such a claim.

Democracy that is immediate, that is directly relevant, is democracy that can be far more meaningful than the statist, elitist "democracy" people have been subjected to so far.Greek democracy was direct (if with a restricted electorate), and so were early New England towns. The problem is that hardly anyone showed up to the meetings--even though they were allowed and could have participated directly in politics.

It is an arrogance of philosophers to think that everyone should enjoy the political discussions that excite us. Meetings are, no matter how you cut it, boring. You can't expect most people to want to be constantly involved in them, which is what direct democracy requires.

Would they? I think your analysis of the authoritarian nature of modern society has truth to it, but the fact remains that wealth and luxury are attractive to people. Some of that may be the result of alienation - but all of it? How is the desire for good food, or for shelter from the environment, or for access to knowledge, and so on, the result of alienation? Some desires in us are natural, and while the massive satisfaction of those desires may not be, so what?There is a subtle racism to the notion that modern class society, the desire for wealth and universal scientific knowledge, the desire even for "shelter" are "natural" or "inevitable" parts of "human nature." When this argument runs up against the fact that many human populations have neglected (and even resisted!) this "progress" for thousands of years, it seems to regard them as less than fully human. "If the aborigine were only as intelligent as we are," it is implied, "he would have become civilized by now."

If the massive satisfaction of those desires is a sufficient incentive for some people to perform labor that may be degrading, what is wrong with it?The fact that it is degrading, and the fact that talking about "incentives" is no better than choosing the best treats with which to train a dog.

I think more of the human species. (For that matter, I think more of canines as well.)

And it is "necessity" that some objectives cannot be achieved without awful means. If we desire the objectives, what is the "alienation" in using awful means to achieve them?Where did those desires come from? I think they are the residue of thousands of years of oppression. We are domesticated animals. I want to undo our domestication.

Not unless it is necessary for some other aim of ours. And while nature does not have a literal "will," is not conformity to it a form of non-freedom when we can escape, through technology, aspects of it that we don't like?To the extent that we can make that escape without making slaves of ourselves, yes. Fire was a wonderful invention, as were the impressive stone tools of the Paleolithic era. There is even evidence that pre-modern humans (an earlier Homo) managed to build simple boats and navigate waterways without thereby subjugating themselves to a life of toil.

I don't oppose all technology, only all that requires the slavery and alienation of divided labor. If we started over again, who knows what we might accomplish without ever going down this road, applying our knowledge of nature, cooperation, and natural vigor and intelligence? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps something entirely unimaginable. Either way, I am confident that we would at least be free and happy animals.

Yet, with technology, human beings are capable of flight. To destroy that technology restricts us - it takes away an opportunity from us and forces us to rely on what is natural.And where did nature leave us wanting? What have we gained but toil and misery from all of this technology? Where once we had no worries, supplying ourselves from nature's bounty. Now we can fly, and our anxieties spread across the globe with our mobility.

Similarly, despite conforming to the will of another in your labor, the choice to labor may provide you with opportunities you would not otherwise get, opportunities that would be impossible without a social system that relied on incentives.These "opportunities" cannot possibly be worth enslaving myself to them. They are especially unattractive when you speak in such vague terms. What have I received in civilized life to make up for the loss of my natural liberty, robust body and soul? Toys? Gadgets? Fetishized "knowledge" that does not help me to live, and only makes it harder for me to die?

It has been said that the wisest among us do not die: they live, and then they are dead. They spend no time preparing for death, thinking about it, worrying about it. It is as if they were ignorant of it. All of us were once like that. I cannot imagine a more beautiful existence.

It is true that in the first circumstance, there is a natural connection between saving a life and donating a kidney, while in the second circumstance, there is no natural connection between receiving a monetary reward and donating the kidney. The problem is that it doesn't seem to me as if there's much of a difference. Whether the connection is natural or unnatural, it is still a connection; I am still sacrificing something for some reward. The nature of the connection hardly seems relevant; why should I care?I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with this. It's a difficult point to see, and it's certainly one of those things that you either see for yourself, or you do not: there is hardly any explaining it.

Among theorists, Kant has perhaps made the most detailed exposition of this point, although he is less concerned with the distinction between convention and nature and the definition of "will" itself. He gets it, of course, from Rousseau, who is very concerned with the relevant distinction.

Ultimately, it has to do with the fact that obedience to convention always puts us in conflict with other wills. If a child asks for a cookie and hears "there are no more," he does not resent this unless he suspects it may be untrue; if he hears "you may not have one," his reaction is very different indeed. Living with natural necessity and human necessity are very different things indeed.

To return to the kidney, in the first place you give it up for natural necessity: a loved one will die if you do not, and this is because of an occurrence in the natural world: her kidney's failure. To give it up for money, however, you are driven to this choice by artificial desires and artificial necessity: because you live in society, you value things more than yourself; or perhaps because of society, you will starve without said money--in either case the desire or need is alienating. Moreover, the necessity itself is artificial: it depends on a will. You can see easily enough that if the other people involved wanted to give you the prize (the cookie), they could do so--instead they ask for your kidney. Even if you think this is a "fair" trade, you cannot avoid its artificial nature. You do not will that your kidney should be removed, you merely consent to it.

Let me give an example that may help illustrate this point. Say my brother needs a kidney in order to survive, but no donor appears. However, there is a nearby corporation that finds and pays people willing to donate their kidneys for money - for a price, of course. My brother doesn't have the money, but I do; I pay the price, and his life is saved.

There is no natural connection between my expenditure of money and my brother's life being saved, yet there is every reason to expect that I jump at the opportunity to save his life just as much as a donor who donates her kidney out of love would.Yes, but I'm not convinced that this is any the less alienating... since in this case you use your monetary power to simply pay another human being for a part of her body. This seems acceptable, perhaps, because the end is noble and the harm (relatively) minimal.

Would it be equally acceptable to purchase a person's hand? Perhaps your brother lost a hand, and surgeons can replace it--for enough money, surely you could find someone who would sell you his. Now your brother has two hands, and the donor one--but the transaction was entered into "freely" and the price paid.

Don't you wonder what could be wrong with a person that she would sell her hand for money? Can you not see that this is the supreme alienation from one's own body? A kidney is little different. The loss may be less severe, but no doubt for that reason the price is also lower. It's still paying someone to mutilate her own body. (Will she not have a scar? Will she not have to be attentive to medical advice relevant to a person with only one kidney... for the rest of her life? She will be disfigured... for cash. Lovely.)

"Wealth" can fulfill at least some of our natural desires in ways nature never could. "Fame" can fulfill our desire to be respected by others, which is also a natural trait - we are, after all, naturally social animals."Respect" applies to affirmation that we deserve. We do wish that others should respect our natural talents, as we respect them ourselves. "Vanity" takes the place of this sentiment in our society, however, and there is nothing natural about that. Fame for the sake of fame is nothing natural. Indeed, until very recently in human history, most people considered undeserved fame the most shameful thing in the world.

"Wealth," likewise, is a purely sociological category. There have been (and are) societies on Earth that know neither wealth nor poverty, which they neither admire on the one hand nor fear on the other.

How can you be sure that it is "training" that makes us undergo such ordeals?Mostly the fact that the longest-lasting and oldest societies, which have nothing resembling our mode of "education" (either "moral" or otherwise) do not behave this way.

Yet I am at the same time giving them opportunities to pursue their ends. My motives may be partially or even wholly selfish, but as long as the choice remains theirs, any pursuit of my ends by them will also be a pursuit of their ends by me.Yes, but the point is that you are indifferent to their ends: you wish only that yours be done, and "exchange" is a convenient way to accomplish this. You may excuse yourself by noting that they treat you in the same way, but this is only to say that we have constructed an entire society of self-serving utility maximizers. Sorry, I just don't find that particularly inspiring, especially when the ends involved are so insipid. This is not the kingdom of ends: it is a collection of means, all of us being mere means to each other, using each as we are used.

Yet as long as her freedom and happiness is not violated, what is the problem?If her freedom and happiness is not violated, that is incidental to the transaction. If you transact a deal with her, do you care that she mistakenly sold disadvantageously to herself, or are you pleased to have gotten a good deal? The transaction was free, the mistake was hers--so what should you care, right?

More to the point, it is character that concerns me. Always regarding others in terms of what you can get from them (for a fair trade, of course), you develop a venal and dependent soul. You try always to be master of willing servants, rather than associate with coequal partners. That you are willing to serve in your turn makes matters all the worse.

Perhaps it is an aspect of my mind-body alienation, but I do not see how our society can tolerate selling almost everything under the sun... but, for some reason, not organs.Oh, to be sure it cannot be far away. As you say, we sell everything else... indeed, we sell more and more every day. We are gradually coming around to the acceptance of selling sex, we will sell our images, our thoughts, our dreams, our labor... our blood!! Don't worry, I predict that your dream of an organ market will be realized all too soon.
Furthermore, there is the loss of life that comes from the forcible reduction of supply.Forcible!? I'm sorry, your comments are usually very reasonable, but the definition of force you imply here is simply absurd! Do we force people NOT to give their organs because for the time-being we retain enough principle not to pay for them? If mere life is so important to you, will you make this another case of eminent domain? Shall everyone register with the organ bank, and if they come up as a match will society claim their organs--paying, of course, the fair market value?! Perhaps this would be the opposite of the "force" involved in asking for willing volunteers!!

Why not, right? If you are willing to enslave a civilization in order to save lives--and thus far, that is the only unequivocal good you have been able to claim for this madness--then why not procure these bodies directly?

The better question is, what gave you the right? Human beings being, at least at the start, equal, the collective (or egalitarian, but that is difficult in practice) right to resources seems a better default than the exclusive private right.The "right of all" seems the only "default." Not the "right of the majority," which is what you want to claim. What gives the majority the right to decide land use for all? Is this another case of right of the stronger--because there are more of them?

No, the fact of the matter is that no one has a natural exclusive right to the land--including the majority. The difference between my planting a garden and their building a town is that my garden--sufficient only to my needs--leaves plenty of room for others to do likewise. If a conflict arises (and why should it?), the stakes are so low that it is unlikely to come to violence between myself and an individual.

There is no property in the state of nature, nor in most "primitive" cultures. It takes society in the first place to establish "exclusive" rights. Do not blame me for imposing my will--blame them for imposing theirs.

You would be able to find decent employment elsewhere; if not, then the society is indeed unjustly coercive. The incentives for mining in a free society would have to be above and beyond basic decent treatment.I don't want other employment!! I want merely to maintain my traditional lifestyle. Why is it that conquering societies seem to think it is fair to push natives with no concept of property off the land, to destroy their way of life, and then to insist that everything is "fair" because they can find employment in the new society? What gives you the right?

Simply, in one case the labor of others in a community provides you with goods and services in trade for (say) thirty hours of work a week on your part, and in the other you are provided with those goods and services in trade for fifteen hours of work a week on your part.But then vacation time is operationally indistinguishable from a higher wage.

Nothing, of course, is stopping you from leaving the community and attempting to secure what you desire from your own labor (or with the aid of others freely associating with you).Nothing except for the fact that such "civilized" associations have a tendency of "fairly" agreeing with one another to divide up the entire world according to their treaties? By what right do you institute property in the first place?

I don't think human beings are morally equivalent to non-human animals.Why not? Because we're "smarter"? Hardly, if we wind up blowing up the world or destroying our own environment. We look to me like perhaps the stupidest animal to ever live, completely unable to prevent ourselves from annihilating the basis for our own existence.

Or is it because we "feel"? So do other animals, as far as I can tell. Perhaps the moral equivalence should stop somewhere around reptiles, but most mammals seem to have a very rich emotional existence.

Or perhaps humans are more significant moral objects because they are simply "like you." Well, this is a problematic mode of evaluation. Moving inward, it suggests a moral basis for racism, and moving outward it would suggest at least a scale of moral worth beginning with chimpanzees and descending toward the amoeba.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to assume a difference in kind between human beings and non-human animal life.

I also don't think we should save lives at all costs - there are some costs that are too high - but I will admit to being adamantly in favor of saving lives at rather high costs. As I've said, life is the prerequisite for everything else;Yeah, but so what? You're attempting some sort of utilitarian analysis--more life=more freedom and happiness--which I think fails in any case. But even if it's true, it makes no moral claim upon my freedom and happiness. Why should I sacrifice mine so that there can be more "in the world"? This life is all I have, as you so accurately point out. Why should I sacrifice it for the happiness of people I will never meet, can never know? Even utilitarians have a concept of rights. I have a right to my own person, my own labor. Do not presume to claim it for your social projects.

its needless destruction is usually an awful crime.That's right. Needless killing is always wrong. But deaths caused by circumstance cannot be "wrong" unless you want to ascribe moral subjecthood to the wind and the rain. I will go so far as to say that it is wrong to prevent a death when the exertion required to do so requires only some small effort--this falls within the limits of ordinary human compassion, and I would be a poor soul indeed to deny it. But you cannot blame me for refusing my freedom to the service of this civilization (even if it could save lives) any more than you can hold me personally responsible for famine-related deaths because I do not personally deliver food to starving children. Their deaths are unfortunate, but they are none of my concern.

Even chattel slaves did not all commit suicide.Only because most of them were already far too civilized.

Did you know that conquering Europeans first tried to enslave Native Americans? It was only natural, being that they were already (conveniently) here. It didn't work out, however, because the ones who couldn't run away (and many did) tended to kill themselves: they were not accustomed to the backbreaking labor of farming.

Africans, on the other hand, were a different breed entirely. They came from farming cultures, most of them quite civilized--during the European Middle Ages sub-saharan Africa was actually significantly more cultured. They had already been broken. (Interestingly, slave-holders paid much lower prices for particular ethnic groups which were widely known for committing suicide--demonstrating yet again that willingness to labor is very much a cultural phenomenon.)

Slave women also had a habit of killing their own babies to prevent their living that kind of life. A bold move, and very brave if you ask me.

Today, however horrific the problems that afflict us, it is at least conceivable that we may eventually find a solution to them. We are still progressing; the avenues have not been closed off."Progress" is and always has been the great myth that keeps this machine moving. "At least conceivable" is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Yet a primitive society would have no such avenues; the infants would continue dying, year after year after year, and there would be no brilliant new methods to save them.So what? The anthropological evidence suggests that these cultures simply do not become so obsessed with the problem. Indeed, the West did not even view it as a problem--even as a principle measure of civilization--until after we discovered all these wonderful cures in the last few hundred years. Before having the cure, we didn't even see the need!! As usual, culture creates more problems than it solves.

It may be a choice we have a right to make, though I'm still skeptical of that - how can we ourselves justly will that we live, that we be free, without willing this for others as well? - but it is a choice that involves the loss of countless children.We do will that others live. It would be inhuman to will otherwise. But that does not mean we must degrade ourselves to give them life--by doing so we cheapen the very gift we hope to give them. Indeed, we make the gift conditional: they too may live, but only if they give themselves over to this social system in which they never had a choice. We consider their debt total: they would not live without it, so how can they choose to fight it?

How can you be sure that the preservation of life is necessarily in conflict with its enjoyment?Because every moment that I worry about dying is a moment I haven't lived.

They have the same right to life as you do.Yes, they have a right to life which I dare not violate. But they do not have the right to NOT DIE. No one does. Death happens. Sometimes it happens early in life, sometimes it happens late. But no one has the right to DEMAND that society prevent their death.

(We do, however, have the right to demand fair distribution of life-saving procedures... IF they are available to the rich, they SHOULD be available to everyone. But this is a conventional right based on the principle of natural equality, not a right to death-avoidance.)

To save their lives at the expense of some of your freedom is legitimate, just as it is legitimate to protect potential victims at the expense of the freedom of those who would prefer to pollute and otherwise harm public health. You might argue that in one case the death is caused by nature, and in the other by human action, but do you think the victims care?No, but the person being held to blame probably does. It is morally appropriate to blame the polluter and to hold him responsible. It is NOT morally appropriate to hold an entire population responsible for deaths it does not cause and cannot easily prevent.

Moreover, for moral purposes I can only attribute a reasonable moral calculation to the victim. I can, so to speak, put myself in her shoes... and I think to myself, if my life depended on the extravagant efforts of millions of other people--if it depended on their degrading their entire mode of life--I could not choose that they should do so, for this would be to regard them as means to my end (even if it is a most important end, my life itself) rather than ends in themselves. That I cannot do.

Your point about economic inequality is well-taken. But as for the others, how would he know that there was anything wrong with this expenditure of labor, that it was awful for those who performed it? Indeed, might he not conclude, by its prominence, that it was an enjoyable activity of a strange species and culture?Maybe, but only if he did not also discover attendance records demonstrating the high rates of absenteeism--only if he did not notice that the most sought-after jobs advertised vacation time, "flex hours," and other ways to mitigate time on the job. Only if he ignored the many cultural artifacts in which we complain about work and try to avoid it.

Only, in other words, if he did not use all the available empirical evidence.

We can never know anything for sure. But if we are not willing to base our judgments on the evidence we have, where will that leave us?

If I thought that socialism would be forever stuck in one place, I would oppose it. Improvement is essential to any decent social order,If things are already as good as they can be, what room is there for improvement? We have been promised "improvement" for thousands of years, and where has it gotten us? More degraded than ever before, as far as I can see.

Anarcho-primitivism, however, has no such flexibility. It is too radical a change for a reversal to be possible. Whatever brings it about will not be conditional on success, and progress will be impossible.Sure it will. How not? Humankind invented civilization once, do you think we can't do it again if primitivism were not to fulfill its promise--or if conditions should change, requiring change on our part?

Thirdly, the costs associated with bringing about socialism are far from as extreme as those associated with bringing about anarcho-primitivism.On the contrary, I see the communist move as continuing to pay interest on thousands of years of alienating costs. Primitivism is about erasing the debt. Starting over.

Even if violent revolution is the method, those killed by the violence would be a small cost in comparison to those who would be killed by a regression to primitive food production in today's world.How do you figure? There is this myth of food scarcity again. There is plenty of food in the world--always has been. The problem is with how modern industry tries to concentrate production, making distribution a problem. Let people tear up the streets, plant corn and wheat between the buildinigs. Let us begin a migration to warmer climes, for in the foreseeable future the energy to heat the north is too much to bear. Perhaps down the road we will re-learn better ways to live in the cold, as our ancient ancestors once did.

Furthermore, you have explicitly acknowledged the costs in life that would occur in an anarcho-primitivist society - in infant mortality rates, etc. Those costs are certainties, and they are extreme.We simply see things in reverse. I see all of society as costs paid to prevent those deaths--and costs that have only barely paid off in the last two hundred years, and then only for a narrow minority of humanity. You remind me of Marx, justifying the whole course of "progress" on the results of the last few decades, and asserting that NOW--FINALLY--we have "enough" technology for it to give way to something better. I think the technology itself is the problem: our entire lives become dedicated to the technology. It does not serve us, we serve it: and I do not see how communism can change anything about that.

The benefits, however, are far less certain. Can you ask a skeleton how much freedom it enjoyed? Can you tell what forms of alienation it experienced? Can you tell how it viewed the labor it performed?You can tell that it was well-fed and healthy. You can analyze its diet, based both on the mineral composition of the body itself and on the remains you find around its hearth. You can evaluate the surrounding environment to determine the abundance of these foods, and you can calculate how much time must have been spent obtaining them. You can see that the "goodies" are equally distributed, and you can tell that the sick were cared for--based on the fact that they too are well-fed, despite a disability in obtaining their own food.

As for alienation, you can see that they made beautiful, finely crafted stone tools--you can imagine, if you cannot prove, that love went into these. You also note that they did not leave cultural artifacts--symbols, art, the remains of alienation--though there is no physiological reason to believe that they lacked the "intelligence" to create such items, and you know they had the leisure with which to enjoy them. You surmise that they had no need to put their intelligence "out there," to paint a world more beautiful than the one they experienced every day.

You can compare them, meanwhile, to modern people living a similar lifestyle: you note that they, too, have few cultural artifacts--and the ones they do have are produced by everyone, not "specialists." You note that everyone participates in free song and dance--formless but beautiful, an enjoyment of their voices, their bodies, their souls. You see that large portions of their day are spent in play, in casual conversation, in storytelling. These people may not be exactly the same as those who lived 10,000 years ago--indeed, there are reasons to believe they are actually much LESS egalitarian than our ancient ancestors--but this evidence too must be included.

You note that these people have no word for "work," and that what work they do--gathering food, hunting, and so on--they do not distinguish from play.

You see, moreover, that they resist your own lifestyle. Futilely, you may think--but it is nevertheless inspiring to see them rush at your helicopter with their spears, daring what must seem certain death to preserve themselves against your great works, your "progress."

The primitive life has been the most constant, the most sustainable, the most egalitarian and the most authentic in the history of the human species. It is the state in which we live as nature made us--and is nature such a poor artist?--the state in which we can be only ourselves, and not the tools that civilization makes of us. The savage need not be schooled, for the wild is his teacher. His will need not be broken, for his will is his first weapon against adversity.

He can be free.

Oh look, I'm a feminist. Who knew!

Anarcha-Feminist

85%

Anarcho-Communist

80%

Anarcho-Primitivist

55%

Anarcho-Capitalist

40%

Anarcho-Syndicalist

40%

Christian Anarchist

40%

Yes, certainly.
I don't view it as a given that everyone would want simple tools. Perhaps everyone who mines for two hours a week would prefer that their ore be combined to make a life support machine?But how many other jobs will they need, how many specialized occupations? How long before the doctors begin to complain that they should be exempt from the common work so that they can concentrate on their more "valuable" contributions? How long before society is once again ruled by the exclusive power of the specialist?

So then we won't be noticing whether or not someone is a better hunter than someone else?Sure we will. How not? But I notice all the time that others are better swimmers than I--does this mean I should stop going to the pool because I will never be as good as they? Surely primitive societies notice who is the best hunter--indeed, they may even honor her with stories of her prowess. But nevertheless they all continue in the hunt, for thousands of years--unless you think the real primitives who have lived up to this point were not themselves smart enough to distinguish the best hunters?

Perhaps they are simply too dumb to figure out the division of labor.
Or perhaps they resist it because they love the life they have.

I'm not certain if it's possible to know if it's pain or getting attention, but even if it is, there are still other examples.I think if you know a person well, you can tell. Every parent knows when his child is truly in pain and when she is faking. Every friend can tell when their associates are merely looking for attention. Our mistake is to indulge them from the start, to teach them that they can control other people's will, putting them in the service of a whim.

Do not comfort a child who cries for no reason, and soon enough the child will become tired of crying--and having not learned this habit early in life, he will be all the less likely to develop it later. Especially if we all habituate ourselves to ignoring the little tyrant.

The problem with our current mode of education is that the first concepts a child learns are mastery and obedience--from that time on, they seek always to obtain the one and to avoid the other.

If Person A is sexually attracted to Person B, Person B will have power over Person A, especially if the feeling isn't mutual.Only if in addition to attraction, Person A has learned to judge himself by the affection of others. Sexual attraction alone is a desire which, when I learn it cannot be satisfied, will turn to other objects--we are, after all, sexually attracted to many people. Of course, because we learn early that we can "appeal" to others' emotions, that we can "get" people to feel what we want them to feel, we do not take rejection so easily and we obsess over a person's affection: it seems to us that we should be able to make her love us as we make our parents' stroke us to sleep.

These frustrations would be significantly mitigated if we learned early on how to respect another's will.

Romantic love is, of course, a sublimation of sexual desire, and it is more temperamental--but, being a sublimation, it should be an attraction not to a body, but to an ideal... and with a proper education, a free person should never be romantically attracted to a person who would be inclined to abuse them.

People who live in truly "abusive" relationships today are the extreme case: they do not respect themselves enough--they are not morally free enough--to choose otherwise. But in some sense most contemporary relationships are relationships in which we abuse each other. We play on each other's emotions, we turn every word into a game of power. We often do not even realize we do these things, we are so disastrously alienated from ourselves.

(You honor me with your sig.) ;)

The anarchist revolution must be not only economic and political, but social and cultural as well.

If we want to be truly free, we must give up all hope of mastery and every enticement to slavery.

But how many other jobs will they need, how many specialized occupations? How long before the doctors begin to complain that they should be exempt from the common work so that they can concentrate on their more "valuable" contributions? How long before society is once again ruled by the exclusive power of the specialist?I think the goal should be to have specialization, but have education be to the point where anyone can conceivably be replaced.

Sure we will. How not? But I notice all the time that others are better swimmers than I--does this mean I should stop going to the pool because I will never be as good as they? It depends on what your reasons for going there are - if it's fun, then no, you should keep going.

Surely primitive societies notice who is the best hunter--indeed, they may even honor her with stories of her prowess. But nevertheless they all continue in the hunt, for thousands of years--Even those people who didn't enjoy hunting?

unless you think the real primitives who have lived up to this point were not themselves smart enough to distinguish the best hunters?

Perhaps they are simply too dumb to figure out the division of labor.
Or perhaps they resist it because they love the life they have.No, I'm not saying that they're stupid at all, I simply wanted to clarify what you were saying.

I think if you know a person well, you can tell. Every parent knows when his child is truly in pain and when she is faking. Every friend can tell when their associates are merely looking for attention. Our mistake is to indulge them from the start, to teach them that they can control other people's will, putting them in the service of a whim.

Do not comfort a child who cries for no reason, and soon enough the child will become tired of crying--and having not learned this habit early in life, he will be all the less likely to develop it later. Especially if we all habituate ourselves to ignoring the little tyrant.Yes, I can agree with this.

The problem with our current mode of education is that the first concepts a child learns are mastery and obedience--from that time on, they seek always to obtain the one and to avoid the other.Ah, yes 'respect your parents' and the like.

Only if in addition to attraction, Person A has learned to judge himself by the affection of others. Sexual attraction alone is a desire which, when I learn it cannot be satisfied, will turn to other objects--we are, after all, sexually attracted to many people. Well, perhaps Person A's sexual desire is satisfied, but only after ze does what Person B wants.

I cut off the rest of what you said because I agree with it.

(You honor me with your sig.) ;)Yeah, it was time to get a new quote, and I liked that one.

The anarchist revolution must be not only economic and political, but social and cultural as well.

If we want to be truly free, we must give up all hope of mastery and every enticement to slavery.

It must first be entirely cultural and social, the economic and political climate will adjust accordingly.

Christian anarchism is one of the oldest anarchist philosophies, arguably dating back to the early Christian church. Christian anarchists emphasise non-violence and oppose the state as God is the only legitimate source of authority. Key thinkers include the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy.

Anarcho-Communist
70%

Christian Anarchist
70%

Anarcho-Capitalist
65%

Anarcha-Feminist
45%

Anarcho-Syndicalist
30%

Anarcho-Primitivist
10%

At first I thought the title said "Antichrist."

Anarcho-Capitalist 75%
Anarcho-Syndicalist 65%
Anarcho-Primitivist 45%
Anarcho-Communist 40%
Christian Anarchist 30%
Anarcha-Feminist 25%

Hardly a surprise; liberalism is largely part of my ideals.

I tend to reject the prescriptive conclusions of anarcho-primitivism while recognizing the truth of many of their observations regarding modern society.

Anarcho-primitivism is the ultimate case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have to free plumbers from the division of labor and bosses by forcing everyone to shit in the woods. What kind of freedom chains one to bare necessities?

I would go further than that. The effects of technology on our society, and the disconnect between our modern technological societies and human nature, is a severe problem, and one that can only be mitigated to a very limited degree within the structure of any post-industrial society.

How can you argue that the memes of technology that run through our culture are not a part of human nature?

It seems quite apparent that we have evolved technological ability and that continued technological advances are continued evolution.

That said, it has also brought about immense benefits.

Undoubtedly.

Also bear in mind that your answer must conform to the findings of contemporary archaeology that the gatherer-hunter lifestyle was generally one of good health and leisure.

The lifestyles of cattle are generally those of good health and leisure, as well.

We must only forsake our minds and all that makes us human; at that point we will know no better and be truly comfortable. Oh, blissful ignorance!

Now that is perhaps the best anarcho-primitivist argument. There's that lurking possibility of the human species destroying itself through environmental destruction.

Sustainability is no argument for primitivism.

How can he claim that "Modern society may destroy us all!" when he is advocating the most myopic culture humans can take.

What kind of freedom chains one to bare necessities?What kind of freedom chains us to unnatural, insatiable desire?

How can you argue that the memes of technology that run through our culture are not a part of human nature?

It seems quite apparent that we have evolved technological ability and that continued technological advances are continued evolution.This is precisely the racism or ethnocentrism to which I alluded earliler. Here you explicitly state that modern primitives are "less evolved" than we are!! What base arrogance!!

The lifestyles of cattle are generally one of good health and leisure, as well.Haven't seen a factory farm, have you?

Of course, any form of farming is oppressive to cattle. What is good health if its only purpose is slaughter? That is not freedom any more than the "good health" provided by modern medicine.

We must only forsake our minds and all that makes us human.See above. Why do you think we "forsake our minds" by forsaking the technological division of labor? On the contrary, our minds must be a thousand times more alive to live directly with nature, to provide for our every need independent of the coddling of civilization.

Oh, blissful ignorance!Perhaps. Only in a future primitive, we would not be ignorant of "progress"--we would preserve this record if only to avoid our previous mistakes.

After the revolution, the next time some fool digs a ditch or lays out a fence and says "this land is mine," his own family and friends will rush to tear down his handiwork, to fill in his ditch.

The lifestyles of cattle are generally those of good health and leisure, as well.

actually, the cattle comparison is much more applicable to modern society.

We must only forsake our minds and all that makes us human

when exactly did we become human then?

actually, the cattle comparison is much more applicable to modern society.True enough! We boast that our society feeds us and provides a "high standard of living"--nevermind that it only keeps us strong so that it can use our labor; only keeps us entertained so that we never notice the fence around our pasture.

What kind of freedom chains us to unnatural, insatiable desire?

What gives you the authority to claim what is natural or unnatural?

How does technology create this "insatiable desire?"

This is precisely the racism or ethnocentrism to which I alluded earliler. Here you explicitly state that modern primitives are "less evolved" than we are!! What base arrogance!!

Evolution is not a measure of superiority; there is no such thing as "less evolved".

The technological memes of our society never provided the usefulness (however momentary) to those modern primitives to reproduce themselves throughout the society.

Of course, any form of farming is oppressive to cattle.

And my point being that they do not realize that it is oppressive, they live in comfort.

See above. Why do you think we "forsake our minds" by forsaking the technological division of labor? On the contrary, our minds must be a thousand times more alive to live directly with nature, to provide for our every need independent of the coddling of civilization.

No, our brains must be more alive, our minds must be dead. We must be animals.

After the revolution, the next time some fool digs a ditch or lays out a fence and says "this land is mine," his own family and friends will rush to tear down his handiwork, to fill in his ditch.

That is not primitivism, as primitivism can support sedentary lifestyles.

actually, the cattle comparison is much more applicable to modern society.

Yes, as cattle work tirelessly to satisfy an "unnatural, insatiable desire."

when exactly did we become human then?

Certainly before (during?) this nomadic period that AnarchyeL idolizes.

However, we can certainly assume that these nomadic people had a curious mind with a natural predeliction towards knowledge and technology, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.

True enough! We boast that our society feeds us and provides a "high standard of living"--nevermind that it only keeps us strong so that it can use our labor; only keeps us entertained so that we never notice the fence around our pasture.

And of course society operates on its own, and not as a measure of our collective preferences.

EDIT: Granted those preferences may be weighted. We are slowly becoming more egalitarian through mutual dependency rather than the natural dependence (you would say independence) you say that we need.

What gives you the authority to claim what is natural or unnatural?Scientific observation, including the fact that there are some things people want to do naturally--of their own volition, without repressing innate desire--and other behaviors that it takes years of mind-numbing education to get them to do, or desires that appear only as a result of self-denying vain comparisons.

How does technology create this "insatiable desire?"Read the rest of the thread, for starters.

Evolution is not a measure of superiority; there is no such thing as "less evolved".Hey, you're the one who complained that we should not return to a primitive state because technological progress is "continued evolution." Either you were making an empirical statement to the effect that technological progress is irreversible (which seems absurd) or you were making a normative statement to the effect that it progress should continue because "evolution" is good.

The technological memes of our society never provided the usefulness (however momentary) to those modern primitives to reproduce themselves throughout the society.You make it sound as if technology just "happened," and not as the result of a social system that was forced on a resisting majority by a minority that gained access to the means of coercion. You may as well say that chattel slavery and capitalism "just evolved" as "memes" because of their "usefulness" to society.

And my point being that they do not realize that it is oppressive, they live in comfort.If that's your point, then I'm not sure why you bother to make it--certainly not in a thread on anarchism. Here we take it for granted that freedom itself is a good.

No, our brains must be more alive, our minds must be dead.You have a very curious definition of "mind," then. We must be animals.We are animals.

Yes, as cattle work tirelessly to satisfy an "unnatural, insatiable desire."

nah, it's more a matter of domestication

However, we can certainly assume that these nomadic people had a curious mind with a natural predeliction towards knowledge

sure

and technology

nah. we've been in a really strange and unique period of human history for the past couple hundred years on that end.

otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.

that doesn't really follow

However, we can certainly assume that these nomadic people had a curious mind with a natural predeliction towards knowledge and technology, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.If this "predilection" toward technology was so "natural," why did they live for tens of thousands of years without developing it? Why have modern humans spent far more time as nomadic gatherer-hunters than as domesticated animals?

"Curiosity" has nothing to do with it. I am curious about many things, but I don't want to build nuclear weapons. I am curious about my friends, their interests and their lives. I am curious about nature, about the lives and behaviors of the many creatures that inhabit it. Being "curious" about them does not mean I want to dominate and control them.

Curiosity is, I grant you, perfectly natural--and perhaps a definitively human trait. All modern primitives have it, and in abundance.

But technology is not predicated on curiosity. It is predicated on the will to dominate nature, and with it the will to dominate one's fellow human beings.

Free people would not need "rules" prohibiting murder and rape. They would not harm others for the simple reason that they understand what it is to be hurt themselves, and they would not wish this on others. They would understand, moreover, that others' forebearance is to a large extent dependent on their own.

They would understand this immediately, not mediately as an external prohibition, a "moral" precept that demands a renunciation of desire. Perhaps more importantly, living for themselves and not alienated from themselves through the perceptions of others--without, that is to say, vanity--they will be proof against the worst of the human emotions: anger, jealousy, and so on.

Teach people to be self-sufficient, and they will not begrudge others' their talents, their freedom, or their things. Our society, on the contrary, teaches only dependency.

Is there clear evidence that primitive people did not engage in murder and rape? I find that very difficult to believe.

The right of self-defense has nothing to do with "rules." If you hurt me, I will hurt you back--that's the law of nature.

"Rules" only come in when the community decides to compel things besides what nature requires.

But how is that statement any different from "if you violate a rule prohibiting hurting me, I will hurt you back"? If one is legitimate, why is the other not? The only difference is that the former is more useful in a civilized society, because it can be applied to circumstances where the rules are not natural.

Not if I allow them to do precisely the same thing for themselves. If they claim it for their exclusive use, they hold themselves above me--this would be equally an injustice.

Of course, I prefer the gatherer-hunter lifestyle in which no one "claims" anything at all.

But they are not claiming it for their exclusive use. It is being claimed for collective use. They are not preventing you from using it - they are making you (and everybody else) abide by certain rules in using it.

The only time claims need to be "mediated" is when one group or individual wants to claim more than needed for subsistence. It only happens when your community decides that not only will it farm, but it will want to use plots of land for other things as well. Nothing in nature gives it such a claim.

It has no right to make such a claim over other people's claims to land for substinence, no. But there is nothing wrong with them making such a claim over unused land.

I would question your notion that no claims would need to be mediated if no one claims more than is needed. If that is the case, why did human hunter-gatherers expand across most of the planet?

Greek democracy was direct (if with a restricted electorate), and so were early New England towns. The problem is that hardly anyone showed up to the meetings--even though they were allowed and could have participated directly in politics.

It is an arrogance of philosophers to think that everyone should enjoy the political discussions that excite us. Meetings are, no matter how you cut it, boring. You can't expect most people to want to be constantly involved in them, which is what direct democracy requires.

It doesn't require it at all. If people don't want to participate, they don't have to.

There is a subtle racism to the notion that modern class society, the desire for wealth and universal scientific knowledge, the desire even for "shelter" are "natural" or "inevitable" parts of "human nature." When this argument runs up against the fact that many human populations have neglected (and even resisted!) this "progress" for thousands of years, it seems to regard them as less than fully human. "If the aborigine were only as intelligent as we are," it is implied, "he would have become civilized by now."

I never said that modern class society was a natural part of human nature. I don't think it is at all. Nor did I say that civilization as a whole is what everyone would choose. But certain aspects of civilization are indeed what most people would choose, because they reflect natural desires on our part.

If I were born in a hunter-gatherer society, I would probably not join civilized society. As a member of civilization, I would probably not join a hunter-gatherer tribe, either.

The fact that it is degrading, and the fact that talking about "incentives" is no better than choosing the best treats with which to train a dog.

I think more of the human species. (For that matter, I think more of canines as well.)

But the choice remains theirs. It is a free exchange. They can decide to accept the incentive or they can refuse it. Both partners benefit; no one is harmed. I don't see the immorality in it.

Where did those desires come from? I think they are the residue of thousands of years of oppression. We are domesticated animals. I want to undo our domestication.

What about things like the desire for sugar?

To the extent that we can make that escape without making slaves of ourselves, yes. Fire was a wonderful invention, as were the impressive stone tools of the Paleolithic era. There is even evidence that pre-modern humans (an earlier Homo) managed to build simple boats and navigate waterways without thereby subjugating themselves to a life of toil.

I don't oppose all technology, only all that requires the slavery and alienation of divided labor. If we started over again, who knows what we might accomplish without ever going down this road, applying our knowledge of nature, cooperation, and natural vigor and intelligence? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps something entirely unimaginable. Either way, I am confident that we would at least be free and happy animals.

Let's assume for a moment that it goes in the former direction. What "freedom" to we have when we are the servants of nature - subject to its conditions, vulnerable to its diseases, and forced to depend on it for food?

How does that make us autonomous? It makes us free only of other human wills - perhaps. But those are not the only threats to our freedom.

And where did nature leave us wanting? What have we gained but toil and misery from all of this technology? Where once we had no worries, supplying ourselves from nature's bounty. Now we can fly, and our anxieties spread across the globe with our mobility.

It makes us subject to the weather, to the availability of food, to other animals, to disease, to disability.

These "opportunities" cannot possibly be worth enslaving myself to them. They are especially unattractive when you speak in such vague terms. What have I received in civilized life to make up for the loss of my natural liberty, robust body and soul? Toys? Gadgets? Fetishized "knowledge" that does not help me to live, and only makes it harder for me to die?

Knowledge helps me live. It satisfies my curiosity, expands my mind, and helps me experience the joy of contemplation.

It has been said that the wisest among us do not die: they live, and then they are dead. They spend no time preparing for death, thinking about it, worrying about it. It is as if they were ignorant of it. All of us were once like that. I cannot imagine a more beautiful existence.

How can you be sure that all of us were once like that?

I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with this. It's a difficult point to see, and it's certainly one of those things that you either see for yourself, or you do not: there is hardly any explaining it.

Among theorists, Kant has perhaps made the most detailed exposition of this point, although he is less concerned with the distinction between convention and nature and the definition of "will" itself. He gets it, of course, from Rousseau, who is very concerned with the relevant distinction.

Ultimately, it has to do with the fact that obedience to convention always puts us in conflict with other wills. If a child asks for a cookie and hears "there are no more," he does not resent this unless he suspects it may be untrue; if he hears "you may not have one," his reaction is very different indeed. Living with natural necessity and human necessity are very different things indeed.

You have gotten somewhere; I think I follow, more or less.

While natural necessity is something we have to live with, and coping with it is part of our being and existence, being subject to the wills of others is unnatural and artificial, and thus we chafe under it.

To be restrained by nature does not degrade us, because it is the way things are, and must be; to be restrained by other humans does degrade us, because it is a rule that is directed at us, specifically; it is not universal, it is not the way things are, it is rather an artificial imposition.

When the parent says, "you can't have it," the emphasis is on "you" rather than "can't" - it is possible to have it, but you don't meet the qualifications. The universe can have it, the cookie exists, but you can't. The means exist, the end exists, but the action is forcibly restrained.

When you cannot have the cookie because the cookie does not exist, there is nothing worth fussing over because it is not a denial, it is just how things are. The means may exist, but there is no "end" - there is no actual cookie to desire, just perhaps the fleeting concept of cookies within the mind, wishing rather than willing.

Am I getting you right? I still have to think for a while as to whether the distinction is a good one, but I think I see the idea.

To return to the kidney, in the first place you give it up for natural necessity: a loved one will die if you do not, and this is because of an occurrence in the natural world: her kidney's failure. To give it up for money, however, you are driven to this choice by artificial desires and artificial necessity: because you live in society, you value things more than yourself; or perhaps because of society, you will starve without said money--in either case the desire or need is alienating.

I question the notion that the desire itself is the result of alienation, but we discuss this above, so I'll leave it alone here.

Moreover, the necessity itself is artificial: it depends on a will. You can see easily enough that if the other people involved wanted to give you the prize (the cookie), they could do so--instead they ask for your kidney. Even if you think this is a "fair" trade, you cannot avoid its artificial nature. You do not will that your kidney should be removed, you merely consent to it.

But it is a necessity. The material abundance required to provide such material incentives would be an impossibility without such material incentives. Sure, it would be great if everyone could be granted material abundance without it, but that's impossible.

It's true, though, that psychologically I am not necessarily going to recognize this as a necessity, the way I would recognize non-cookie consumption when there are no cookies as a necessity. Yet the fact that it is not as good as it could be - that we do not will the means as well as the end, because the means are not necessitated naturally - does not mean that it is bad. It is still what I prefer.

Yes, but I'm not convinced that this is any the less alienating... since in this case you use your monetary power to simply pay another human being for a part of her body. This seems acceptable, perhaps, because the end is noble and the harm (relatively) minimal.

Would it be equally acceptable to purchase a person's hand? Perhaps your brother lost a hand, and surgeons can replace it--for enough money, surely you could find someone who would sell you his. Now your brother has two hands, and the donor one--but the transaction was entered into "freely" and the price paid.

Don't you wonder what could be wrong with a person that she would sell her hand for money? Can you not see that this is the supreme alienation from one's own body? A kidney is little different. The loss may be less severe, but no doubt for that reason the price is also lower. It's still paying someone to mutilate her own body. (Will she not have a scar? Will she not have to be attentive to medical advice relevant to a person with only one kidney... for the rest of her life? She will be disfigured... for cash. Lovely.)

It may be my own mind-body alienation, but no, I don't think alienation is at play here.

My body is my body. If it suits my ends to sell my hand for money, why shouldn't I be allowed to? My body is only useful to the extent that it pursues my ends. Is it alienation to undergo surgery, too, because it is unnaturally mutilating my body for an end of mine (survival, better health, whatever)?

"Wealth," likewise, is a purely sociological category. There have been (and are) societies on Earth that know neither wealth nor poverty, which they neither admire on the one hand nor fear on the other.

Does not everyone have desires? Is it not intrinsic to a desire to want it fulfilled abundantly? Is not wealth merely a means to do exactly that?

Mostly the fact that the longest-lasting and oldest societies, which have nothing resembling our mode of "education" (either "moral" or otherwise) do not behave this way.

But they also are not being offered lavish incentives for doing so.

Yes, but the point is that you are indifferent to their ends: you wish only that yours be done, and "exchange" is a convenient way to accomplish this. You may excuse yourself by noting that they treat you in the same way, but this is only to say that we have constructed an entire society of self-serving utility maximizers. Sorry, I just don't find that particularly inspiring, especially when the ends involved are so insipid. This is not the kingdom of ends: it is a collection of means, all of us being mere means to each other, using each as we are used.

Why are you necessarily indifferent to their ends? You accept that their ends are important, and thus you do not deny them the opportunity to pursue them; indeed, you provide them with such an opportunity. You do make the opportunity conditional, but that is material necessity; it is part of respecting everyone else's ends, of ensuring that they, too, have opportunities to pursue their ends.

If her freedom and happiness is not violated, that is incidental to the transaction. If you transact a deal with her, do you care that she mistakenly sold disadvantageously to herself, or are you pleased to have gotten a good deal? The transaction was free, the mistake was hers--so what should you care, right?

Of course you should. If she was misinformed, her acceptance was not truly free. It is despicable to exploit another's error.

More to the point, it is character that concerns me. Always regarding others in terms of what you can get from them (for a fair trade, of course), you develop a venal and dependent soul. You try always to be master of willing servants, rather than associate with coequal partners. That you are willing to serve in your turn makes matters all the worse.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? You can both look at what they can do for society and also genuinely care about their welfare.

Oh, to be sure it cannot be far away. As you say, we sell everything else... indeed, we sell more and more every day. We are gradually coming around to the acceptance of selling sex, we will sell our images, our thoughts, our dreams, our labor... our blood!! Don't worry, I predict that your dream of an organ market will be realized all too soon.

It is not precisely my "dream." My "dream" is an anarchist gift economy without any sort of artificial regulation, with universal access to advanced health care and knowledge, and with material abundance. But I am not dreaming; I am in reality. I know I cannot have everything.

Forcible!? I'm sorry, your comments are usually very reasonable, but the definition of force you imply here is simply absurd! Do we force people NOT to give their organs because for the time-being we retain enough principle not to pay for them?

You are right. I phrased that badly. What I meant was that by forcing people to make the choice of giving their organs freely or not giving them at all, the policy has the effect of restricting supply. It is true that it is not the rule's fault that we are not generous enough to meet the demand out of love and concern for other human beings.

If mere life is so important to you, will you make this another case of eminent domain? Shall everyone register with the organ bank, and if they come up as a match will society claim their organs--paying, of course, the fair market value?! Perhaps this would be the opposite of the "force" involved in asking for willing volunteers!!

Why not, right? If you are willing to enslave a civilization in order to save lives--and thus far, that is the only unequivocal good you have been able to claim for this madness--then why not procure these bodies directly?

Only if it were absolutely necessary to meet the objective; the violation of a person's bodily autonomy is a pretty severe violation. I don't think it is necessary.

The "right of all" seems the only "default." Not the "right of the majority," which is what you want to claim. What gives the majority the right to decide land use for all? Is this another case of right of the stronger--because there are more of them?

No, the fact of the matter is that no one has a natural exclusive right to the land--including the majority. The difference between my planting a garden and their building a town is that my garden--sufficient only to my needs--leaves plenty of room for others to do likewise. If a conflict arises (and why should it?), the stakes are so low that it is unlikely to come to violence between myself and an individual.

I agree that you should be allowed to have your garden. The monopolization of land by anyone is a crime. I'm talking about the mediation of the distribution of resources above and beyond those produced by simple foraging.

I don't want other employment!! I want merely to maintain my traditional lifestyle. Why is it that conquering societies seem to think it is fair to push natives with no concept of property off the land, to destroy their way of life, and then to insist that everything is "fair" because they can find employment in the new society? What gives you the right?

Nothing. We don't have it.

But then vacation time is operationally indistinguishable from a higher wage.

True. But it is still an example of something (leisure) people would desire without alienation.

Nothing except for the fact that such "civilized" associations have a tendency of "fairly" agreeing with one another to divide up the entire world according to their treaties?

A crime. I agree.

By what right do you institute property in the first place?

It serves society's ends. If it interferes with someone else's ends, that is, it trespasses onto ground that others are using, that is a different matter.

Why not? Because we're "smarter"? Hardly, if we wind up blowing up the world or destroying our own environment. We look to me like perhaps the stupidest animal to ever live, completely unable to prevent ourselves from annihilating the basis for our own existence.

I don't think the moral relevance of intelligence is its use for the survival of the species. It is, rather, the elevated state of consciousness it fosters.

Or perhaps humans are more significant moral objects because they are simply "like you." Well, this is a problematic mode of evaluation. Moving inward, it suggests a moral basis for racism,

Except that racism has tended to involve the dehumanization of its victims. In order to oppress them, we had to see them as something less than human - and mere racial differences for not sufficient for that. It required a socially constructed notion of inferiority.

and moving outward it would suggest at least a scale of moral worth beginning with chimpanzees and descending toward the amoeba.

Yes. I do actually think the Great Ape Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project) is worth paying attention to.

Yeah, but so what? You're attempting some sort of utilitarian analysis--more life=more freedom and happiness--which I think fails in any case. But even if it's true, it makes no moral claim upon my freedom and happiness. Why should I sacrifice mine so that there can be more "in the world"? This life is all I have, as you so accurately point out. Why should I sacrifice it for the happiness of people I will never meet, can never know? Even utilitarians have a concept of rights. I have a right to my own person, my own labor. Do not presume to claim it for your social projects.

And do not others also have a right to life, to freedom? Like most* critiques of utilitarian calculations, this notion focuses on the victim of the calculation at the expense of the victim of the default state. Who has the greater claim? The infant, who will die? Or the person who has some freedom taken away from her, who will still live? Do natural circumstances entitle us to privilege some people's lives, some people's freedom, over those of others?

*I said "most" because there are some critiques I do accept. Some kinds of happiness - like the happiness gained by a sadist in torturing his victims - are not worthy of moral consideration. I also question whether "happiness" should be the basis for our calculation at all. But the basic notion that the greater good should be pursued seems legitimate to me.

That's right. Needless killing is always wrong. But deaths caused by circumstance cannot be "wrong" unless you want to ascribe moral subjecthood to the wind and the rain. I will go so far as to say that it is wrong to prevent a death when the exertion required to do so requires only some small effort--this falls within the limits of ordinary human compassion, and I would be a poor soul indeed to deny it. But you cannot blame me for refusing my freedom to the service of this civilization (even if it could save lives) any more than you can hold me personally responsible for famine-related deaths because I do not personally deliver food to starving children. Their deaths are unfortunate, but they are none of my concern.

The deaths of every human are our rightful concern. Are they less valuable because they are distant? Because they are unlucky? Because we don't know them?

Only because most of them were already far too civilized.

Did you know that conquering Europeans first tried to enslave Native Americans? It was only natural, being that they were already (conveniently) here. It didn't work out, however, because the ones who couldn't run away (and many did) tended to kill themselves: they were not accustomed to the backbreaking labor of farming.

Africans, on the other hand, were a different breed entirely. They came from farming cultures, most of them quite civilized--during the European Middle Ages sub-saharan Africa was actually significantly more cultured. They had already been broken. (Interestingly, slave-holders paid much lower prices for particular ethnic groups which were widely known for committing suicide--demonstrating yet again that willingness to labor is very much a cultural phenomenon.)

Slave women also had a habit of killing their own babies to prevent their living that kind of life. A bold move, and very brave if you ask me.

That is, well, indicative. You have a point here regarding the inculculation of slave tendencies.

But since they did not kill themselves, they clearly valued their lives more than their deaths - which means that it is wrong to deny infants life on the grounds that they would prefer death to the alternative.

"Progress" is and always has been the great myth that keeps this machine moving. "At least conceivable" is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

No, it's not. But it's a chance. And that's better than what anarcho-primitivism offers us.

So what? The anthropological evidence suggests that these cultures simply do not become so obsessed with the problem. Indeed, the West did not even view it as a problem--even as a principle measure of civilization--until after we discovered all these wonderful cures in the last few hundred years. Before having the cure, we didn't even see the need!! As usual, culture creates more problems than it solves.

But the problem is not our obsession with the deaths. It doesn't matter how much attention we pay to the fact that infants are dying. The value of the infants' lives are not dependent on our compassion for them.

We do will that others live. It would be inhuman to will otherwise. But that does not mean we must degrade ourselves to give them life--by doing so we cheapen the very gift we hope to give them. Indeed, we make the gift conditional: they too may live, but only if they give themselves over to this social system in which they never had a choice. We consider their debt total: they would not live without it, so how can they choose to fight it?

They do have a choice. Ultimately, they have the option of death that society saved them from initially.

Is it a great choice? No. But at least they have a choice - if they just die, they don't.

Because every moment that I worry about dying is a moment I haven't lived.

Worrying about dying and fighting to preserve the lives of others are too different things.

Yes, they have a right to life which I dare not violate. But they do not have the right to NOT DIE. No one does. Death happens. Sometimes it happens early in life, sometimes it happens late. But no one has the right to DEMAND that society prevent their death.

(We do, however, have the right to demand fair distribution of life-saving procedures... IF they are available to the rich, they SHOULD be available to everyone. But this is a conventional right based on the principle of natural equality, not a right to death-avoidance.)

Doesn't society have an obligation to prevent murder? Doesn't society have an obligation to promote the general welfare? Why does society have the right to distinguish between those lucky enough to not be put at risk of deayj by nature and those unlucky enough to be put at risk?

No, but the person being held to blame probably does. It is morally appropriate to blame the polluter and to hold him responsible. It is NOT morally appropriate to hold an entire population responsible for deaths it does not cause and cannot easily prevent.

I think it is. A society that does not value life is not a decent society.

Moreover, for moral purposes I can only attribute a reasonable moral calculation to the victim. I can, so to speak, put myself in her shoes... and I think to myself, if my life depended on the extravagant efforts of millions of other people--if it depended on their degrading their entire mode of life--I could not choose that they should do so, for this would be to regard them as means to my end (even if it is a most important end, my life itself) rather than ends in themselves. That I cannot do.

Why can't I will that others treat me and my needs as those of an equal, and not those of someone less worthy because I am not them? Indeed, does not such an attitude deny my role as an end-in-myself?

Maybe, but only if he did not also discover attendance records demonstrating the high rates of absenteeism--only if he did not notice that the most sought-after jobs advertised vacation time, "flex hours," and other ways to mitigate time on the job. Only if he ignored the many cultural artifacts in which we complain about work and try to avoid it.

Only, in other words, if he did not use all the available empirical evidence.

Fair enough.

We can never know anything for sure. But if we are not willing to base our judgments on the evidence we have, where will that leave us?

If things are already as good as they can be, what room is there for improvement? We have been promised "improvement" for thousands of years, and where has it gotten us? More degraded than ever before, as far as I can see.

But we have, in fact, improved in some areas - health care, for instance. In enough time, perhaps we will improve in others. And one of the benefits of socialism is that if technology does not improve our quality of life, we can refuse to implement it.

Sure it will. How not? Humankind invented civilization once, do you think we can't do it again if primitivism were not to fulfill its promise--or if conditions should change, requiring change on our part?

With the base resources necessary exhausted? No. And how many thousands of years would we wait?

On the contrary, I see the communist move as continuing to pay interest on thousands of years of alienating costs. Primitivism is about erasing the debt. Starting over.

But assume for a moment that you have it wrong, and primitivism does not improve our quality of life. We pay the extreme cost, and get nothing.

With socialism, on the other hand, the costs are far less extreme, and thus the loss if socialists are wrong is also far less extreme.

How do you figure? There is this myth of food scarcity again. There is plenty of food in the world--always has been. The problem is with how modern industry tries to concentrate production, making distribution a problem. Let people tear up the streets, plant corn and wheat between the buildinigs. Let us begin a migration to warmer climes, for in the foreseeable future the energy to heat the north is too much to bear. Perhaps down the road we will re-learn better ways to live in the cold, as our ancient ancestors once did.

The population could not even come close to the current levels with primitive food production supporting everyone and without medicine. That is why the population of primitive societies remained comparatively low.

We simply see things in reverse. I see all of society as costs paid to prevent those deaths--and costs that have only barely paid off in the last two hundred years, and then only for a narrow minority of humanity. You remind me of Marx, justifying the whole course of "progress" on the results of the last few decades, and asserting that NOW--FINALLY--we have "enough" technology for it to give way to something better. I think the technology itself is the problem: our entire lives become dedicated to the technology. It does not serve us, we serve it: and I do not see how communism can change anything about that.

"The whole course"? But everything up to now is done. We cannot change it. You might argue that it would have been better back then to remain in the primitive state, and you may well be right - certainly the way we emerged from it was brutal and devastating - but the choice you are asking us to make is now, when we are reaping benefits.

If technology always turns us into slaves to it, then an anarcho-communist society would ultimately reject technology. People do not like being slaves. However, I do not think it is an either-or choice. At worst, we will have to sacrifice some forms of technology, but all of the ones that require specialized labor?

You can tell that it was well-fed and healthy. You can analyze its diet, based both on the mineral composition of the body itself and on the remains you find around its hearth. You can evaluate the surrounding environment to determine the abundance of these foods, and you can calculate how much time must have been spent obtaining them. You can see that the "goodies" are equally distributed, and you can tell that the sick were cared for--based on the fact that they too are well-fed, despite a disability in obtaining their own food.

But we can get necessities today. That is not an improvement.

As for alienation, you can see that they made beautiful, finely crafted stone tools--you can imagine, if you cannot prove, that love went into these. You also note that they did not leave cultural artifacts--symbols, art, the remains of alienation--though there is no physiological reason to believe that they lacked the "intelligence" to create such items, and you know they had the leisure with which to enjoy them. You surmise that they had no need to put their intelligence "out there," to paint a world more beautiful than the one they experienced every day.

That's just not true. Art has been found places where hunter-gathers dwelled. And I don't really know if creativity is symptomatic of alienation.

You can compare them, meanwhile, to modern people living a similar lifestyle: you note that they, too, have few cultural artifacts--and the ones they do have are produced by everyone, not "specialists." You note that everyone participates in free song and dance--formless but beautiful, an enjoyment of their voices, their bodies, their souls. You see that large portions of their day are spent in play, in casual conversation, in storytelling. These people may not be exactly the same as those who lived 10,000 years ago--indeed, there are reasons to believe they are actually much LESS egalitarian than our ancient ancestors--but this evidence too must be included.

You note that these people have no word for "work," and that what work they do--gathering food, hunting, and so on--they do not distinguish from play.

But they also lack material abundance. They do not have access to our knowledge, to our comforts, to our luxuries. You might say that they have no desire for such things, but do we have a desire to leave our civilized lifestyles and become primitives? Do you see us doing so?

You see, moreover, that they resist your own lifestyle. Futilely, you may think--but it is nevertheless inspiring to see them rush at your helicopter with their spears, daring what must seem certain death to preserve themselves against your great works, your "progress."

All cultures tend to resist authoritarian imposition.

The primitive life has been the most constant, the most sustainable, the most egalitarian and the most authentic in the history of the human species. It is the state in which we live as nature made us--and is nature such a poor artist?--the state in which we can be only ourselves, and not the tools that civilization makes of us. The savage need not be schooled, for the wild is his teacher. His will need not be broken, for his will is his first weapon against adversity.

He can be free.

And we can be free, too. Free not only of the will of others, but of the state of the natural world.

Scientific observation, including the fact that there are some things people want to do naturally--of their own volition, without repressing innate desire--and other behaviors that it takes years of mind-numbing education to get them to do, or desires that appear only as a result of self-denying vain comparisons.

Primitivism is not more natural because it occurred earlier in human development. I would not use archaeological data as an indication of what people naturally want.

And of course you have successfully separated yourself from our society and culture to objectively state that people do not undergo these processes of their own natural desires.

Read the rest of the thread, for starters.

Hey, you're the one who complained that we should not return to a primitive state because technological progress is "continued evolution." Either you were making an empirical statement to the effect that technological progress is irreversible (which seems absurd) or you were making a normative statement to the effect that it progress should continue because "evolution" is good.

No, I am claiming that the modern state of our society is no less natural than the primitive state.

We are naturally technologically inclined, and we are naturally compelled to conform to society in order to suit the discerning eyes of our peers.

Evolution is not "good", and technology ebbs and flows as it is needed (more accurately, as we pass it on).

You make it sound as if technology just "happened," and not as the result of a social system that was forced on a resisting majority by a minority that gained access to the means of coercion. You may as well say that chattel slavery and capitalism "just evolved" as "memes" because of their "usefulness" to society.

Technology does just "happen." Chimps discover that sticks can scoop bugs out of trees. It has also been shown that other chimps can learn this "technology" through observation and pass it along as well.

I say that capitalism evolved because it exploited the functions that spread information throughout society. When it has outlived its usefulness, or more likely is replaced, it will fall by the wayside.

If that's your point, then I'm not sure why you bother to make it--certainly not in a thread on anarchism. Here we take it for granted that freedom itself is a good.

I make it because a purposefully primitive society blinds itself in order to feel comfort.

You have a very curious definition of "mind," then.

Mind is our "moral" function. It is our freedom. It is what allows us to interact socially, it is our empathy, our deception.

When we exist in total independence, we live without a mind.

We are animals.

I won't say that we aren't animals, but it is easy to differentiate ourselves from the rest of the animal world. Until you remove our civilization, that is.

nah, it's more a matter of domestication

People are going to be domesticated into societal roles no matter what social system you use.

sure

nah. we've been in a really strange and unique period of human history for the past couple hundred years on that end.

Or 12,000 years.

that doesn't really follow

It is hard to imagine this discussion occuring without some sort of technological nature to humanity.

If this "predilection" toward technology was so "natural," why did they live for tens of thousands of years without developing it? Why have modern humans spent far more time as nomadic gatherer-hunters than as domesticated animals?

Climate change ---> Discovery of agriculture ---> Sedentary lifestyle/greater population density/greater interdependency/specialisation of labor ---> Increasing rate of technological development.

"Curiosity" has nothing to do with it. I am curious about many things, but I don't want to build nuclear weapons. I am curious about my friends, their interests and their lives. I am curious about nature, about the lives and behaviors of the many creatures that inhabit it. Being "curious" about them does not mean I want to dominate and control them.

Curiosity is, I grant you, perfectly natural--and perhaps a definitively human trait. All modern primitives have it, and in abundance.

But technology is not predicated on curiosity. It is predicated on the will to dominate nature, and with it the will to dominate one's fellow human beings.

Rival chimps are constantly looking to dominate one another, yet the technology that they use has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the maintenance of a sustainable lifestyle (not to mention to suitably impress the other members of its clan).

Anarcho-primitivism is the ultimate case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have to free plumbers from the division of labor and bosses by forcing everyone to shit in the woods. What kind of freedom chains one to bare necessities?

What kind of "freedom" chains us to the school, to the factory, to the office cubicle?

It is not as clear-cut as many like to imagine. The primitivist critique is a really, really good one, and even if its prescriptive conclusions are wrong, at the very least it should get us to re-examine our present societies and see if there is any way we can solve the problems it points out.

How can you argue that the memes of technology that run through our culture are not a part of human nature?

It seems quite apparent that we have evolved technological ability and that continued technological advances are continued evolution.

The radical changes technology has caused to our lifestyles are not "continued evolution," they far outpace any changes to human nature that may have occured over their course.

Do children consent to their "education"? No.

We tolerate this because, supposedly, it is in their best interest. But is it, really? How can we know? We do not, after all, ask them, or let them choose for themselves where their "best interest" lies. By the time they are adults we have already alienated them from their freedom by inculculating into them the notions of labor and obedience. It is too late; we may have released them from their physical chains, but we have chained their minds, made them slaves who do not recognize their own slavery.

The more I think about it, the more devastating AnarchyeL's critique of modern society becomes.

We must free ourselves. That is clear to me now. We are in chains, and that is unacceptable.

I'm not sure if that will involve the eradication of technology, but at the very least, it will mean the overthrow and radical revision of presently existing "civilization."

I didn't take it but I know I would have been a bad anarchist.

People are going to be domesticated into societal roles no matter what social system you use.

By definition, domestication is not the natural state of an animal. Wolves are social creatures, but they are not "domesticated."

To domesticate an animal is to subordinate its free, natural state to its social role. This requires an unnatural, artificial society (but it may not be the inevitable consequence of an unnatural, artificial society, and that is perhaps the best hope I see for a non-primitive, free society.)

What kind of "freedom" chains us to the school, to the factory, to the office cubicle?

The freedom of learning and social interaction.

Tell me, what do we gain from primitivism?

It is not as clear-cut as many like to imagine. The primitivist critique is a really, really good one, and even if its prescriptive conclusions are wrong, at the very least it should get us to re-examine our present societies and see if there is any way we can solve the problems it points out.

Anarcho-primitivism only differs in its prescriptive conclusions.

The radical changes technology has caused to our lifestyles are not "continued evolution," they far outpace any changes to human nature that may have occured over their course.

"Human nature" which I guess you mean the current state of human evolution does not advance at a steady set rate. Evolutionary trees are marked by long periods of inactivity and periods of extreme activity.

Why should the past 10,000 years be any different?

By definition, domestication is not the natural state of an animal. Wolves are social creatures, but they are not "domesticated."

To domesticate an animal is to subordinate its free, natural state to its social role. This requires an unnatural, artificial society (but it may not be the inevitable consequence of an unnatural, artificial society, and that is perhaps the best hope I see for a non-primitive, free society.)

Society is neither unnatural nor artificial.

Domestication can be the natural state of the animal. I have never had a pet that was indoors or fenced in in any way.

Hell, I thought The Dangerous Maybe died a couple months ago.

The freedom of learning and social interaction.

And I cannot interact with others in a primitive society? I cannot learn? I cannot think?

Tell me, what do we gain from primitivism?

I'm not advocating primitivism. I'm attacking the tyranny of our present society.

And we do gain two very important things:

1. An end to our domestication, to the subordination of the self to an imposed social role as "citizen."
2. A society that reflects our natures instead of conflicting with them.

Anarcho-primitivism only differs in its prescriptive conclusions.

No, it doesn't. It differs in its analysis of the roots of our present unfreedom.

Right-wing versions of anarchism say that we are not free because the state interferes with our property rights and our rights of free exchange, and thus legitimizes the criminal abominations of capitalist production as well as the evils of domestication.

Left-wing versions of anarchism say that we are not free because capitalism chains us to the ruling class, and they're right on that point - but they don't end the chaining of ourselves to our society, the subordination of our natures and of our freedom to the demands of a society that sacrifices both on the altars of efficiency and productivity. It frees us from most kinds of political and economic hierarchy, but does not free us from society itself, from domestication.

"Human nature" which I guess you mean the current state of human evolution does not advance at a steady set rate. Evolutionary trees are marked by long periods of inactivity and periods of extreme activity.

Why should the past 10,000 years be any different?

Because progress in technology, and the changes they have brought to our civilization, have nothing to do with the evolution of human beings.

The Industrial Revolution was not the result of industrially revolutionary traits having the highest Darwinian fitness.

If society got all anarchist, I would be a wandering minstrel.

That would be cool, I think.

Society is neither unnatural nor artificial.

It is both. It subjects us to ordeals that conflict immensely with our natural state - long working hours in factories, in offices, in schools. It does all this so that we can receive products that are made unnaturally and that naturally we are not suited for. It is based on a hierarchical social order that owes its existence to the opportunities "civilized" societies presented for such social orders.

Domestication can be the natural state of the animal. I have never had a pet that was indoors or fenced in in any way.

Because their freedom has been bred out of them by human society - not by nature. Do you wish to do the same to humans?

And I cannot interact with others in a primitive society? I cannot learn? I cannot think?

Science and language is largely shunned in primitivist thought. Anything that promotes any civilization is not allowed. Sure you can learn, but it is limited to what you can learn with only your five senses.

1. An end to our domestication, to the subordination of the self to an imposed social role as "citizen."

We will always domesticate ourselves.

2. A society that reflects our natures instead of conflicting with them.

Once again, our modern society of technology is no less natural than our primitive state 12000 years ago.

Furthermore, what would we gain with an end to our domestication? What would we gain in returning to our primitive "natural" roots?

No, it doesn't. It differs in its analysis of the roots of our present unfreedom.

Right-wing versions of anarchism say that we are not free because the state interferes with our property rights and our rights of free exchange, and thus legitimizes the criminal abominations of capitalist production as well as the evils of domestication.

Left-wing versions of anarchism say that we are not free because capitalism chains us to the ruling class, and they're right on that point - but they don't end the chaining of ourselves to our society, the subordination of our natures and of our freedom to the demands of a society that sacrifices both on the altars of efficiency and productivity. It frees us from most kinds of political and economic hierarchy, but does not free us from society itself, from domestication.

They all claim that social institutions perpetuate a hierarchical system that limits our freedom. They are different in how they describe the cure.

Because progress in technology, and the changes they have brought to our civilization, have nothing to do with the evolution of human beings.

The Industrial Revolution was not the result of industrially revolutionary traits having maximum Darwinian fitness.

It was a combination of genetic and memetic traits, brought about by Darwinian forces.

Your particular concept of evolution is rather limited.

It is both. It subjects us to ordeals that conflict immensely with our natural state - long working hours in factories, in offices, in schools. It does all this so that we can receive products that are made unnaturally and that naturally we are not suited for. It is based on a hierarchical social order that owes its existence to the opportunities "civilized" societies presented for such social orders.

Once again, because a state occurs earlier, it is not more natural.

What other factors do you use to calculate what is more natural?

Because their freedom has been bred out of them by human society - not by nature. Do you wish to do the same to humans?

Our "freedom" (your impractical notion of freedom that you have not defined) was bred out of us by evolution long ago.

To make a long process short:

Our species developed the machinery to empathize. With this, we gained the ability to distinguish between those that contribute and those that detract. Because of this the individuals of our species began to assosciate with the contributors. The mutual contributors always persevered better than the lone (or grouped) detractors.

In the end, those humans that best contributed to the group (or most appeared to) were the ones that passed on their traits.

We are evolutionarily designed to be a contributor to the group, not some independent "free" being.

Science and language is largely shunned in primitivist thought.

I could not care less about "primitivist thought." My mind is my own.

Anything that promotes any civilization is not allowed. Sure you can learn, but it is limited to what you can learn with only your five senses.

And it is not today?

We will always domesticate ourselves.

No, we won't. Domestication requires a society in which the natural state of an animal must be suppressed to fit its role. Otherwise it is not domestication. It is just social living.

Wolves are not domesticated. Elephants are not domesticated. Bees are not domesticated. Chimpanzees, bonobos, and the other great apes are not domesticated.

Once again, our modern society of technology is no less natural than our primitive state 12000 years ago.

Except our natures are evolved for one and not for the other. Biologically, we are almost indigistinguishable from our ancestors 12,000 years ago. What is radically different is our society and lifestyle - not our nature.

Furthermore, what would we gain with an end to our domestication?

Freedom. We are no longer subordinate to our social role; we are free.

What would we gain in returning to our primitive "natural" roots?

An end to domestication.

They all claim that social institutions perpetuate a hierarchical system that limits our freedom. They are different in how they describe the cure.

But their interpretations of which social institutions perpetuate a hierarchical system differ. I accept, at least to a significant degree, the interpretations of anarcho-primitivism in that regard, as well as the interpretations of left-anarchism. I accept the prescriptive conclusions of left-anarchism because the benefits outweigh the costs; I reject the prescriptive conclusions of anarcho-primitivism because I do not know if the benefits (and I acknowledge the benefits) outweigh the horrific costs.

At the moment, I am trying to conceive of a left-anarchist society that abolishes domestication, at least for the most part, without abolishing technology. That would be the best solution.

It was a combination of genetic and memetic traits, brought about by Darwinian forces.

Your particular concept of evolution is rather limited.

How, exactly, did genetics play a role?

Or 12,000 years.

It is hard to imagine this discussion occuring without some sort of technological nature to humanity.

nah. it is only since the scientific revolution that we've had this exponential love affair with technology, and only in the past century and a half really where we got to the point where you literally could not expect to live the same sort of technological lifestyle as your grandparents or even your parents. and that's just in the descendent cultures of one tiny section of humanity. we aren't the only ones on the planet. we aren't even remotely representative of human cultures overall.

I reject the prescriptive conclusions of anarcho-primitivism because I do not know if the benefits (and I acknowledge the benefits) outweigh the horrific costs.

ah, now i have an opportunity for this:


http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00013/33/80/13800833_l.jpg

Once again, because a state occurs earlier, it is not more natural.

What other factors do you use to calculate what is more natural?

That which is consistent with our natures.

Humans evolved under the selective pressures of hunter-gathering. Twenty thousand years from now, we may have evolved to a point where we can tolerate a lifestyle radically different in almost every way - that is, if we do not medicate and drug away this fundamentally unnatural state of ourselves and just continue on the way we are now.

Regardless, we are not now evolved to deal with our present lifestyles. Our natures are fundamentally in conflict with our social role.

Our "freedom" (your impractical notion of freedom that you have not defined) was bred out of us by evolution long ago.

To make a long process short:

Our species developed the machinery to empathize. With this, we gained the ability to distinguish between those that contribute and those that detract. Because of this the individuals of our species began to assosciate with the contributors. The mutual contributors always persevered better than the lone (or grouped) detractors.

In the end, those humans that best contributed to the group (or most appeared to) were the ones that passed on their traits.

We are evolutionarily designed to be a contributor to the group, not some independent "free" being.

I acknowledge that we are naturally social animals. I acknowledge that we naturally cooperate and aid one another. What I deny is that this is synonymous with domestication. It is not. That is our natural social state, something we accept freely; radically different from the imposed domestication that haunts us in "civilized" society today, the domestication that robs us of genuine freedom by suppressing our natures.

Is there clear evidence that primitive people did not engage in murder and rape? I find that very difficult to believe."Did" isn't the right word. It's easier to look at gatherer hunters today, or in history as recent as pre-colonial America. While isolated incidents no doubt occur, it seems abundantly clear that they miss out on the epidemic that drives the criminal justice system of "civilized" people. More importantly, I think that a future primitive can be even better, more thought out, than original primitivism. We can apply ourselves to raising children who will be less inclined to hurt others--although this is immediately facilitated by the absence of dependency itself. Free and independent people, sufficient to themselves, avoid many of the frustrations that lead to crime.

But how is that statement any different from "if you violate a rule prohibiting hurting me, I will hurt you back"? If one is legitimate, why is the other not?It is the difference between mediate and immediate knowledge.

If I tell a child not to tell a lie, because lying is wrong, I give him a rule that he does not necessarily understand, and which he may be inclined to violate when it serves his purpose and he can get away with it. If, on the other hand, I catch him in a lie and I do NOT scold him for violating some abstract moral principle... but rather, the next time he tells me something true I refuse to believe him and I explain that this is because I cannot trust him--or if I tell him that tomorrow I will wake him early to go on a special trip, but then I leave without him, I employ his own natural inclinations to develop his sense of justice. He wants to be believed, and he resents my lie: he feels incensed--and justly so!--and in this way his first experience of "justice" is not an abstract rule, but a natural desire for reciprocity.

The sense of true justice does not come from the outside--rules and precepts--but from the inside, from my desire to be regarded fairly and my immediate understanding that this depends on my granting the same courtesy to others. Why should one "explain" why causing pain is bad when one can instead get people to feel its wrongness with every fiber of their being?

The only difference is that the former is more useful in a civilized society, because it can be applied to circumstances where the rules are not natural.Yes, very useful in civilized society, because no one can ever feel the natural justice of unnatural rules. Obedience to unnatural rules is for this reason necessarily alienating.

But they are not claiming it for their exclusive use. It is being claimed for collective use.Yes. Exclusive collective use. I am not excluded by consent, but by the fact that this "collective" (or 50% of them) decided how to use land that was never theirs in the first place!They are not preventing you from using it - they are making you (and everybody else) abide by certain rules in using it.The two are morally equivalent. After all, a valid rule in your democracy could very well be "do not use it at all."

It has no right to make such a claim over other people's claims to land for substinence, no. But there is nothing wrong with them making such a claim over unused land.But I was the one using it, remember?! Now they tell me that I cannot use it, because it is reserved for making plastic. I should go work in the mine, I am told, where I will make very good money!

I would question your notion that no claims would need to be mediated if no one claims more than is needed. If that is the case, why did human hunter-gatherers expand across most of the planet?Natural curiosity, perhaps? ;) The desire to know what's over the next hill?

It doesn't require it at all. If people don't want to participate, they don't have to.Ah, but this inevitably leads to a political elite. That is why direct democracy has inevitably failed to produce the promised results.

I never said that modern class society was a natural part of human nature. I don't think it is at all. Nor did I say that civilization as a whole is what everyone would choose. But certain aspects of civilization are indeed what most people would choose, because they reflect natural desires on our part.Which aspects? So far you have only mentioned baby-saving, which is an admittedly admirable goal. I simply do not think that free people would willingly accept the vast work necessary to accomplish it.

I suppose that I do, in fact, want to throw the babies out with the bathwater!! :D

If I were born in a hunter-gatherer society, I would probably not join civilized society. As a member of civilization, I would probably not join a hunter-gatherer tribe, either.As a matter of history, in confrontations between the two the civilized were far more likely to "revert" than the savages were to civilize--as a rule, they would rather die than live as we do.

But the choice remains theirs. It is a free exchange. They can decide to accept the incentive or they can refuse it.You can say precisely the same of a well-trained dog. It has been domesticated. You cannot call it "free" simply because you do not hit it!

Both partners benefit; no one is harmed. I don't see the immorality in it.The immorality is not so much in any particular exchange as it is in the degradation of human nature that was necessary to get people to this state in the first place. Yes, both partners benefit from the exchange. But they would both be better off if they could be free of such concerns altogether.

What about things like the desire for sugar?What about it? Refined sugar is a drug--almost clinically so! Naturally occurring sugarcane, of course, was consumed by American aborigines for thousands of years, processed in various ways using the most primitive technologies (and without any division of labor)--without ever being abused as it is in our culture.

So I'm really not sure what you're getting at here.

Let's assume for a moment that it goes in the former direction. What "freedom" to we have when we are the servants of nature - subject to its conditions, vulnerable to its diseases, and forced to depend on it for food?Perhaps what is most muddling this discussion is that you apparently conflate "freedom" with "power," "ability," or perhaps "license." My definition of "free" falls somewhere closer to the spectrum of "independent," "self-sufficient," "autonomous."

Is there any doubt about the freedom of the antelope or the eagle? Is the one the less free for nature's various threats of death (all things die); or is the other the less free because it can fly, but not swim? Do you look at the dolphin and think, "this animal surely lacks freedom"--other than when we ourselves imprison it?

Yes, natural man is subject to the conditions of nature--but he is also proof against them, adapted bodily to conditions that our weakened domesticated constitution could not survive. Vulnerable to disease? Perhaps, but he has fewer of them, and his health of body is perhaps as strong against the rest as our medicine--indeed, if you ask most doctors they will admit that most of the diseases they "cure" would pass on their own, if perhaps not as quickly. Forced to depend on nature for food? We will always depend on nature for food--civilization only manages to keep this fact at arm's length, to disguise its truth, and above all to make us more dependent because we no longer have the means to feed ourselves.

How does that make us autonomous? It makes us free only of other human wills - perhaps. But those are not the only threats to our freedom.To my mind, they are in fact.

It makes us subject to the weather, to the availability of food, to other animals, to disease, to disability.Any more so than today? No, I say less so.

Today we stay indoors, afraid of the rain; the primitive can brave the rain, the snow, the summer sun alike--adapted bodily to all. Only after developing agriculture has our race suffered from famine--the nomad moves on, finds food in the most unlikely places. Do the Australian Aborigines hunger, even in the desert? What other animal has ever been our natural predator--we need not fear them, and least of all should the primitive, who is familiar with their ways, their tracks, their scent--who can avoid them and, if necessary, outrun or even fight them: history is replete with credible stories of primitives defeating lions and bears with only a knife or their hands. They are far more autonomous than we.

How can you be sure that all of us were once like that?I can never be "sure," but I can examine the evidence--and primitives rarely fear death as we do.

Am I getting you right? I still have to think for a while as to whether the distinction is a good one, but I think I see the idea.Yes, that's pretty much it! ;) I stole precisely that example out of Rousseau's Emile, so if you want to read more that would be a great place to start.

But it is a necessity. The material abundance required to provide such material incentives would be an impossibility without such material incentives.It's not a necessity, and precisely for the circularity you state here. We only have these incentives as wants because we have these incentives as wants. We must only obey convention because convention is there to be obeyed. It is a world of symbols created atop the world of things. Real freedom is to be free of symbols, to live only with the law of things.

It's true, though, that psychologically I am not necessarily going to recognize this as a necessity, the way I would recognize non-cookie consumption when there are no cookies as a necessity. Yet the fact that it is not as good as it could be - that we do not will the means as well as the end, because the means are not necessitated naturally - does not mean that it is bad. It is still what I prefer.Yes, but that preference occurs in the context of extreme alienation. The preference itself is inauthentic, conditioned symbolically rather than naturally. While you may deride this perspective as merely "psychological," I think that is the most important point--the psychological conditions of "preference." If we must be deformed to make this system "work," then for what does it work? If we make ourselves worse in the process, what "betterment" can their be in "progress"?

My body is my body. If it suits my ends to sell my hand for money, why shouldn't I be allowed to? My body is only useful to the extent that it pursues my ends.But this is precisely the problem: thinking of your body as a "thing," as "property," as "something" that "belongs" to you... rather than an indivisible part of YOU!! This is the very definition of alienation, of the separation between mind and body (and the preference of the one to the other).

It's actually a rather new idea, historically--and a very Western one at that. Look to Descartes for its final triumph, and to Hobbes for its conversion into the capitalist mindset.

Is it alienation to undergo surgery, too, because it is unnaturally mutilating my body for an end of mine (survival, better health, whatever)?Depends on the surgery. A life-saving operation? Probably not, because the means is naturally connected to the end, and the end does not alienate your body--in fact, it is for your sake as a whole (including your body) that you undergo the operation. I say "probably," however, because if the result will be to save your life but to cripple you, one might regard it as ultimately an alienated decision--I'll reserve judgment. Will the operation repair some debilitating damage, such as a painful knee--then you respect your body and yourself by restoring your physical potential.

But is it cosmetic surgery, in which you attempt to alter your body because it does not suit you? That, certainly, is alienated behavior! Will you implant some cyborg parts to "improve" your physical performace. As alienated as you can be. Now you are literally turning yourself into a machine.

Does not everyone have desires? Is it not intrinsic to a desire to want it fulfilled abundantly? Is not wealth merely a means to do exactly that?Natural desires can be fulfilled naturally. Ask a primitive what he wants, what is missing in his life. I guarantee you that you will hear no answer that wealth would help.

Culture fills us with a world of symbolic desires that it has no intention of fulfilling. If we are ever fulfilled, it must invent more--for how else can it keep us at work, chained to our machines? How else can it make us productive but to constantly recite the mantra "more... more... you must have more!!"

Primitives want for nothing. Moderns want for everything, all their lives. If any individual among us could have the world, he would take it. If a primitive could have the world, he would not want it.

Who is happier? The person who gets what she wants, or the one who has learned to be satisfied with what he has?

Why are you necessarily indifferent to their ends? ... You do make the opportunity conditional, but that is material necessity...Ah! But this is the problem! It is not "material" necessity that I must make the pursuit of others' ends "conditional." There are no conditions in a gift economy. It is a convention of the competitive world that treating others as ends-in-themselves is "conditional" on their also doing something for us.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? You can both look at what they can do for society and also genuinely care about their welfare.For me, to "genuinely" care is to care unconditionally.

But I am not dreaming; I am in reality. I know I cannot have everything.That may be, but the philosophical point of dreams has never been to have everything that one dreams--rather, it is to state the ideal so that one may have a perspective from which to judge the reality. Dreams give us direction. It is our responsibility to make them the best dreams--hence the best directions--that we can.

Only if it were absolutely necessary to meet the objective; the violation of a person's bodily autonomy is a pretty severe violation. I don't think it is necessary.Nevertheless, this is the language of tyranny, not anarchy. If it were "necessary" to save lives, you would force people to give of their own bodies? What else would you force them to do... if it were "necessary"?

I'm talking about the mediation of the distribution of resources above and beyond those produced by simple foraging.Precisely. The question is how society can justly get to this point in the first place. I know it didn't, and I'm not convinced it can.

But it is still an example of something (leisure) people would desire without alienation.Without alienation, they would not have given up their natural leisure in the first place. :p

It serves society's ends.You justify property by saying it serves "society's" ends, but the kind of society you describe--one involving political rule, democratic or otherwise--presupposes the existence of property. This is a vicious circle. Without property, "society" has no basis for instituting binding rules; yet property itself is one of the very rules that depends on political association!

I don't think the moral relevance of intelligence is its use for the survival of the species. It is, rather, the elevated state of consciousness it fosters.You call this elevated? I say the reverse. As much as domestication deadens our physical senses, it deadens the mind even more. We think abstract thoughts, and we call our alienation "profound." On the contrary, it is the savage's eternal present that is truly profound; his intimate connection with the world around him, his instantaneous knowledge of his surroundings. Does he know astronomy? He uses the stars to guide him home. Does he know botany? He recognizes subtle distinctions in plant strains that evade the civilized eye--he eats the most diverse and nutritious diet ever known to humankind. Does he know psychology? He is more in tune with his feelings and those of his compatriots that some anthropologists have explored seemingly "telepathic" communications among natives.

He does not learn his science from books. He learns it the same way he learns his ethics--from experience--and he knows it as deeply, as wholly.

Are his thoughts profound? Indeed, they transcend language, which is merely a hindrance to him.

Except that racism has tended to involve the dehumanization of its victims. In order to oppress them, we had to see them as something less than human - and mere racial differences for not sufficient for that. It required a socially constructed notion of inferiority.Is the distinction between "human" and "animal" any the less constructed? Early explorers among the Inuit described children at play with wolf pups--they painted the pups faces and, when done, returned them to the den and a completely unconcerned mother. Have you ever been to an area of the untouched wild? The animals do not scatter at the approach of humans: it take time for them to learn that we are something different, something threatening, something wrong. Perhaps we need not be.

And do not others also have a right to life, to freedom?Yes, they do. Therefore, we will neither intentionally deprive them of life nor through gross negligence allow their destruction. But this is as far as obligation can take us: any further, and the demands upon us violate our own right to freedom, to autonomy and self-determination. Your right to life obligates me to forebear violence against you and to preserve you should a clear opportunity present itself. But it does not obligate me to follow you around lest danger should assail you, nor to track you down to assist you should I detect some hint of a threat, nor to take any other extraordinary measures to preserve you. Still less does it obligate me to sacrifice the joys of my childhood to education and the freedom of my adulthood to work so that you will not die.

Like most critiques of utilitarian calculations, this notion focuses on the victim of the calculation at the expense of the victim of the default state. Yes, and there is a very good reason for this. Even Mill saw it, which is why he added a theory of rights to temper the utilitarian calculus. When something is taken from some and given to others, it is the former who may have been treated unjustly: we must ask whether we had the right to take from them in the first place. If we never had that right, the the alternative in question should never have been considered under the utilitarian calculus at all. Those who thereby lose the benefits of the transaction are not, at least, violated in a matter of right: nothing was taken from them. They may complain that nothing was given either, but their complaint (though pitiable) has nothing to do with right.

Who has the greater claim? The infant, who will die? Or the person who has some freedom taken away from her, who will still live?The infant may have the greater claim to utility, but he does not have the greater claim to right.

But the basic notion that the greater good should be pursued seems legitimate to me.Sure. But some alternatives should never be considered at all. If I walk through a cafeteria and see two children open their lunchbags--one a slightly pudgy boy whose bag contains two sandwiches and the other a gaunt little lad with only an apple and some juice--I may conclude that the greater good would result from my taking one sandwich from the boy with two many, which I would give to the boy with two few. Yet though I may consider this the greater good, I have no reasonable right to demand that the one boy give up his lunch for the other.

The deaths of every human are our rightful concern. Are they less valuable because they are distant? Because they are unlucky? Because we don't know them?Not less valuable in an abstract sense, no. But I think that genuine concern can only result from the real instincts of the human individual--these general precepts about morality are only more "rules" that we are taught, and which we resist because they conflict with our natural desires. Do I wish death on the man across the world? I have no natural reason to do so. Shall I sacrifice myself for him? My compassion cannot be stretched so far.

This was Freud's quarrel with "universal Christian brotherhood"--it is unreasonable, unrealistic, and fully contrary to human nature. Love and compassion exist, yes--but they have their limits. By attempting to stretch them past their natural limits, we only thin and deflate them. By transforming them into abstract "principles" we make them to appear less than they actually are--easier to defy, in fact, when they conflict with our selfish desires.

If we want compassion to mean something, if we want it to be felt deeply enough to really transform human behavior, then we cannot ask more than it can willingly provide.

But since they did not kill themselves, they clearly valued their lives more than their deathsCan you be so sure? I think it's more likely that they simply lacked the will to kill themselves; they were too broken. They were too afraid of death to risk it themselves--but love of a child can spur great passions, passions that enliven the will and make resistance possible. They denied the master their child, and they saved their child from a fate worse than death. Telling indeed.

which means that it is wrong to deny infants life on the grounds that they would prefer death to the alternative.With this I agree. I do not mean to "deny" life to any infants. I merely mean to deny them my labor, my life--goods to which they have no claim. If they die, it is through no fault of mine.

No, it's not. But it's a chance. And that's better than what anarcho-primitivism offers us.Primitivism offers us the greatest chance of all--the chance to live a natural life. Increasingly, even people working the "best" jobs are prone to absenteeism, employee theft, and apparently meaningless sabotage. People simply don't want to work anymore--and your communal life offers little substantive difference. The primitivist revolution may already be underway.

Worrying about dying and fighting to preserve the lives of others are too different things.Are they? I'm not so sure. I think they are both symptoms of a vast culture of denial when it comes to our own mortality. We behave as if death can be stopped in its tracks. We invest every possible resource in proving to ourselves that this is true.

Doesn't society have an obligation to prevent murder? Actually, no... "Society" has no such obligation. I think each of us has an obligation to remain a non-murderer--society merely takes up this task of "preventing" murder as one of its many lame excuses for our enslavement. And how often does it work, anyway? If society is so good at preventing murder, why do the most "civilized" nations seem to have some of the highest murder rates in the world?

Doesn't society have an obligation to promote the general welfare? Why does society have the right to distinguish between those lucky enough to not be put at risk of death by nature and those unlucky enough to be put at risk?Granting arguendo that society has some such obligation, in primitive society it makes no such distinction: every child faces the same risk at birth, and through her early years. "Society" provides exactly the same assistance to all: for some it is enough, for others not.

Even in your world of advanced universal healthcare, surely some infants would die who might be saved, if only additional resources were devoted to them. Surely there will always be people who die who could have been saved. Is society to blame for this opportunity cost--for choosing some other good, one that perhaps benefits more people very greatly--over this one? Must every resource be summarily dumped into the preservation of life? --No other conclusion seems consistent with your premises.

A society that does not value life is not a decent society.But primitive society puts great value on life. More, to my mind than ours--for it acknowledges the fragility of life, its preciousness. It admits defeat before that unstoppable opponent, Death. It is precisely the great value of life that precludes its debasement in the name of mere preservation.

Why can't I will that others treat me and my needs as those of an equal, and not those of someone less worthy because I am not them? Indeed, does not such an attitude deny my role as an end-in-myself?To treat someone as an end-in-herself is to refuse to use her as a means to my own ends. Indeed, I admit that she is fully entitled to pursue her ends without any interference from me; moreover, I am likely to offer my eager assistance whenever I have assistance that I can freely offer. What I cannot do, however, is debase myself to the furtherance of her ends: for then I make a mere means out of myself--even if in so doing I act in apparent noble selflessness.

We cannot respect others if we do not respect ourselves. This is perhaps the first principle of Kant's "kindom of ends."

And one of the benefits of socialism is that if technology does not improve our quality of life, we can refuse to implement it.Judging from the perspective of alienated existence, without even knowing yourselves, how will you recognize an improvement when you see it? Will you still consume the cereal with the most sugar, or will you recognize the benefits of simple grains? Will you still prefer entertainment to leisure? Wealth to happiness?

People living a drugged existence will look to better drugs as an improvement. Addicts, they enslave themselves to their addiction. They are not free.

With the base resources necessary exhausted? No.What base resources? Abundant quantities of ore have already been removed from the ground--dismantling the cities, we will have more than we can possibly use. Should we need to develop technological resources, we will have more "base" resources to employ in the endeavor than we could ever possibly need. And how many thousands of years would we wait?If technologies do not suit our needs? Perhaps an eternity. If they do, assuredly much less.

Human history to date has been a blink of the eye in the history of the genus. What is another few thousand spent trying again?

But assume for a moment that you have it wrong, and primitivism does not improve our quality of life. We pay the extreme cost, and get nothing.Maybe, but I honestly think the evidence is there. And I think you are artificially inflating the costs--I think the transition would be neither as rapid nor as disastrous as you seem to assume. Most importantly, I think the cost for our species of continuing on the current path is far, far worse--indeed, at the rate at which we are depleting resources and destroying our environment, how can you be so confident that even a rapid socialist transition (which would certainly involve countless deaths of its own) will be able to transform the world before the real crisis hits? Making a concerted, conscious effort towards primitivism will doubtless be better to the sudden and unplanned collapse of civilization--which in all honesty seems imminent.

With socialism, on the other hand, the costs are far less extreme, and thus the loss if socialists are wrong is also far less extreme.This pragmatism bores me. The socialism you describe is no radical break--it is redistributive reformism. Rather than doing away with the fetishism of things, you would simply see to it that the things are distributed more fairly--that the drugging of society is better managed. The drugs are the problem for me. If they do not go, there has been no improvement.

The population could not even come close to the current levels with primitive food production supporting everyone and without medicine. That is why the population of primitive societies remained comparatively low.Child mortality aside (which was also a constant through most of civilized life), food production actually has little to do with it--this prejudice has been thoroughly debunked. Ancient primitives had the ability to grow more food--but they chose not to do so. Why the low population, then? Natural methods of birth control (including abortion-causing herbs), and perhaps a better awareness of their own bodies.

If technology always turns us into slaves to it, then an anarcho-communist society would ultimately reject technology. People do not like being slaves.If people today do not recognize their own slavery, what makes you think that communist production will make them any more self-aware?

That's just not true. Art has been found places where hunter-gathers dwelled.Only rather late in their existence--they went by tens of thousands of years without any art--and at points when other evidence of alienation are also evident, including divided labor in the form of a "priesthood" responsible for spiritual life. And I don't really know if creativity is symptomatic of alienation.Did I say creativity? No: making beautiful stone tools and primitive boats is very creative. Discovering and using fire, hunting in packs and with weapons, this is creative. Non-representative dance and song (simple celebrations of motion and sound without the reification of tone, meter, step), these are freely creative.

But representative art? Pictures, symbols? Why represent a world to which you are immediately present? What joy can there be in mediate experience unless you have already lost the richness of the immediate?

Symbolic experience defines alienation.

You might say that they have no desire for such things, but do we have a desire to leave our civilized lifestyles and become primitives? Do you see us doing so?Does an addict have a desire to quit, until the symptoms of his addiction finally add up, finally become too destructive to deny? Even then, how many addicts quit? How many literally drug themselves to death?

We do not desire civilization. We are addicted to it. And it is destroying us.

Free not only of the arbitrary will of others, but of the arbitrary state of the natural world.But that's the difference. Nature is not arbitrary, but necessary.

Except our natures are evolved for one and not for the other. Biologically, we are almost indigistinguishable from our ancestors 12,000 years ago.That's right. I recently read an article (on nutrition from an evolutionary perspective, as it happens) reporting that 99.99% of our DNA is shared with our pre-civilized ancestors. (The point of the article was to recommend a pre-civilized diet as healthier for our bodies; specifically, it noted that our bodies were built to retain fat to preserve us in case we could not readily find sustenance--in civilized society, however, this tends to result in an unhealthy buildup of fatty tissue, resulting in a wide range of so-called "Diseases of Civilization.")

At the moment, I am trying to conceive of a left-anarchist society that abolishes domestication, at least for the most part, without abolishing technology. That would be the best solution.Not to belabor the point, but you really should read Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time. Among other things, her feminist utopia allows children to freely explore their sexuality without commanding that they deny themselves for moral conventions; early education consists in allowing children to freely wander about the village, learning by observation and by participation--they learn to farm and identify plants when this takes their fancy; or to swim, dive, and harvest kelp when this interests them; and so on. They do not learn from books, but from experience--and only on the schedule that their own natural curiousity dictates. They play as they want--and perhaps more importantly, because it interests them, learning is hardly distinguishable from play.

Later, they may become genetic engineers or artists, or whatever.

I have my criticisms, but Piercy paints an attractive picture.

You scored as Anarcho-Communist.



Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.

Anarcho-Communist

100%

Anarcho-Syndicalist

75%

Anarcho-Primitivist

65%

Anarcha-Feminist

55%

Christian Anarchist

15%

Anarcho-Capitalist

0%

AnarchyeL: Can we stop this?

As you can see by my arguments on the past few pages, I've at least been somewhat convinced by your arguments... enough that I'm not sure if I can continue to pursue an argument that I'm not sure I can accept any longer.

I've also become overly sloppy in responding to you, as you can tell by my typos; that is indicative of fast typing, quick responses, and those are not conducive to proper thought.

I do need to think about this - and outside the competitive pressure of an "argument." I fully intend to do so over the next few weeks, and perhaps then we can come back to this.

I would like to clarify something, though, and make just one point:

You justify property by saying it serves "society's" ends, but the kind of society you describe--one involving political rule, democratic or otherwise--presupposes the existence of property. This is a vicious circle. Without property, "society" has no basis for instituting binding rules; yet property itself is one of the very rules that depends on political association!

I did not mean "society" as in "organized society." I meant "society" as in the freely-associating group that finds land and decides to use it for something.

You call this elevated? I say the reverse. As much as domestication deadens our physical senses, it deadens the mind even more. We think abstract thoughts, and we call our alienation "profound." On the contrary, it is the savage's eternal present that is truly profound; his intimate connection with the world around him, his instantaneous knowledge of his surroundings. Does he know astronomy? He uses the stars to guide him home. Does he know botany? He recognizes subtle distinctions in plant strains that evade the civilized eye--he eats the most diverse and nutritious diet ever known to humankind. Does he know psychology? He is more in tune with his feelings and those of his compatriots that some anthropologists have explored seemingly "telepathic" communications among natives.

He does not learn his science from books. He learns it the same way he learns his ethics--from experience--and he knows it as deeply, as wholly.

Are his thoughts profound? Indeed, they transcend language, which is merely a hindrance to him.

But his thoughts are still "abstract." They are relevant, yes, but they are abstract. He does merely act; he understands. That is the profundity. And I think it is a worthy profundity.

As for language, it is hardly a "hindrance" as far as it is used to communicate with his compatriots. It long predated civilization, and will continue long after we return to our primitive state, if we ever do. I think that's a good thing.

AnarchyeL: Can we stop this?Whew!! Actually, I really can't believe the time I've spent on this. ;)

But his thoughts are still "abstract."Perhaps another time we'll have a serious discussion of what we really mean by "abstraction." All too frequently, people conflate "thought" itself with "abstraction"--this is far from the case. Abstraction is always a kind of reification, as with number: I only need numbers when I no longer see (or care about) individuals. If a large family sits down to dinner, they know immediately if someone is missing without having to count.

People can think quite well without abstracting beyond the particular, without seeing "two anarchists" rather than "Soheran and AnarchyeL."

Time, I think, is probably the primary reification. We have forgotten that time is an illusion. ;) (Was it Adorno who said, "All reification is a forgetting"?)

As for language, it is hardly a "hindrance" as far as it is used to communicate with his compatriots.While I'm not completely convinced by the primitivist attack on language, it has its merits. I've already mentioned the apparently "telepathic" communication of some "primitives." Arguably, if we really know ourselves and we really know each other, we will communicate immediately--more than adequately reading the expressions of face, posture, and movement. Arguably, symbol is only necessary when we want to alienate our communications from our feelings and intentions--when, that is, we want to say something other than what we mean. When we have the desire to lie.

Two people who are truly intimate with one another may communicate more with a glance than a philosopher can with a treatise. Indeed, if these lovers try to put their feeling into words, they may find themselves at a loss--worse, the attempt to explain may lead them to forget the feeling, the moment. Here again, the reification is the forgetting.

In my mind, if language survives in the future primitive, it will be much closer to the language of poetry and song than the language of philosophy and science. Since we will not need language to communicate, we can free our voices as we free our souls. We can celebrate the use of our tongues, which will become as much toys as tools. ;)

Whew!! Actually, I really can't believe the time I've spent on this. ;)

I can't either. More than an hour on one post is too long.

While I'm not completely convinced by the primitivist attack on language, it has its merits. I've already mentioned the apparently "telepathic" communication of some "primitives." Arguably, if we really know ourselves and we really know each other, we will communicate immediately--more than adequately reading the expressions of face, posture, and movement. Arguably, symbol is only necessary when we want to alienate our communications from our feelings and intentions--when, that is, we want to say something other than what we mean. When we have the desire to lie.

Two people who are truly intimate with one another may communicate more with a glance than a philosopher can with a treatise. Indeed, if these lovers try to put their feeling into words, they may find themselves at a loss--worse, the attempt to explain may lead them to forget the feeling, the moment. Here again, the reification is the forgetting.

It is complex thought rather than feeling that I am concerned with, and that is much harder to communicate.

I don't think it's necessarily alienating. The only times I have ever not chafed in a classroom was when the topic was intellectually stimulating. It was not suppression, either; it was a sort of rational fulfillment, a way for my mind to expand itself, to develop itself. (It is better, of course, to discuss these things while walking with a friend in the cool evening air... but if the topic is interesting enough, I tend not to notice.)

It may be an accident of evolution. But it is awesome, and that is one thing I would hate to forgo.

In my mind, if language survives in the future primitive, it will be much closer to the language of poetry and song than the language of philosophy and science.

Only insofar as philosophy and science seek to escape, to dominate our nature instead of embracing it.

I don't think that exercising our intellect is intrinsically unnatural.

It says i am 95% Christian Anarchist, which i can understand the christian part, but im not too big a fan of anarchy. Well ok sometimes i get moody and hate the gov't and want it to fall horribly and all that..But thats like only once a month :p

It is complex thought rather than feeling that I am concerned with, and that is much harder to communicate.I'm not so sure. At any rate, I don't think complex thought requires abstraction. Do I need algebra to play chess?

I don't think it's necessarily alienating.Thought isn't. Complexity isn't. Abstraction is. (Actually, in broader terms I'd qualify this... a certain species of "abstract" thought is actually the most natural of all, but it is a very difficult kind of abstraction to characterize in words, precisely because it is the sort of abstraction that defies words.)

The only times I have ever not chafed in a classroom was when the topic was intellectually stimulating.Interesting choice of adjective. ;)

Anyway, why shouldn't the opportunity to exercise your brain be a "rush" under circumstances in which we so rarely get to do so? The only reason this kind of thought has retreated so thoroughly into abstraction is that concrete reason is already completely dominated by the instrumental purposes of civilized life. The real tragedy is that as late capitalism figures out how to make a commodity even out of an idea--as we increasingly transform into the "information society"--one can expect even this kind of thought to be dominated, subdued, bought and sold.

The only reason the pleasures of abstract thought have held out as long as they have is that it's taken capitalism so long to figure out how to sell them.

I don't think that exercising our intellect is intrinsically unnatural.It's the most natural thing there is. Indeed, I suspect that its true potential is something that civilized beings can barely conceive.

I'm not so sure. At any rate, I don't think complex thought requires abstraction. Do I need algebra to play chess?

I wasn't talking about abstraction so much as language.

Interesting choice of adjective. ;)

Anyway, why shouldn't the opportunity to exercise your brain be a "rush" under circumstances in which we so rarely get to do so? The only reason this kind of thought has retreated so thoroughly into abstraction is that concrete reason is already completely dominated by the instrumental purposes of civilized life. The real tragedy is that as late capitalism figures out how to make a commodity even out of an idea--as we increasingly transform into the "information society"--one can expect even this kind of thought to be dominated, subdued, bought and sold.

The only reason the pleasures of abstract thought have held out as long as they have is that it's taken capitalism so long to figure out how to sell them.

I agree that abstract thought is domesticated in our society. It can coexist with everyday life, it should coexist with everyday life, but on some level we have become alienated even from our own minds - we cannot think lest we become distracted from the Task, and once we have completed the Task, we would rather drug ourselves than think.

Thus, thought becomes suppressed, and relegated to certain "acceptable" channels - books, etc. I am forced to focus, to dedicate, myself to reading, or listening mindlessly to an instructor - despite its unnatural nature - because I have lost much of the capability to think for myself in my own life. This, of course, is what you said before, and what I did not understand.

The only way I can ever integrate the thought I enjoy into my life is to dedicate my life to employment in a relevant occupation - the ultimate Catch-22, because then I become its slave. It is now something I must labor and sacrifice to achieve, something that when I do achieve it, I have become alienated enough from that I may end up pursuing it not for the enjoyment of it, but for the fame and the arrogance of feeling smarter than others. Thus any internal goods of the practice become subordinate to the external rewards of doing it, and are suppressed.

The right place for philosophy is not in our "civilized" prisons, but in freely undertaken discussions between friends, and for its own sake.

If we want to be truly free, we must give up all hope of mastery and every enticement to slavery.What about people who don't wish to do so?

And it is not today?

By rough guesstimate, I would say that you have learned 1-5% of what you know today through direct use of your faculties.

No, we won't. Domestication requires a society in which the natural state of an animal must be suppressed to fit its role. Otherwise it is not domestication. It is just social living.

And if it is natural for humans to suppress themselves to fulfill social roles?

Wolves are not domesticated. Elephants are not domesticated. Bees are not domesticated. Chimpanzees, bonobos, and the other great apes are not domesticated.

We are not wolves, elephants, or apes.

Except our natures are evolved for one and not for the other. Biologically, we are almost indigistinguishable from our ancestors 12,000 years ago. What is radically different is our society and lifestyle - not our nature.

Our nature fits just fine with our present society and lifestyle. Our nature fits just fine with our primitive lifestyle.

I have described what our "nature" is, where do you disagree with my assessment?

Freedom. We are no longer subordinate to our social role; we are free.

I have already tried to explain how our evolution makes it natural to seek out of social role. We are stronger as a species when we can distinguish contributers from detractors and segregate ourselves according. Therefore, we are naturally inclined to cast ourselves as contributers, whether it is honest morality or otherwise. What you are describing is actually freedom from what we would naturally want.

But seriously, this abstract freedom you describe is confusing. What is the benefit of this freedom, what utility do we derive from it?

An end to domestication.

You are getting circular here.

I realize this is a newer topic to you, but you seem to be clinging to it for the sake of buzzwords.

At the moment, I am trying to conceive of a left-anarchist society that abolishes domestication, at least for the most part, without abolishing technology. That would be the best solution.

Probably not possible.

Hence why I called anarcho-primitivism tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

How, exactly, did genetics play a role?

The way they always do. Pressure upon reproduction causes changes to an aggregate population.

nah. it is only since the scientific revolution that we've had this exponential love affair with technology, and only in the past century and a half really where we got to the point where you literally could not expect to live the same sort of technological lifestyle as your grandparents or even your parents. and that's just in the descendent cultures of one tiny section of humanity. we aren't the only ones on the planet. we aren't even remotely representative of human cultures overall.

Technology isn't just computers and airplanes. It is agricultural techniques, stone tool making, metallurgy. At the advent of agricultural, there was a dramatic increase in technological production.

That which is consistent with our natures.

Humans evolved under the selective pressures of hunter-gathering. Twenty thousand years from now, we may have evolved to a point where we can tolerate a lifestyle radically different in almost every way - that is, if we do not medicate and drug away this fundamentally unnatural state of ourselves and just continue on the way we are now.

Regardless, we are not now evolved to deal with our present lifestyles. Our natures are fundamentally in conflict with our social role.

I have already addressed your incorrect notion of what is "natural" for humans.

Regardless, this entire line of discussion is beside the point, as there has been nothing to establish that what is natural is better than what is unnatural.

I acknowledge that we are naturally social animals. I acknowledge that we naturally cooperate and aid one another. What I deny is that this is synonymous with domestication. It is not. That is our natural social state, something we accept freely; radically different from the imposed domestication that haunts us in "civilized" society today, the domestication that robs us of genuine freedom by suppressing our natures.

You don't acknowledge enough.

You must acknowledge that we domesticate ourselves to a society as an evolutionary measure that increases our ability to pass on our genetics. We are better survivors when we exist as a mutually contributing group of individuals.

That is our nature.

By the way, we have no genuine freedom. Only that pseudo-freedom that we have gained in our moral social interactions.

By rough guesstimate, I would say that you have learned 1-5% of what you know today through direct use of your faculties.

I think asserting that 95-99% of my knowledge is a priori requires a strange way of calculating quantities of knowledge.

And if it is natural for humans to suppress themselves to fulfill social roles?

Then it would not be "suppression."

We are not wolves, elephants, or apes.

No, but just like them, we are naturally social. We are not naturally domesticated.

Our nature fits just fine with our present society and lifestyle. Our nature fits just fine with our primitive lifestyle.

The two are not compatible. They are radically different.

I have described what our "nature" is, where do you disagree with my assessment?

Tool use may be natural. Curiosity and innovation may be natural. The lifestyles technology and specialization lead to are not.

I have already tried to explain how our evolution makes it natural to seek out of social role. We are stronger as a species when we can distinguish contributers from detractors and segregate ourselves according. Therefore, we are naturally inclined to cast ourselves as contributers, whether it is honest morality or otherwise. What you are describing is actually freedom from what we would naturally want.

I never advocated freedom from society. Natural society is, obviously, natural; it is what we naturally seek. We do not suppress our natures to live in natural society. That is why it is natural.

What I am opposed to is domestication - where we are indoctrinated into suppressing our natural desires and tendencies so that we can toil away for hours in order to produce things we don't need.

But seriously, this abstract freedom you describe is confusing. What is the benefit of this freedom, what utility do we derive from it?

Freedom is a good in itself.

You are getting circular here.

No, I'm not.

You asked what we gained from primitivism. I told you - an end to domestication.

You asked me what we gained from an end to domestication. I told you - freedom.

No circularity involved.

I realize this is a newer topic to you, but you seem to be clinging to it for the sake of buzzwords.

Not exactly. Pretty much everything AnarchyeL has said about modern society consists of things I have thought before. The topic is not new to me at all. This particular problem - that of reconciling a technological society with human nature - has troubled me for a very long time. Of late I haven't thought about it much, because I thought it was more or less insoluble - the only thing, perhaps, that is "new" is the willingness to advocate solutions more radical than those I have contemplated before.

The only thing the "buzzwords" do is provide terms to express what I already feel and think.

Probably not possible.

Hence why I called anarcho-primitivism tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am more optimistic than that. So far we have let technology control us; we have let it define our social roles, our social structures, our lifestyles. This must end.

But what need not necessarily end is the use of technology itself, to the extent that it is compatible with natural human freedom.

I have already addressed your incorrect notion of what is "natural" for humans.

If you think slaving away for hours in a factory is "natural," you have a strange conception of "natural."

Regardless, this entire line of discussion is beside the point, as there has been nothing to establish that what is natural is better than what is unnatural.

Quite simply, because naturally we need and desire certain things. A natural society, because it is natural, lets us act upon and fulfill those needs and desires - it lets us be free. Our current unnatural society does not. Conceivably, an unnatural society could - if it did not interfere with our natural freedom.

You don't acknowledge enough.

You must acknowledge that we domesticate ourselves to a society as an evolutionary measure that increases our ability to pass on our genetics. We are better survivors when we exist as a mutually contributing group of individuals.

That is our nature.

To the extent domestication has improved our ability to pass on our genetics, it has done so not by changing our natures, as evolution would, but by suppressing them. I'll grant to you that the traits that lead to technology are natural, but their consequences in the form of domesticated civilization are not. Human curiosity and innovation producing basic tools is one thing; human curiosity and innovation building factories is another.

Again, society is natural. Domestication, definitionally, is not. Our natural role is to be part of a society; this is natural, and does not require subordination of the self, as it is what we desire. Our natural role is not to be part of this society, radically different from the conditions in which almost all of our nature evolved; we must thus be domesticated, indoctrinated into accepting our unnatural social roles (which require subordination not because they are social, but because they are unnatural; they conflict with our natural desires and tendencies, and are thus oppressive.)

By the way, we have no genuine freedom. Only that pseudo-freedom that we have gained in our moral social interactions.

Explain.

You scored as Anarcho-Capitalist.

Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps more closely linked the libertarian tradition than anarchism as it favours a free market and a stateless society. Private businesses would replace the functions of the state. This form of anarchism is largely an American phenomenon and first emerged in the 1950s (although it arguably has its roots in 19th century individualist anarchism and classical liberalism). Key thinkers include Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-Capitalist 70%

Anarcha-Feminist 45%

Christian Anarchist 45%

Anarcho-Syndicalist 40%

Anarcho-Communist 40%

Anarcho-Primitivist 20%


----------

This is not surprising. I do have anarcho-capitalistic ideals, though I think that in truth the success of any political structure is about 90% dependent on the quality of the people who comprise it, and only about 10% dependent on the system.

At the advent of agricultural, there was a dramatic increase in technological production.

no, there really wasn't

Anarcho-Capitalist 80% -Yeah, baby
Christian Anarchist 15% -where'd this come from?
Anarcho-Communist 0% -I am excellent for freedom because of this rating!
Anarcho-Syndicalist 0% -What can I say, my family has been in management for three generations.
Anarcho-Primitivist 0% -The kind I despise the most
Anarcha-Feminist 0% -The kind I laugh at

What a surprise :D

Baby, I'm an anarchist! You're a spineless liberal

Baby, I'm an anarchist! You're a spineless liberal
Not a bleedin' heart though. My heart don't bleed, the valves are sealed tight!

What about people who don't wish to do so?It is my considered opinion that the desire for mastery is more cultural artifact than innate instinct. Hence this whole culture must be dismantled.

Baby, I'm an anarchist! You're a spineless liberal

yeah, and where were you when it was time to throw bricks through that starbucks window anyway?

I have described what our "nature" is, where do you disagree with my assessment?We beat the "everything is natural" debate into the ground several months ago; I have no desire to do so again. If you cannot tell the difference between an animal's natural behavior and its domesticated behavior, I suggest you try making a pet out of a wild dog.

It is my considered opinion that the desire for mastery is more cultural artifact than innate instinct. Hence this whole culture must be dismantled.But how would you do so against someone's will?

Is a libertarian (in the US sense) essentially an anarcho-capitalist?

Is a libertarian (in the US sense) essentially an anarcho-capitalist?
Not necessarily. There are many libertarians who are so-called "minarchists".

Not necessarily. There are many libertarians who are so-called "minarchists".
Ah, a little bit of government, like a fig leaf...

I think asserting that 95-99% of my knowledge is a priori requires a strange way of calculating quantities of knowledge.

I do not claim that it is a priori, I claim that it is not the result of direct impressions from our own senses.

Then it would not be "suppression."

Exactly.

The two are not compatible. They are radically different.

Continue to make unsubstantiated statements like this and I will cease to take you seriously.

Tool use may be natural. Curiosity and innovation may be natural. The lifestyles technology and specialization lead to are not.

By your so far undefined "natural" category.

I never advocated freedom from society. Natural society is, obviously, natural; it is what we naturally seek. We do not suppress our natures to live in natural society. That is why it is natural.

What I am opposed to is domestication - where we are indoctrinated into suppressing our natural desires and tendencies so that we can toil away for hours in order to produce things we don't need.

And that was an explanation of how we domesticate ourselves.

Freedom is a good in itself.

How?

No, I'm not.

You asked what we gained from primitivism. I told you - an end to domestication.

You asked me what we gained from an end to domestication. I told you - freedom.

I thought that you said we gain freedom from an end to domestication, and a an end to domestication from freedom.

I am more optimistic than that. So far we have let technology control us; we have let it define our social roles, our social structures, our lifestyles. This must end.

But what need not necessarily end is the use of technology itself, to the extent that it is compatible with natural human freedom.

If you have considered our lives controlled by technology so far, then there is no way that we can escape from technology, as we have taken on the only relationship we can with technology.

But how would you do so against someone's will?Would I be willing to kill the slavemaster to free the slaves? You bet.

Would I also go against the "will" of the slave who thinks he's better off a slave? Definitely.

You're never going to convince everyone of the need for revolution. There will always be opposition. So what's your point?

I do not claim that it is a priori, I claim that it is not the result of direct impressions from our own senses.

Then it is the result of information received through my senses. Remind me again what the primitive lacks in this regard? I'll grant to you that books would not be available, but conversation is still an option.

Exactly.

No. You continue to miss the point. Modern society does suppress our natures to our social role. We all experience this in everyday life. My point is that a natural society would not do this; there is nothing natural about such suppression.

Continue to make unsubstantiated statements like this and I will cease to take you seriously.

If you really don't think that long hours in schools, factories, offices, and mines is radically different from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, I fear I will cease to take you seriously.

By your so far undefined "natural" category.

They are not the circumstances in which our natures evolved. Thus, "unnatural."

And that was an explanation of how we domesticate ourselves.

By teaching our children to work and obey from a very young age, quite deliberately suppressing their instincts, then punishing them (or these days, drugging them) when they refuse to do so. We also self-domesticate ourselves; in order to survive in our unnatural circumstances, we suppress our instincts, embracing instead the role society has given to us.

How?

If you do not understand why freedom is valuable, I do not know if I can explain it to you.

If you have considered our lives controlled by technology so far, then there is no way that we can escape from technology, as we have taken on the only relationship we can with technology.

I don't consider our lives controlled by technology, though. I consider our lives controlled by an unnatural society that incorporates technology. There are other relationships we can have with technology, if we can first break our chains and ensure that any such relationship will be a free one.

Would I be willing to kill the slavemaster to free the slaves? You bet.

Would I also go against the "will" of the slave who thinks he's better off a slave? Definitely.

You're never going to convince everyone of the need for revolution. There will always be opposition. So what's your point?The point is that it's logically impossible to impose freedom upon people.

The point is that it's logically impossible to impose freedom upon people.

I used to think so, too... but thinking it over in the context of this discussion, I'm not so sure.

Say you have a person who's been more or less forcibly addicted to drugs. Her master controls her supply; she is thus subject to the will of her master, and is essentially a slave. Everything she is told to do, she does, because that is the only way she will receive the drugs she craves.

Now, say you forcibly end her addiction through one method or another. You have used force, you have coerced her, you have gone against her will - but you have nonetheless freed her. She is no longer a slave; she is free.

If you think slaving away for hours in a factory is "natural," you have a strange conception of "natural."

Do some social institutions coerce humans into unnatural behavior? Yes.

Does civilization itself coerce humans into unnatural behavior? No way.

Quite simply, because naturally we need and desire certain things. A natural society, because it is natural, lets us act upon and fulfill those needs and desires - it lets us be free. Our current unnatural society does not. Conceivably, an unnatural society could - if it did not interfere with our natural freedom.

Two questions:

What differentiates between natural needs and desires, and unnatural needs and desires?

Is it true freedom if we are only allowed to fulfill our base natural desires?

To the extent domestication has improved our ability to pass on our genetics, it has done so not by changing our natures, as evolution would, but by suppressing them.

Our biological natures changed before we began to "domesticate" ourselves. There would be no impetus for these altruistic movements without biological change preceding it, as there was no culture or society to impose it.

I'll grant to you that the traits that lead to technology are natural, but their consequences in the form of domesticated civilization are not.

Human curiosity and innovation producing basic tools is one thing; human curiosity and innovation building factories is another.

In what way are they different?

Domestication, definitionally, is not.

I have repeatedly explained, from a naturalistic position, that this is not true. I cannot help but think that, at this point, this is nothing but a moralistic fallacy.

Explain.

That is for another thread, I shouldn't have even brought it up.

no, there really wasn't

Are you comparing that period to modern times, or to the 200,000 years preceding it?

I used to think so, too... but thinking it over in the context of this discussion, I'm not so sure.

Say you have a person who's been more or less forcibly addicted to drugs. Her master controls her supply; she is thus subject to the will of her master, and is essentially a slave. Everything she is told to do, she does, because that is the only way she will receive the drugs she craves.

Now, say you forcibly end her addiction through one method or another. You have used force, you have coerced her, you have gone against her will - but you have nonetheless freed her. She is no longer a slave; she is free.I disagree; I fail to see how forcibly addicting somebody to drugs is any different than forcibly unaddicting somebody to drugs. You're welcome to convince her to give up the drugs; perhaps even sign something (while not high) to commit to a certain period of rehab, but you're not entitled to kidnap her to accomplish this.
Additionally, to destroy all of the drugs after she is no longer addicted removes her freedom to choose whether or not to use them again.

We beat the "everything is natural" debate into the ground several months ago; I have no desire to do so again.

That is fine, as I wouldn't make that argument.

If you cannot tell the difference between an animal's natural behavior and its domesticated behavior, I suggest you try making a pet out of a wild dog.

Our natural behavior is hardly similar to that of a dog.

This seems like an attempt to duck my question. How is my assessment of human nature wrong?

You Dont Know Me: I'm tired of wasting my time with this argument.

I have repeatedly made two basic points:

1. Our present lifestyles are highly unnatural.
2. This unnatural lifestyle is oppressive, because it contradicts our natures.

I think (1) is, frankly, obvious, and arguing over whether or not it is true is futile.

(2) is a little more complex. You ask:

What differentiates between natural needs and desires, and unnatural needs and desires?

Is it true freedom if we are only allowed to fulfill our base natural desires?

The difference between natural needs and desires and unnatural needs and desires is that the former is an aspect of ourselves; it is what we desire at the core. Unnatural desires, however, are more like addictions; they are things we acquire through unnatural circumstances, like conditioning.

Human beings will always desire what is natural for us to desire. We only sometimes will desire what is not natural for us to desire. To condition us into having unnatural desires so that we suppress our natural desires is to oppress us, to deny us freedom; it is akin to addicting a child to a drug, then using your control of that drug to make her your slave.

Unnatural desires are not inherently oppressive. They can coexist with natural freedom, and when they do, they should be permitted free reign.

Of course, unnatural desires suppressing natural desires are not the only reason we suppress our natures. Indeed, quite often even our natural desires (for substinence, for the esteem of others, for success in competition) are turned against us by unnatural circumstances. Thus even someone unconditioned who needs food might work in a factory, because our civilization is such that the means of substinence are controlled.

I disagree; I fail to see how forcibly addicting somebody to drugs is any different than forcibly unaddicting somebody to drugs. You're welcome to convince her to give up the drugs; perhaps even sign something (while not high) to commit to a certain period of rehab, but you're not entitled to kidnap her to accomplish this.

What if she says no? What if her craving is so strong that she is not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to end her addiction?

The essential point is that her craving is coercive. It is like a chain. As long as she has her craving and her master holds her drugs, she is not free, because she craves the drugs to the point where any autonomy she has is meaningless. To let her remain addicted because her addiction won't permit her to make the necessary sacrifices is akin to not releasing a slave because the slave is in chains. Mental or physical, both chains and addictions are impediments to freedom; unless they are freely accepted, to break them is not to oppress the slave, but to free her.

Additionally, to destroy all of the drugs after she is no longer addicted removes her freedom to choose whether or not to use them again.

That is true. But why would she? They made her a slave.

Then it is the result of information received through my senses. Remind me again what the primitive lacks in this regard? I'll grant to you that books would not be available, but conversation is still an option.

Conversation that is limited to extremely small groups of people. You may enjoy the shared knowledge of 50 people, none of which will have any sort of knowledge that you couldn't figure out on your own.

That is the point of primitivism, to destroy anything necessity people have upon society. So anything that you cannot come up with on your own you should never have access to, otherwise you become dependent.

This is the central difference between our positions, you look at independence as freedom, but is merely the freedom of unthinking animals. It is a freedom from obligation.

My stance is that freedom only occurs when we have opportunity. We gain our freedom when we interact, we gain our freedom when we learn.

No. You continue to miss the point. Modern society does suppress our natures to our social role. We all experience this in everyday life. My point is that a natural society would not do this; there is nothing natural about such suppression.

No, that is my point, there is civil conformity that is natural, and conformity that is unnatural.

If you really don't think that long hours in schools, factories, offices, and mines is radically different from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, I fear I will cease to take you seriously.

And I have posited that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is not the only natural lifestyle for humans, it is only one possible lifestyle that fits our natural makeup.

They are not the circumstances in which our natures evolved. Thus, "unnatural."

I understand that natural means "in accordance with our nature" for our purposes, but that gets me no closer to what you consider our nature to be.

By teaching our children to work and obey from a very young age, quite deliberately suppressing their instincts,

In hunter-gatherer societies children would not be taught to obey their parents and other elders?

Societal obedience is a natural behavior, programmed into our biology through evolution.

embracing instead the role society has given to us.

[QUOTE]If you do not understand why freedom is valuable, I do not know if I can explain it to you.

I understand why freedom is valuable, but it is not valuable in of itself.

Freedom is only as valuable as the utility it provides, what utility does your freedom provide?

You Dont Know Me: I'm tired of wasting my time with this argument.

Perhaps if you had budged an inch at my prodding, you wouldn't be wasting your time.

I have repeatedly made two basic points:

1. Our present lifestyles are highly unnatural.

If our present lifestyles are obviously highly unnatural (I will certainly admit that portions of it are unnatural, and that it stems from inequal levels of dependency on society and not dependency on society itself), then certainly you can provide an iota of an argument that backs it up.

The difference between natural needs and desires and unnatural needs and desires is that the former is an aspect of ourselves; it is what we desire at the core. Unnatural desires, however, are more like addictions; they are things we acquire through unnatural circumstances, like conditioning.

Human beings will always desire what is natural for us to desire. We only sometimes will desire what is not natural for us to desire. To condition us into having unnatural desires so that we suppress our natural desires is to oppress us, to deny us freedom; it is akin to addicting a child to a drug, then using your control of that drug to make her your slave.

Unnatural desires are not inherently oppressive. They can coexist with natural freedom, and when they do, they should be permitted free reign.

Of course, unnatural desires suppressing natural desires are not the only reason we suppress our natures. Indeed, quite often even our natural desires (for substinence, for the esteem of others, for success in competition) are turned against us by unnatural circumstances. Thus even someone unconditioned who needs food might work in a factory, because our civilization is such that the means of substinence are controlled.

I understand that we naturally want what we naturally want.

I was looking for a more practical answer so I can somehow grasp what you consider natural.

As I said, it appears that you are making a moralistic argument, by taking what you want to be natural human behavior (even worse, based on your modern assessment of humanity) and assigning that as what is natural human behavior.

Until you provide some evidence or argument for the basis of what is natural human behavior, I will continue to think this.

Conversation that is limited to extremely small groups of people. You may enjoy the shared knowledge of 50 people, none of which will have any sort of knowledge that you couldn't figure out on your own.

That is the point of primitivism, to destroy anything necessity people have upon society. So anything that you cannot come up with on your own you should never have access to, otherwise you become dependent.

This is the central difference between our positions, you look at independence as freedom, but is merely the freedom of unthinking animals. It is a freedom from obligation.

My stance is that freedom only occurs when we have opportunity. We gain our freedom when we interact, we gain our freedom when we learn.

I don't think we gain freedom necessarily when we learn, unless we live in a society where learning is essential to meaningful freedom. It can be an expression of freedom, though.

I'll grant to you that learning is limited in a primitive society - this is one of my problems with it.

No, that is my point, there is civil conformity that is natural, and conformity that is unnatural.

Right, and my position is that we should abolish (or come very close to doing so) the unnatural forms of civil conformity.

And I have posited that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is not the only natural lifestyle for humans, it is only one possible lifestyle that fits our natural makeup.

And unless you deny a constant human nature, I don't see how it's possible that both a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and a modern post-industrial one fit our natural makeup.

I understand that natural means "in accordance with our nature" for our purposes,

Not exactly. Unnatural circumstances (that is, circumstances other than those natural for humans) could theoretically still be "in accordance with our nature" in that they don't compel unnatural lifestyles.

but that gets me no closer to what you consider our nature to be.

Sorry, it isn't something that can summarized in a word, or even in a sentence, any more than the natural behavior of any species can be summarized in that way.

In hunter-gatherer societies children would not be taught to obey their parents and other elders?

Societal obedience is a natural behavior, programmed into our biology through evolution.

Precisely. And when societal obedience occurs in a natural society, it does not involve the suppression of our natures. "Obedience" in such circumstances would be obedience to what children naturally desire. Such is not the case in our society.

I understand why freedom is valuable, but it is not valuable in of itself.

Freedom is only as valuable as the utility it provides, what utility does your freedom provide?

Freedom is valuable in itself. If anything, other things should be judged by their utility in advancing it, not the other way around.

The point is that it's logically impossible to impose freedom upon people.Only if you conflate freedom with mere license.

If by freedom you mean, as I do, independence, autonomy and the like, then it is perfectly reasonable to "force men to be free," as Rousseau puts it.

Imagine a thirty-year-old pothead, wasting his life in his parents' basement, jobless and "free" to do as he pleases because his parents will not compel him to do otherwise.

I do not regard him as free. Had his parents used a little more "force," perhaps he would be.

What if she says no? What if her craving is so strong that she is not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to end her addiction?

The essential point is that her craving is coercive. It is like a chain. As long as she has her craving and her master holds her drugs, she is not free, because she craves the drugs to the point where any autonomy she has is meaningless. To let her remain addicted because her addiction won't permit her to make the necessary sacrifices is akin to not releasing a slave because the slave is in chains. Mental or physical, both chains and addictions are impediments to freedom; unless they are freely accepted, to break them is not to oppress the slave, but to free her.It could be that her craving is so strong that she cannot escape it, or it could be that she simply does not wish to. I have no way of determining which it is, and therefore cannot justly make the decision for her.

That is true. But why would she? They made her a slave.What if she doesn't like freedom?

Perhaps if you had budged an inch at my prodding, you wouldn't be wasting your time.

I am willing to budge when people are convincing. At this point, you are not, perhaps because you have failed to pay attention to what I have been arguing.

If our present lifestyles are obviously highly unnatural (I will certainly admit that portions of it are unnatural, and that it stems from inequal levels of dependency on society and not dependency on society itself), then certainly you can provide an iota of an argument that backs it up.

It is obvious because it is plain that our lifestyles are not even remotely similar to those of hunter-gatherers. If our "nature" is more or less the same as that of hunter-gatherers, then it follows that it is at least extremely probable that there is a great deal of incompatibility. Add to this observation the fact that most of us have "needs" far beyond those that could ever have been fulfilled by a hunter-gatherer society, and "extremely probable" becomes "essentially certain."

I understand that we naturally want what we naturally want.

I was looking for a more practical answer so I can somehow grasp what you consider natural.

Obviously, I can't know for certain; I have never been a hunter-gatherer. That is one reason I am hesitant to embrace the primitivist critique of technology; since we do not know precisely what human nature is, the abolition of domestication may be compatible with technology.

As I said, it appears that you are making a moralistic argument, by taking what you want to be natural human behavior (even worse, based on your modern assessment of humanity) and assigning that as what is natural human behavior.

What I "want" to be natural human behavior is something along the lines of radical altruism combined with a fierce pursuit of intellectual activity; something that will naturally lead to an anarchist gift economy with unlimited access to knowledge, health care, and luxury. Indeed, I am quite fond of technology; I do hate television and cell phones with a passion (the latter for less than rational reasons), but I very much enjoy computers, the Internet, and electronic music.

My "modern assessment of humanity" is actually fairly positive, whatever I may say tongue-in-cheek. My "modern assessment of human society" differs significantly.

Only if you conflate freedom with mere license.

If by freedom you mean, as I do, independence, autonomy and the like, then it is perfectly reasonable to "force men to be free," as Rousseau puts it.

Imagine a thirty-year-old pothead, wasting his life in his parents' basement, jobless and "free" to do as he pleases because his parents will not compel him to do otherwise.

I do not regard him as free. Had his parents used a little more "force," perhaps he would be.I'm not saying that he would be free, but you can't free somebody against their will. Certainly, his parents are capable of not supporting him financially, but that is their choice, and it would remove their freedom to remove their choice from them, too.

I'm not saying that he would be free, but you can't free somebody against their will.With this I would agree, except that we have very different definitions of "will." I do not think anyone "wills" a wasted life; yet still I think he may choose one.

I believe that the free person is the one who chooses everything he wills, and wills everything he chooses. I have yet to meet such a person--I do not believe she can exist in this culture.

More to the point, we are still using very different definitions of the word "freedom." You think that a person is free if his choices are without external restriction: if no one compels him to do some things or not to do others. My definition of freedom, however, is much broader: he is free when he is independent--when he can do what he likes because no one can make him do otherwise. No one has anything to hold over his head. No one has power.

In the case of our young man, his parents hold every power over him. If they should choose that he work, they can make him. If they should choose that he prostrate himself before them, begging for his life--they have the power to make him do these things, for at a moment's notice they can deny him food and shelter (as well as the many other "needs" he has in today's society).

EDIT: They have no son. They have a pet that can talk.

Were they responsible parents, they would have raised him to defy their power, to value his independence and to separate himself from their mastery.

They may not exercise their power--they may let him do "whatever he likes." But because they have always done so, they have made him dependent, weak, ultimately unfree.

Freedom is a question of character and personal resources. It is a question of one's ability to live, to be a whole human being. Sometimes--and especially in our world--a little prodding may be necessary to get a person there.

It could be that her craving is so strong that she cannot escape it, or it could be that she simply does not wish to. I have no way of determining which it is, and therefore cannot justly make the decision for her.

What if she doesn't like freedom?

Conceivably, yes, that could be true. But would it really be? And is it not also possible, indeed very likely, that the only reason she would make such a choice is the slave mentality that has been forced upon her?

I do see the problem you point out, though. I think the solution is to emancipate ourselves, and then let natural liberty take its course; if people choose to return to a life of domestication of their own free will, at least people who have not been conditioned to do so, then there would be no need to stop them as long as they did not interfere with the liberty of the others.

I don't think we gain freedom necessarily when we learn, unless we live in a society where learning is essential to meaningful freedom. It can be an expression of freedom, though.

I'll grant to you that learning is limited in a primitive society - this is one of my problems with it.

Learning is always a creation of opportunity. Everything we learn is an opportunity to change ourselves, and that opportunity to change ourselves is freedom. The continuation of oneself as it has always been is not freedom, it might as well be slavery.

Right, and my position is that we should abolish (or come very close to doing so) the unnatural forms of civil conformity.

That is anarchy in general, not primitivism.

And unless you deny a constant human nature, I don't see how it's possible that both a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and a modern post-industrial one fit our natural makeup.

I say that our nature is one of a socially dependent (in that we are in constant negotiations within our social structures, via our empathy, in order to secure our successful reproduction) creature that has gained the ability to adapt our surroundings rather than wait for our surroundings to adapt us.

With that as the case, a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, an agricultural lifestyle, and an industrial lifestyle are all supported.

Sorry, it isn't something that can summarized in a word, or even in a sentence, any more than the natural behavior of any species can be summarized in that way.

But you have made it seem that animal and human nature are obviously apparent.

Precisely. And when societal obedience occurs in a natural society, it does not involve the suppression of our natures. "Obedience" in such circumstances would be obedience to what children naturally desire. Such is not the case in our society.

But not for the reasons primitivists claim.

Freedom is valuable in itself. If anything, other things should be judged by their utility in advancing it, not the other way around.

Consider this scenario:

A person is completely isolated in a cave with no chance of discovery. This person has all of its survival needs provided automatically. However, this person is completely catatonic. The person is completely free of obligation and coersion, the person is totally independent. Does this person's freedom have any value?

With this I would agree, except that we have very different definitions of "will." I do not think anyone "wills" a wasted life; yet still I think he may choose one.

I believe that the free person is the one who chooses everything he wills, and wills everything he chooses. I have yet to meet such a person--I do not believe she can exist in this culture.Perhaps not, but how would we know, anyway?

More to the point, we are still using very different definitions of the word "freedom." You think that a person is free if his choices are without external restriction: if no one compels him to do some things or not to do others. My definition of freedom, however, is much broader: he is free when he is independent--when he can do what he likes because no one can make him do otherwise. No one has anything to hold over his head. No one has power.I don't have a problem with the idea of defining freedom as independence, however you can't have independence without your choices being free of external restriction.

In the case of our young man, his parents hold every power over him. If they should choose that he work, they can make him. If they should choose that he prostrate himself before them, begging for his life--they have the power to make him do these things, for at a moment's notice they can deny him food and shelter (as well as the many other "needs" he has in today's society).

EDIT: He is not their son. He is their pet.

Were they responsible parents, they would have raised him to defy their power, to value his independence and to separate himself from their mastery.

They may not exercise their power--they may let him do "whatever he likes." But because they have always done so, they have made him dependent, weak, ultimately unfree. And if such is the choice if all parties involved, I don't have the right to force them to make a different choice.

Freedom is a question of character and personal resources. It is a question of one's ability to live, to be a whole human being. Sometimes--and especially in our world--a little prodding may be necessary to get a person there.And if prodding means the parents refusing to support their son, then they have the right to do so and I don't have a problem with that. If prodding means forcing them to cease supporting their son, then I do have a problem with it.

Conceivably, yes, that could be true. But would it really be? And is it not also possible, indeed very likely, that the only reason she would make such a choice is the slave mentality that has been forced upon her?

I do see the problem you point out, though. I think the solution is to emancipate ourselves, and then let natural liberty take its course; if people choose to return to a life of domestication of their own free will, at least people who have not been conditioned to do so, then there would be no need to stop them as long as they did not interfere with the liberty of the others.Certainly, all of these things are possible. I have no objections to primitivists arguing for primitivism, and people voluntarily choosing it; I do object to the idea of primitivism being forced upon people.

That is anarchy in general, not primitivism.

And I am not a primitivist. But I would agree with them that unnatural (more properly, unfree, if we are talking about anarchism in general) forms of conformity should be defined more broadly than most anarchists are willing to define them.

I say that our nature is one of a socially dependent (in that we are in constant negotiations within our social structures, via our empathy, in order to secure our successful reproduction) creature that has gained the ability to adapt our surroundings rather than wait for our surroundings to adapt us.

With that as the case, a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, an agricultural lifestyle, and an industrial lifestyle are all supported.

You ignore our relationship to our surroundings - our labor, the way we attain substinence, the way we fulfill our needs and desires.

But you have made it seem that animal and human nature are obviously apparent.

Not "obviously apparent." The only thing that I think is "obviously apparent" is that when a species lives a lifestyle radically different from the lifestyle it lived originally, and it has remained essentially the same throughout that period, there is something very unnatural about that arrangement.

But not for the reasons primitivists claim.

Yes, for at least some of the reasons primitivists claim, as well as for the reasons left-anarchists claim.

Consider this scenario:

A person is completely isolated in a cave with no chance of discovery. This person has all of its survival needs provided automatically. However, this person is completely catatonic. The person is completely free of obligation and coersion, the person is totally independent. Does this person's freedom have any value?

The person is not free; she is incapable of acting.

I am willing to budge when people are convincing. At this point, you are not, perhaps because you have failed to pay attention to what I have been arguing.

You say that we live in an unnatural society in which people are coerced into unnatural behavior by the various institutions of the society (I, by the way, have not actually disagreed with that). That seems to be the extent of your argument, however, as you have not described what is natural, what causes this coersion, or how it causes this coersion.

It is obvious because it is plain that our lifestyles are not even remotely similar to those of hunter-gatherers. If our "nature" is more or less the same as that of hunter-gatherers, then it follows that it is at least extremely probable that there is a great deal of incompatibility. Add to this observation the fact that most of us have "needs" far beyond those that could ever have been fulfilled by a hunter-gatherer society, and "extremely probable" becomes "essentially certain."

And as I have pointed out before, you are not describing what would be natural and comparing our present lifestyle to it, you are comparing our present lifestyle to a prior lifestyle.

You have to show what is natural first, then you can show why the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is more natural.

To "You Don't Know Me"...

Alas, the time I can devote to such a thread dwindles as I am forced to prepare for a new semester. You entered the discussion late, but you seem to have a genuine interest and a willingness to embrace a degree of intellectual honesty (which is more than I can say for some earlier opponents)--thus, it grieves me that I may be unable to more fully respond to your intelligent questions.

Still, however briefly (and inevitably inadequately), I would like to respond more fullly to your principle question, around which my compatriot Soheran has gently dodged: how do we define what is "natural" in the human soul, and what has been unnaturally grafted upon us by an unnatural civil life? Indeed, assuming (as we all do) that humans are innately social creatures, what differentiates "natural" from "unnatural" society?

As Soheran accurately remarks, it would be impossible to give a completely accurate and sensible answer from within the confines of this highly unnatural (even, if I read you aright, to some extent in your view) civilization.

However, this much can be said: if you want to find the natural, look for the innate--which in this context is very nearly its synonym. In raising our children, the lessons to which they respond immediately are the most natural; the lessons that they naturally resist, that it takes the most effort and schooling to instill, these are most certainly less natural: they employ the directed attentions of teachers and parents against the child rather than with her and for her. They must break her will rather than encourage it.

This suggests a sort of "scale" of the unnatural. So be it.

This is, meanwhile, only a start--for I believe that there is a different kind of unnature to which children may take very easily, but which is conditioned on a mode of existence which is itself highly unnatural in the aforementioned sense. It involves a kind of pervasive narcissism, and its etiology is the same.

When a parent rushes to aid a child who needs food, or to be changed, or which has been injured, the parent obeys a certain law of necessity: the child need help, and natural love for the child dictates the response.

When, however, a parent struggles to quiet a child who has no real complaint; when a parent grants a request merely because a child says "give" or "do"; then the parent does not obey a need implanted by the nature which made us--rather, this parent fears that her child will not "like" her, that the child will resent the parents' independence. This parent has not the self-esteem, the self-assurance to allow her child to become independent of itself. She values its dependence, because its dependence reinforces her sense of power.

EDIT: The irony is obvious: She reinforces her sense of power, of "possession," by encouraging dependency in her child--yet all the while she serves his whims, bends to his will. He may be dependent, but she breeds in him a taste for mastery--he wants always to be obeyed, never to obey. Then she wonders why he becomes unruly!!

Why does she need a sense of power reinforced? Because she is powerless in fact, within the adult world. She raises her child to be dependent and vain (not that she intends this, exactly) because she herself was raised to be dependent and vain. A free and independent parent would prefer to teach this same freedom to her child--the ability to get for himself rather than to command the affections of others.

I realize that this latter definition is fraught with difficulties, for it is an unnature that plays upon the deepest parts of our nature. It is a twisting of nature rather than an opposition to it. Nevertheless, that is how I see it.

If you are genuinely curious about this view, I make the same recommendation to you that I have to others: read Rousseau's Emile (although you should first read his Discourse on Inequality, which is most important to Emile.

I don't have a problem with the idea of defining freedom as independence, however you can't have independence without your choices being free of external restriction.No, indeed. But the point is in making you independent. Dependence can be a very tempting state, so long as your immediate wants are satisfied.

An infant is born the most dependent creature in the world. It takes some effort, and often some strategic use of force, for parents to transform this dependent thing into an independent man or woman. If they succeed, he will never be forced again. If they fail, he will remain as much subject to others as when they dressed him in diapers.

Yet for the very possibility that they may fail, there is no age at which I can assume a person has acquired the ability to make free decisions. This is a talent they can demonstrate, not a right that descends upon them as if by magic.

And if such is the choice if all parties involved, I don't have the right to force them to make a different choice.Even if I have every reason to believe that they merely perceive their choice to be free, when in fact it is not?

I have no objections to primitivists arguing for primitivism, and people voluntarily choosing it; I do object to the idea of primitivism being forced upon people.Then your talk of anarchism will amount to nothing, for the capitalists will never volunteer their riches, nor the generals their guns. They must be taken, and taken by force.

You ignore our relationship to our surroundings - our labor, the way we attain substinence, the way we fulfill our needs and desires.

Our labor is how we adapt our surroundings, and that was one of the two qualities I did mention.

Not "obviously apparent." The only thing that I think is "obviously apparent" is that when a species lives a lifestyle radically different from the lifestyle it lived originally, and it has remained essentially the same throughout that period, there is something very unnatural about that arrangement.

You overestimate the difference in our lifestyles.

Our change in lifestyles is similar to a species of termites that begins to specialize in poplar rather than birch. The change occurs because of changes in environment, not because of a change in nature.

Our environments changed to support sedentary lifestyles, and we ran with it.

The person is not free; she is incapable of acting.

So freedom is the opportunity for action, and we can assume a benefit from that in that we can change ourselves.

So when we compare modern society with its massive social intracacies, vast libraries of knowledge, incredible modes of transportation, with the simple lives of hunter-gatherers, who is more free?

You say that we live in an unnatural society in which people are coerced into unnatural behavior by the various institutions of the society (I, by the way, have not actually disagreed with that). That seems to be the extent of your argument, however, as you have not described what is natural, what causes this coersion, or how it causes this coersion.

A lot of factors in concert cause this coercion. One is our education system, the inculculation of obedience and labor into children. Another is the way we separate our children from nature and addict them to unnatural "protections"; thus instead of getting them to live with nature, we make them dependent on things that will permit them to escape it. This sort of conditioning permits us to later use material incentives to sway them into labor.

Furthermore, even someone who has not been conditioned would be coerced in our society. Just to get along, just to fulfill our natural desires, we need more material goods than primitives ever did; these goods, of course, can only be bought on the market, and thus we must enslave ourselves to attain them.

Now, someone might protest that with the abolition of capitalism some of that sort of coercion may be eliminated. I agree. Indeed, I think left-wing anarchism, if it ever comes into being, will be forced to deal with precisely that "problem," and hopefully they will choose freedom over productivity.

And as I have pointed out before, you are not describing what would be natural and comparing our present lifestyle to it, you are comparing our present lifestyle to a prior lifestyle.

You have to show what is natural first, then you can show why the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is more natural.

It was as hunter-gatherers that we evolved; the evolutionary pressures that define at least almost all of our natures are the evolutionary pressures that hunter-gatherers faced.

Our labor is how we adapt our surroundings, and that was one of the two qualities I did mention.

But not all "adaptations" are natural. You are assuming that because we naturally adapt to our surroundings, all of our adaptations are thus natural. On some level, this is true; defined broadly, all human behavior is "natural," as its origin lies in natural tendencies. But this is disingenuous. Our natural response to certain unnatural circumstances is unnatural behavior, behavior that conflicts with our natures (as well as being a product of them.)

You overestimate the difference in our lifestyles.

Our change in lifestyles is similar to a species of termites that begins to specialize in poplar rather than birch. The change occurs because of changes in environment, not because of a change in nature.

Our environments changed to support sedentary lifestyles, and we ran with it.

I do not believe that human nature has changed significantly. Indeed, I have been denying that throughout this argument. I agree with you that our changed lifestyles are the product of a change in our surroundings. That's why I seek to change our surroundings.

So freedom is the opportunity for action, and we can assume a benefit from that in that we can change ourselves.

So when we compare modern society with its massive social intracacies, vast libraries of knowledge, incredible modes of transportation, with the simple lives of hunter-gatherers, who is more free?

When you compare an addict surrounded by a variety of drugs, all of whom she had to work long and hard to attain, to a non-addict who does not have and does not want those drugs, who is more free?

Edit: I would suggest that we can ask both questions sensibly; indeed, there is some truth to both perspectives. Not everything we gain from modern society is an "addiction." Not everything primitives lack deprives them of meaningful freedom.

We must reach some sort of arrangement that takes both of these perspectives into account.

Still, however briefly (and inevitably inadequately), I would like to respond more fullly to your principle question, around which my compatriot Soheran has gently dodged: how do we define what is "natural" in the human soul, and what has been unnaturally grafted upon us by an unnatural civil life? Indeed, assuming (as we all do) that humans are innately social creatures, what differentiates "natural" from "unnatural" society?

I will grant that I have dodged it, but on the other hand, I do not claim and have never claimed to have the precise answer, and I do not think it is as relevant as You Dont Know Me insists. I need not explicitly define human nature to protest the domestication of humans; such conditioning is oppressive whatever our real natures are. What I propose is that we emancipate ourselves, and see the results.

the ability to get for himself rather than to command the affections of others.

This particular section stuck out.

Probably the most influential book I have read recently, Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves (ironically a naturalists attempt at showing compatibilism that I consider to have failed miserably in its main purpose) addresses our moral capabilities as they have arisen through the social aspect of our evolution.

He describes how humans developed the mental machinery to both determine between contributors and defectors and attempt to cast the appearance of a cooperator or defector (he uses the Prisoner's Dilemma prominently). Because of this ability contributors begin to segregate themselves from defectors, naturally enhancing their ability to survive. This in turn creates an evolutionary race to perfect the ability to convince others that one is a cooperator.

While Dennett had no intention of making a political argument, you can see how it weighs in upon our own. You say that we naturally strive to be independent, our own person, so to speak, but I have a very well founded view that we are actually naturally predisposed to not be an individual or a rebel. Rather, evolutionary forces have provided both the tools and natural desire to conform ourselves to society.


I do understand that children will fight against the lessons of their particular society. However, I believe that human behavior has evolved to the point where biology is only a minor factor (Dennett claims that our culture has provided us with a freedom from natural determinism by providing us with an adaptable environment and a slew of cultural memes, and there have morally important free will, if I understand his position). I hold the paradoxical view that our nature is such that it can be naturally changed. In other words, we may have certain predispositions towards certain behaviors, but we have developed the ability to change that without going against our nature.

I will grant that I have dodged it, but on the other hand, I do not claim and have never claimed to have the precise answer, and I do not think it is as relevant as You Dont Know Me insists. I need not explicitly define human nature to protest the domestication of humans; such conditioning is oppressive whatever our real natures are. What I propose is that we emancipate ourselves, and see the results.

We have almost no difference in opinion other than your clinging to the hunter-gatherer style as being more natural.

Once I destroy that opinion or you validate it we will be on equal grounds.

By the way, I hold that no lifestyle is particularly more natural than another, rather states of being are more natural than others. I see the hunter-gatherer lifestyle as being no more conducive to a natural state for a human than an industrial one.

I hold the paradoxical view that our nature is such that it can be naturally changed. In other words, we may have certain predispositions towards certain behaviors, but we have developed the ability to change that without going against our nature.

I think this is the basis of our disagreement.

I hold that our nature is our nature, and to the extent that our cultures condition us to do what is not in our natures, this is not consistent with our natures, it is opposed to them.

Our natures, the products of evolution as they are, are "designed" to deal with certain circumstances, namely those of hunter-gatherers. To the extent that the radical changes we have made to these circumstances influence our lifestyles and behavior, they are unnatural; they conflict with our natures.

Anarcho-Capitalist

95%
Anarcha-Feminist

50%
Anarcho-Syndicalist

30%
Anarcho-Primitivist

20%
Christian Anarchist

5%
Anarcho-Communist

0%

He describes how humans developed the mental machinery to both determine between contributors and defectors and attempt to cast the appearance of a cooperator or defector (he uses the Prisoner's Dilemma prominently). Because of this ability contributors begin to segregate themselves from defectors, naturally enhancing their ability to survive. This in turn creates an evolutionary race to perfect the ability to convince others that one is a cooperator.I haven't read Dennett's book, but I do know that he is a philosopher and neither an evolutionary biologist nor a paleoanthropologist. Regarding the latter, I know that they have found no reason to believe that the egalitarian, sharing communities of Paleolithic gatherer-hunters needed to "enhance" their ability to survive.

This sounds like the usual justifying nonsense for capitalism--and it's not at all convincing, considering that today's "contributors" do not seem to have segregated themselves very effectively. The workaday laborer seems to contribute much, the (adult) child living on a trust fund little.

Of course, perhaps by "defector" Dennett means not so much the non-contributor as the criminal? How does he respond, then, to the fact that empirically "crime" (resistance) seems to be more the effect of civilization than its stimulus?

While Dennett had no intention of making a political argument, you can see how it weighs in upon our own. You say that we naturally strive to be independent, our own person, so to speak, but I have a very well founded view that we are actually naturally predisposed to not be an individual or a rebel. Rather, evolutionary forces have provided both the tools and natural desire to conform ourselves to society.I never said that we are naturally predisposed to "rebel" from society--on the contrary, I have emphasized that we are naturally social beings. We are, moreover, naturally imitative: children mimic the behavior of their parents; they do, in fact, want to conform--to "fit in." (That's why it's so important to raise them with a proper example.)

What I mean by "independent" is not "unique," but "self-sufficient." We desire others' association, and to a great extent we desire to be like them. But unless we have become totally alienated from our own will, we also want to be free--to meet others as independent equals, not as others on whom we depend (either for our material sustenance or for our self-esteem). There is a great difference between free natural imitation and the desperate conformity of modern society.

I hold the paradoxical view that our nature is such that it can be naturally changed. In other words, we may have certain predispositions towards certain behaviors, but we have developed the ability to change that without going against our nature.This is not a "paradox," but mere equivocation. We have the ability to do other than that toward which we are naturally predisposed, but when we do so (keeping definitions constant) we go against our nature.

We agree on this: humans can behave unnaturally, and do so quite ubiquitously. The basic question is whether or not this results in costs to our health, our sense of wholeness. I argue that we diminish ourselves in fighting ourselves, that in dividing against ourselves we become less than what we are.

You and Dennett would argue, on the contrary, that while we suppress our nature, the result is superior to nature. If there are costs, he would seem to say, they have been worth it.

I think anyone who says so hasn't really come to terms with the full scope of our loss.

;)

While Dennett had no intention of making a political argument, you can see how it weighs in upon our own. You say that we naturally strive to be independent, our own person, so to speak, but I have a very well founded view that we are actually naturally predisposed to not be an individual or a rebel. Rather, evolutionary forces have provided both the tools and natural desire to conform ourselves to society.

I do not think that the "subordination" of the individual to society is necessarily unnatural (though in certain circumstances it may be). My phrasing early on was a little clumsy in this regard, with its talk of the subordination of the self to society; perhaps I have been unclear. We are naturally social, I will grant that in a second, and naturally we will accomodate ourselves to the needs of society. I would go as far as to grant that this is at least one of the reasons that our present society is the way it is.

The problem, though, is that this fact about our natures does not mean what you seem to be arguing it means, that our natures are naturally subordinated to our society (and thus are not really our "natures", because they are mutable by culture) and that this is true in both a hunter-gatherer society and a modern post-industrial one.

There is a third option between "natures subordinated to society" and "no meaningful society." It is "society compatible with our natures." One problem with our present society is that the natural tendency to be social is placed in conflict with other natural desires. It need not be so. In fact, there is no reason to suppose that it is naturally so. The reasoning you have presented for natural selection of social traits is sound, but that does not mean that it suggests what you say it is suggesting. What it indicates is that we desire society - but not that our nature is necessarily defined by society, the notion you have used to argue that behavior resulting from domestication is natural rather than unnatural.

You have been unpersuasive in making your case that in general, socially-defined behavior is more essential to humans than biologically-defined behavior. I don't see why this would be the case. It simply does not follow from your premise that human beings are social. We can be both social and have biologically-defined natures. Indeed, this makes more sense than your alternative; sociality is not the only human tendency that would be evolutionarily selected for, and a society that does not know what it is doing is not a very useful one.

No, indeed. But the point is in making you independent. Dependence can be a very tempting state, so long as your immediate wants are satisfied.

An infant is born the most dependent creature in the world. It takes some effort, and often some strategic use of force, for parents to transform this dependent thing into an independent man or woman. If they succeed, he will never be forced again. If they fail, he will remain as much subject to others as when they dressed him in diapers.

Yet for the very possibility that they may fail, there is no age at which I can assume a person has acquired the ability to make free decisions. This is a talent they can demonstrate, not a right that descends upon them as if by magic.I am not certain that force is necessary to make a child free. You have a good example of how to teach a child to not lie; lie to the child, and then the child will learn how it feels to be lied to, and not lie again. This doesn't use force. I see no particular reason why force would be necessary.
On the contrary, sometimes it is the lack of force which works - the parents refusing to support their pothead son exercise a lack of force.

Even if I have every reason to believe that they merely perceive their choice to be free, when in fact it is not?Yes. You were convinced by mere argument alone, why is it so inconceivable that this wouldn't work for others?

Then your talk of anarchism will amount to nothing, for the capitalists will never volunteer their riches, nor the generals their guns. They must be taken, and taken by force.They don't need to, we can acquire defensive tools and secede on our own. If they try to use violence to stop us, we would be justified in defending ourselves; that is the only just use of force. (That and the defense of others who can't defend themselves but want help.)

I am not certain that force is necessary to make a child free. You have a good example of how to teach a child to not lie; lie to the child, and then the child will learn how it feels to be lied to, and not lie again. This doesn't use force. I see no particular reason why force would be necessary.Well, extending my lying logic: If a child hits me, I should hit him back hard enough to teach him to never do it again. (Obviously I'm still going to pull my punch, being much bigger and stronger than he. Indeed, my ideal scenario is that he learns this lesson from another child, not from me.)

Hitting a child should never be a "punishment" for something he has done, but it should be the natural and immediate result of being hit. He should know nothing of punishment, but he should know that it does not feel good to be hurt, and that if he hurts others they may respond in kind. You may retort that this is a "valid" use of force, but that is precisely the point: it would be difficult indeed to say that it is not force at all.

On the contrary, sometimes it is the lack of force which works - the parents refusing to support their pothead son exercise a lack of force.When they tell him to move out, and he says "no," will there be no contest of wills? Will the one more capable in the exercise of force not necessarily win?

Yes. You were convinced by mere argument alone, why is it so inconceivable that this wouldn't work for others?It will work for adults who have attained the age of reason. It will not work on children, who mimic adult reason at best, and only when it suits their purposes. It will also never work on adult children, who do precisely the same thing.

You scored as Anarcho-Communist.

Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.

Anarcho-Communist

90%

Anarcho-Syndicalist

60%

Anarcha-Feminist

60%

Anarcho-Primitivist

30%

Anarcho-Capitalist

25%

Christian Anarchist

20%

You scored as Anarcho-Communist.

Anarcho-communists seek to build a society based upon a decentralised federation of autonomous communes and a moneyless 'gift economy'. The movement first emerged in the late 19th century and has had a large influence particularly in Spain, Italy and Russia. Key thikers include Peter Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta.

Anarcho-Communist - 90%
Anarcha-Feminist - 85%
Anarcho-Primitivist - 60%
Anarcho-Syndicalist - 50%
Christian Anarchist - 25%
Anarcho-Capitalist - 20%
as i thought, good stuff.

Key thikers

haha, i just noticed this

Well, extending my lying logic: If a child hits me, I should hit him back hard enough to teach him to never do it again. (Obviously I'm still going to pull my punch, being much bigger and stronger than he. Indeed, my ideal scenario is that he learns this lesson from another child, not from me.)

Hitting a child should never be a "punishment" for something he has done, but it should be the natural and immediate result of being hit. He should know nothing of punishment, but he should know that it does not feel good to be hurt, and that if he hurts others they may respond in kind. You may retort that this is a "valid" use of force, but that is precisely the point: it would be difficult indeed to say that it is not force at all.Oh, you meant for whatever the child does, something is done to the child...an eye for an eye, so to speak. That isn't what I meant, no, I thought you were saying something else.

When they tell him to move out, and he says "no," will there be no contest of wills? Will the one more capable in the exercise of force not necessarily win?They can start much smaller by ceasing to feed him. Once he leaves the house to find food, they can have the locks changed.

It will work for adults who have attained the age of reason. It will not work on children, who mimic adult reason at best, and only when it suits their purposes. It will also never work on adult children, who do precisely the same thing.How do we determine whether or not someone is an adult or an adult child before they make their decision regarding primitivism?

I haven't read Dennett's book, but I do know that he is a philosopher and neither an evolutionary biologist nor a paleoanthropologist.

While Dennett is primarily a philosopher, his work in evolutionary theory carries weight. He may not be Dawkins or Gould, but he is still a prominent naturalist.

Regarding the latter, I know that they have found no reason to believe that the egalitarian, sharing communities of Paleolithic gatherer-hunters needed to "enhance" their ability to survive.

Evolution isn't spurred by necessity. Evolution occurs when minute changes shift genetic proportions within the aggregate population due to inequities in reproduction.

It is most likely that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle could have supported the human species until now. However, as climate changes brought about suitable environments for a sedentary lifestyle, humans, as their nature suggests, began to best exploit their environments and become sedentary. It has been shown that even hunter-gatherers will modify plant life in order to maximize their food gathering when they return, so it makes very good sense that as sedentary clan of humans would naturally begin to modify the plant life of their environment to maximize their food production.

As you must know, a sedentary agricultural society supports a far greater population density. So, as agricultural technologies grew and allowed more land to support the lifestyle, the population shifted greater and greater towards a sedentary lifestyle.

Humans didn't become sedentary because hunter-gatherers couldn't support themselves, they did so because the sedentary lifestyle supported them better.

This sounds like the usual justifying nonsense for capitalism--and it's not at all convincing, considering that today's "contributors" do not seem to have segregated themselves very effectively. The workaday laborer seems to contribute much, the (adult) child living on a trust fund little.

This is important, Dennett does not claim that humans evolved true altruism, rather something he calls "benselfishness," relating to the Ben Franklin quote, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

In other words, human evolution has pressured us towards not so much complete altruism (as if we were completely altruistic we would be constantly ravaged by the defectors), but towards a self-interested pseudo-altruism. In other words, evolution has made us want to appear good, not simply be good.

I have never read Dennett express his love for capitalism, nor do I have that much fondness for it.

Of course, perhaps by "defector" Dennett means not so much the non-contributor as the criminal? How does he respond, then, to the fact that empirically "crime" (resistance) seems to be more the effect of civilization than its stimulus?

A criminal would fit into the "defector" category, but Dennett does not address this question.

As for me, some questions/points:

1. How does crime even apply to paleolithic social structures, and furthermore how is it studied.

2. I have read of some evidence (anthropology is not a strong interest of mine) that violence was very prevalent between social groups, if not within them.

3. Dennett does make a note that freedom has evolved along with the evolution of our society and culture. That would lead to the conclusion that the opportunity for crime has risen more, and so a freer population would obviously commit more crime.

4. There are many other factors that could attribute to this: lower population density, closer knit social groups mostly made up of family, and most obviously there was little to no reward for crime.

I never said that we are naturally predisposed to "rebel" from society--on the contrary, I have emphasized that we are naturally social beings. We are, moreover, naturally imitative: children mimic the behavior of their parents; they do, in fact, want to conform--to "fit in." (That's why it's so important to raise them with a proper example.)

What I mean by "independent" is not "unique," but "self-sufficient." We desire others' association, and to a great extent we desire to be like them. But unless we have become totally alienated from our own will, we also want to be free--to meet others as independent equals, not as others on whom we depend (either for our material sustenance or for our self-esteem). There is a great difference between free natural imitation and the desperate conformity of modern society.

I understand what you mean by "independent", it is the point of primitivism to create social groups where all that one person can attain is what they can attain by themselves. It does not allow for any dependence upon social groups whatsoever, the person is completely independent.

Now I do agree that we I would want to meet all others as equals, although I doubt that that is some biological a priori that we are programmed with. But acheiving this state through complete independence destroys far more freedom than it allows. We gain the freedom of wild animals and lose the freedom of human beings.

The key to maximizing our freedom is not independence, it is interdependence. We continuously gain freedom through our knowledge and social interactions, and to toss those out would be a terrible waste. Yet, it is true that there are inequities in freedom due to inequities in social dependency.

I want to maintain that social freedom, while erasing those inequities in freedom, so therefore I want equal dependence to and not indepence from society.

This is not a "paradox," but mere equivocation. We have the ability to do other than that toward which we are naturally predisposed, but when we do so (keeping definitions constant) we go against our nature.

No, it is not equivocation. I believe much of our nature (at the level you are digging to) is malleable.

You and Dennett would argue, on the contrary, that while we suppress our nature, the result is superior to nature. If there are costs, he would seem to say, they have been worth it.

Not at all, I am not some sort of teleologist that thinks we are molding ourselves to some sort of super species. I only feel that various institutions from modern society push us away from our natures, not modern society itself. I see both hunter-gathering and specialization of labor as two different economic models that are consistent with our nature.

However, differences in dependencies upon our society skews our bargaining power with the society and forces us to accept and pass on cultural memes that do not reflect our natural wishes. Also, these differences don't so much turn us against our nature, whereas they turn our nature against itself.

I think this is the basis of our disagreement.

I hold that our nature is our nature, and to the extent that our cultures condition us to do what is not in our natures, this is not consistent with our natures, it is opposed to them.

Our natures, the products of evolution as they are, are "designed" to deal with certain circumstances, namely those of hunter-gatherers. To the extent that the radical changes we have made to these circumstances influence our lifestyles and behavior, they are unnatural; they conflict with our natures.

How do you suppose civilization arose?

Humans began to become more and more sedentary and agricultural while they were still hunter-gatherers, and these civilizations arose independently at several places all over the globe. Why would this occur if the food gathering lifestyle was the only natural way of living?

You have been unpersuasive in making your case that in general, socially-defined behavior is more essential to humans than biologically-defined behavior. I don't see why this would be the case. It simply does not follow from your premise that human beings are social. We can be both social and have biologically-defined natures. Indeed, this makes more sense than your alternative; sociality is not the only human tendency that would be evolutionarily selected for, and a society that does not know what it is doing is not a very useful one.

I don't know why it doesn't make sense. Why couldn't the biological development of our minds create in us an innate desire to accept those cultural memes that are prevalent within our social network? All major human developments of the last 40,000 years has suggested that this is true, and that it is the key to our incredible ability to expand our species.

How do you suppose civilization arose?

Humans began to become more and more sedentary and agricultural while they were still hunter-gatherers, and these civilizations arose independently at several places all over the globe. Why would this occur if the food gathering lifestyle was the only natural way of living?

Because agricultural production is capable of doing certain things that hunter-gatherers can't - like support armies. That's why agricultural societies have tended to defeat hunter-gatherer ones in conflicts.

I don't know why it doesn't make sense. Why couldn't the biological development of our minds create in us an innate desire to accept those cultural memes that are prevalent within our social network? All major human developments of the last 40,000 years has suggested that this is true, and that it is the key to our incredible ability to expand our species.

It may be - indeed, likely is - true that human beings have an "innate desire to accept those cultural memes that are prevalent within our social network."

That does mean that we have no other significant innate desires. It doesn't mean that the suppression of our other innate desires to those "cultural memes" is natural.