That would be the worst case scenario. I wish people would look at those more. Have you ever personally talked to a sociopath?
That would be the worst case scenario. I wish people would look at those more. Have you ever personally talked to a sociopath?
While the "capitalism" isn't a thing you can poke with a stick, and a map isn't the territory, maps still exist, and are often pretty useful.
"Capitalism" is a map; it's a pretty good description of the social relations, especially the social relations around production and distribution of goods and services, in our present global culture. Other cultures have had different social relations; even the European societies of a few hundred years ago in which capitalism developed had a different set of relations. You'd need the map labeled "feudalism" to make sense of their culture. And as you get farther afield in both time and space, you'd need more maps, and even complete different collections of maps (though anthropologists love to argue about what to call different collections of maps, and what maps to put in each collection).
When people start saying "we need to change from capitalism to whateverism", they mean "we need to change our culture (i.e., the way we as an aggregate think and act) to reflect the social relations described as whateverism". And people have done that thing a lot before, in history and prehistory. I second the recommendation for the Graeber and Wengrow book, though I'm not sure it's the absolute best place to start.
> While the "capitalism" isn't a thing you can poke > with a stick, and a map isn't the territory, maps > still exist, and are often pretty useful. > > ...
I really appreciate the maps reminder!
Per that, my initial post was inadequate in a purely "taking all maps into account" sense, but (per my response to calgacus' response) likely reasonable in a "if we're going to speak generally, then we at least ought be mathematical about relevance of different map-related/driven cases to the overall/general case" sense.
<raises, drains, and holds up pint glass to signal needing another>
If the rug is fighting itself because the frayed ends that always existed within it's fabric are rotting apart, maybe it's time for a new rug?
> If the rug is fighting itself because the frayedends > that always existed within it's fabric arerotting > apart, maybe it's time for a new rug?
If by "new rug" you mean "new self", well.. yes, that's roughly what I believe as well.. except the kind of stuff I'm drawn to reading would say something much closer to "no self" and "new self".
Personally I disagree. The idea that Capitalism is an emergent property of the human experience isn't really backed up by anything. Research into the evolutionary course for humanity strongly contraindicates against hyperindividualism or radical self interest. Evolutionary homo sapiens got as far as we have mostly because of cooperation. From an Evo Psych perspective the research into human's inherent bias towards greed is shaky at best and people like Kroputkin have strongly argued against this idea.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolutionBelieving that Capitalism is some kind of state of nature is obtusely neoliberal and frankly silly. Behavioral genetics is unprovable nonsense and people have shown time and time again that they can make decisions that seem to violate whatever evolutionary drives they might have. So even in the worst possible case scenario, Greed and therefore Capitalism are inevitable products of the human condition, that doesn't prevent us from striving towards a better world regardless.
The rug can't be pulled from under itself, until the rug tries realizing all at once that it never was a rug. The presence of the rug had made it forget the vast and infinitely tiling surface it rested upon. In that moment it knew that no matter what direction it choose it was now free from the metaphysical confines of the rug and now more able then ever to seek a better place.
> Personally I disagree. The idea that Capitalism > is an emergent property of the human experience > isn't really backed up by anything. Research > into the evolutionary course for humanity strongly > contraindicates against hyperindividualism or radical > self interest. Evolutionary homo sapiens got as far > as we have mostly because of cooperation. From an Evo > Psych perspective the research into human's inherent > bias towards greed is shaky at best and people like > Kroputkin have strongly argued against this idea. > > https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
What are you thoughts on the likes of laws, law enforcement, and prisons? To me, their existence suggest human bias more toward greed than cooperation, especially when it seems those who "get caught" constitute the tip of a "everything's okay so long as you can get away with it" iceberg.
Said another way, is it *really* cooperation when it - at least seemingly to me - mostly occurs under threat of punishment if-and-only-if caught?
> Believing that Capitalism is some kind of state of nature is > obtusely neoliberal and frankly silly. Behavioral genetics is > unprovable nonsense and people have shown time and time again > that they can make decisions that seem to violate whatever > evolutionary drives they might have. So even in the worst > possible case scenario, Greed and therefore Capitalism are > inevitable products of the human condition, that doesn't > prevent us from striving towards a better world regardless.
If people "can make decisions that seem to violate whatever evolutionary drives they might have", I can't help but wonder why so many have seemingly little problem embracing drives against what greater collectives codify in law as acceptable - read: cooperative - behavior.
It seems reasonable to me that the like of "capitalism" (or, as I'd rather put it, "capitalist behavior") originates in roughly the same region the likes of murder, rape, and countless other instances of non-cooperation.
> The rug can't be pulled from under itself, until the rug tries > realizing all at once that it never was a rug. The presence > of the rug had made it forget the vast and infinitely tiling > surface it rested upon. In that moment it knew that no matter > what direction it choose it was now free from the metaphysical > confines of the rug and now more able then ever to seek a > better place.
Oooh, I like that!
What are you thoughts on the likes of laws, law enforcement, and prisons? To me, their existence
suggest human bias more toward greed than cooperation, especially when it seems those who "get
caught" constitute the tip of a "everything's okay so long as you can get away with it" iceberg.
Said another way, is it *really* cooperation when it - at least seemingly to me - mostly occurs
under threat of punishment if-and-only-if caught?
I think what you're missing is that "laws, law enforcement, and prisons" do not and have not existed in all societies for all of history. Yes, the *current* arrangement of *our* capitalist societies relies on coercion and prison, but that does not mean *all* arrangements did. For instance, the Iroquois confederation and many Huron tribes did not have any form of "prison" or "laws." When somebody murdered somebody else (which of course did happen from time to time) the families and confederations themselves were responsible for the perpetrator, would have to "make right" with the victims in some form or another, and perhaps exile or help to educate the murderer. This is not an isolated case, by the way—many societies operated similarly, and may operate this way again. If this is interesting to you, I would implore you to read *The Dawn of Everything* by Graeber and Wengrow, which is a wonderful volume that directly argues against the line of thinking you're pursuing here with a plethora of real world examples and evidence!
Damn you got to it before me. This was basically the same point that I was going to make. That not all societies exist in the configuration that modern European societies exist in today.
> I think what you're missing is that "laws, law > enforcement, and prisons" do not and have not > existed in all societies for all of history.
It wasn't that I missed it for not being able to imagine such having *ever* been the case. Rather, I assumed "laws, law enforcement, and prisons" was so mathematically vastly the case that edge cases (relatively speaking compared with predominant case assumption) seemed a non-factor in my "coming to conclusions" department.
I mean, I understand "have not existed in all societies for all of history". But if that phrase numerically works out to be sufficiently small an overall percentage of all cases to be considered "negligible" by people in the habit of "doing the math", then I don't find it too horrific to have spoken in a general way based on that assumption.
That said, if you've got actual numbers so I can see with my own eyes such cases *aren't* negligible over all societies over all time, I'm all eyes.
> For instance, the Iroquois confederation and many > Huron tribes did not have any form of "prison" or > "laws." When somebody murdered somebody else (which > of course did happen from time to time) the families > and confederations themselves were responsible for > the perpetrator, would have to "make right" with the > victims in some form or another, and perhaps exile or > help to educate the murderer. This is not an isolated > case, by the way—many societies operated similarly, > and may operate this way again.
Sounds wonderful.
But, again, how representative a situation is that over all societies/time?
> If this is interesting to you, I would implore you to > read *The Dawn of Everything* by Graeber and Wengrow, > which is a wonderful volume that directly argues > against the line of thinking you're pursuing here > with a plethora of real world examples and evidence!
People (going back to your "for instance" case) behaving better than they usually do interests me. But the word 'plethora' sans numbers doesn't move me with respect to lines of thinking. Whenever words like that appear without numbers, the words "hand-waving" come to mind. (To be fair, my initial post contained implied hand-waving in the form of my assumption that "laws, law enforcement, and prisons" constituted the vast majority of cases of all societies and time.)
The problem with the this assessment of a majority is that a lot of modern "developed" and mostly European societies come from a tangled and incestuous colonial origin. While culturally the origins of many modern societies may differ they are in many ways structurally very similar. This wasn't however because of a mass convergence on the best way to exist but rather the process of structure being grafted from one successful power from another.
To your point about quantitative data the main issues with a lot of this is that the prospect of generating clear quantitative data on massive society wide shifts is naive. While it's possible some numerical data does exist when looking back on the past quantifying these sorts of things become increasingly difficult. Not to mention the inherent issues surrounding the reality that quantitative data is not implicitly more reliable as the methods of data collection and presentation are heavily biased by the people involved in the research. This can lead to wildly incorrect claims being generated from "good data" that has been validated to be reliable.
TL;DR (for this last paragraph) I think you are overemphasizing the value of quantitative data as objective measure.
Yeah the book I talk about here makes the case that for the vast majority of human history our social arrangements did not have things like coercive penal apparatus and that is largely an invention of recent vintage that happened, but isn't even necessary for "civilization" as we conventionally understand it and is decidedly *not* connected with the rise of agriculture and sedentary life, contrary to how we've been taught in broad strokes. If you like thinking about this kind of stuff at all you'll really enjoy the book, since it's concerned with exactly this argument we're having here and I think convincingly argues for the point I'm making here.
> Yeah the book I talk about here makes the case that > for the vast majority of human history our social > arrangements did not have things like coercive penal > apparatus and that is largely an invention of recent > vintage that happened, but isn't even necessary for > "civilization" as we conventionally understand it > and is decidedly *not* connected with the rise of > agriculture and sedentary life, contrary to how > we've been taught in broad strokes.
I'll take it on faith for now, because I definitely *want* to believe.
But given said case(s) being convincingly made *in a book*, how does believing/knowing such lead to meaningful change *in a society*?
Isn't a certain critical mass of believers-in/knows-of such necessary for any hope of a return to a civilization not predicated on "coercive penal apparat[i]"?
If so, what do you think it would it take to garner/accumulate such mass?
For example, I occasionally hear of instances of backing off the policing aspect of The Coercive Thang, but the results seem closer to chaos/mayhem than a more enlightened civilization. I suspect it's one thing for enlightened elders to teach children more enlightened ways/paths, but another when the raw materials are arguably massively fucked-up adults.
Well that's the trick, isn't it? "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." I have some idea of how we might go about doing that, but I'm sure it's nothing you haven't heard before, as I have the distinction of being a Marxist. I agree that as raw materials we are uniquely unsuited to a non-penal society, our minds having been hollowed out and transformed by the hell we currently inhabit. I think the best we can do is forge a path to something better for the people not yet born—a truly better world is one they will build, something we can't even imagine in our current state. Unfortunately these things take time, and revolutions often backtrack, get diverted down different paths, etc. I don't have any easy answers.