Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Are we too harsh towards anarchists?

Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Jan 2018, 3:34 pm

Mikah wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Human beings lived without hierarchies for thousands of years.

That's Marxist theory and it is another thing they got wrong. Hunter-gatherer societies do indeed have hierarchies.

Some hunter-gatherer societies were hierarchical.

The problem is that you seem to be arguing is that hierarchy is genetic/hard-wired rather than a sociological phenomena. This isn't even the case with chimpanzees. Yes, human beings lived without hierarchies for thousands of years.
Mikah wrote:
RushKing wrote:
The soviets eliminating class?!

That wasn't even their intentions.

Oh but it was. Marxist socialism is all about class warfare, the Soviets took matters to their logical conclusion, deliberately targeted entire classes of people and succeeded in destroying them.

Removing existing classes =/= eliminating class
Mikah wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Russia was a pre-industrial society during the revolution.

This is excuse making by Western Marxists as part of their reasoning for why the Soviet system failed..

I don't agree with that excuse either. This is one of the reasons why i'm an anarchist.
Mikah wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Confusing this with anarchism is huge mistake.

I didn't, I was just saying that the Soviet attempt to create a classless society resulted in ... another society with a different class system and a mountain of corpses.

Full communism was not an immediate goal of the soviet platform. Arguing this fact is completely dishonest.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

13 Jan 2018, 4:00 pm

Quote:
The problem is that you seem to be arguing is that hierarchy is genetic/hard-wired rather than a sociological phenomena.


That's exactly what I believe.

Quote:
This isn't even the case with chimpanzees.


Yes they do hehe. Do you read anarchist magazines exlusively?

First result on google:
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/ ... nzee/behav
There is a distinct linear dominance hierarchy in male chimpanzees, and males are dominant over females (Goldberg & Wrangham 1997).


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Jan 2018, 4:07 pm

Mikah wrote:
Quote:
This isn't even the case with chimpanzees.

Yes they do hehe. Do you read anarchist magazines exlusively?

First result on google:
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/ ... nzee/behav
There is a distinct linear dominance hierarchy in male chimpanzees, and males are dominant over females (Goldberg & Wrangham 1997).

My mistake, I said chimp instead of baboon. I'll look into that. Damn chimps

Mikah wrote:
Quote:
The problem is that you seem to be arguing is that hierarchy is genetic/hard-wired rather than a sociological phenomena.


That's exactly what I believe.

What do you have to back that up? To clarify; I mean hierarchy among human beings.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

13 Jan 2018, 4:32 pm

Quote:
My mistake, I said chimp instead of baboon. I'll look into that. Damn chimps


First result on google:

http://www.imfene.org/baboon-biology/do ... in-baboons

In most baboons, social interactions are shaped by dominance hierarchies. A dominance hierarchy is a linear ranking of individuals, i.e. a pecking order. Individual males almost always rank higher than individual females, but there is usually a separate hierarchy within each sex.
Quote:
What do you have to back that up? To clarify; I mean hierarchy among human beings.


It's ubiquitous through recorded human history and indeed throughout the animal kingdom, as obvious to me as the observation that humans need food. Now you may say that pre-agricultural societies about which we know almost nothing were not hierarchical. I suspect that is wishful thinking, indeed I should be asking you to back up your claim that humans ever lived without hierarchies.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Jan 2018, 4:39 pm

Mikah wrote:
Quote:
My mistake, I said chimp instead of baboon. I'll look into that. Damn chimps


First result on google:

http://www.imfene.org/baboon-biology/do ... in-baboons

In most baboons, social interactions are shaped by dominance hierarchies. A dominance hierarchy is a linear ranking of individuals, i.e. a pecking order. Individual males almost always rank higher than individual females, but there is usually a separate hierarchy within each sex.

Even among baboons (who are commonly way more hierarchical than human beings), its still a sociological phenomena.



Last edited by RushKing on 13 Jan 2018, 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Jan 2018, 4:44 pm

Mikah wrote:

It's ubiquitous through recorded human history and indeed throughout the animal kingdom, as obvious to me as the observation that humans need food. Now you may say that pre-agricultural societies about which we know almost nothing were not hierarchical. I suspect that is wishful thinking, indeed I should be asking you to back up your claim that humans ever lived without hierarchies.

Hunter gather societies still exist today. We don't need to go back in time to find these social orders.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

13 Jan 2018, 4:54 pm

RushKing wrote:
My argument is that even among baboons (who are commonly way more hierarchical than human beings), its still a sociological phenomena.


Therefore...?

Rushking wrote:
Hunter gather societies still exist today. We don't need to go back in time to find these social orders.


Any particular group you think we should emulate?


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Jan 2018, 5:06 pm

Mikah wrote:
RushKing wrote:
My argument is that even among baboons (who are commonly way more hierarchical than human beings), its still a sociological phenomena.


Therefore...?

The nature argument is terrible.
Mikah wrote:
Rushking wrote:
Hunter gather societies still exist today. We don't need to go back in time to find these social orders.


Any particular group you think we should emulate?

My goal isn't to live like a specific hunter gatherer society. But many of them have things we can learn from.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

13 Jan 2018, 6:26 pm

Quote:
The nature argument is terrible.


Why? Where else do these behaviours come from if not their underlying nature?


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Jan 2018, 6:49 pm

Mikah wrote:
Quote:
The nature argument is terrible.


Why? Where else do these behaviours come from if not their underlying nature?

These behaviours specifically, are much better explained by culture/society, ideology and conditions. Yes these things are a part of nature, I agree. That doesn't mean we are hard-wired to form hierarchies. This is why the nature argument falls flat.



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

13 Jan 2018, 7:26 pm

Relevant
VVV


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

13 Jan 2018, 8:15 pm

RushKing wrote:
These behaviours specifically, are much better explained by culture/society, ideology and conditions. Yes these things are a part of nature, I agree. That doesn't mean we are hard-wired to form hierarchies. This is why the nature argument falls flat.


Chimps and baboons have cultural and or ideological problems? I think you've won this thread.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Aniihya
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 771

16 Jan 2018, 4:43 pm

Mikah, so only the strong and tyrannic are legitimate then? You sound like a bootlicker.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

16 Jan 2018, 8:51 pm

Aniihya wrote:
Mikah, so only the strong and tyrannic are legitimate then? You sound like a bootlicker.


It depends on your definition of legitimate. To me legitimacy always seems to a be buzzword to trick people into political anger so all other thought can cease, or an unthinking one-word justification for whatever political structure is proposed. I do tend to view history and politics through the lens of realism, but I don't endorse such a world, I just accept it.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!