Hud955
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Meel.I've read Coyne and am something of a fan. However, I have also read other writers: Eliot Sober and David J Buller, in particular. Buller is a philosopher but with a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of evolutionary biology. He is also a supporter of the evolutionary approach to understanding human behaviour. He is, however, an opponent of the fundamental suppositions and methodology of the Tooby/Cosmides school of thought with which Evolutionary Psychology is identified. In his book, 'Adapting Minds' he undertakes a minute deconstruction, point by point, of their foundational arguments as well as much of their particular research. Worth reading. Others have pointed out that the process of 'reverse engineering' on which the arguments of evolutionary psychologists heavily depend is very unreliable. As a good illustration from archaeology, we have literally tens of thousands of examples of Achulean hand axes, and yet nobody has the slightest idea what they were for or how they were used – or rather everybody has a different idea. Even without these specific arguments, for me, the idealist slant of evolutionary psychology puts it on a very dodgy foundation. CheersRichard
I'm not really concerned with particular arguments, especially from people like Wrangham who are case hardened class warriors, but with the argument from genetic closeness. But on the face of it, this sounds even less coherent than any such theory. Evolutionary psychology, particularly of the Tooby/Cosmides variety, is an idealist fairy land in my view. I have far more respect for the sociobiologists who despite coming up initially with some pretty simplisitic theories, at least have a sound materialist base to their arguments.
I'm not at all convinced by arguments from related species. Apart from the fact that the conclusions you come to depends very much on whether you draw your observations from chimps or bonobos, the argument from genetic relatedness is itself a poor one. It isn't the percentage of genes you share with another species that matters, it is which genes. A tiny genetic change can make huge differences across the genome if the genes affected are those that turn other genes on and off. Once this is acknowledged, it becomes clear that the phenotypical distance of the human species from chimps and bonobos and the other apes is enormous. If, for instance, anthropologists are right and the social relationships of the earliest human beings around 200,000 years ago are mirrored in existing hunter gatherer groups then our earliest social relationships are light years away from those of our nearest ape relative, or any of the apes come to that.We are the only ape whose social relationships are based on trust. And that has enormous consequences for our social behaviour. Drawing simple parallels with chimps just doesn't make sense. We are the only ape, for instance, in which males provision the females and take a share in child rearing. We are the only ape that has whites to our eyes, which enables us to 'read' others and see ourselves as others see us. We are the only ape which has voluntary control over our tongue in vocalisations. Other ape calls are genetically controlled and invariant. A chimpanzee for instance has no choice but to make food or predator calls given the right stimulus. We have choice in our communications. Our adaptation therefore is for enormously greater social complexity. Add to that, the size of our brains is not only way above that of chimps, its rate of growth, as we can assess it through the fossil evidence, was colossal and unprecedented. The prevailing theory at the moment is that we accepted the costs of this very energy expensive enlarged brain to allow us to negotiate all the complex relationships we enter into as human beings. No other ape has such a brain because no other ape needs it.Trying to identify genetically determined human behaviour by reference to related species seems to be clutching at straws.
I think that's right. Before the US invasion of Iraq I remember seeing that one out of three marriages was between a Sunni and a Shia and that there were many mixed as well as Shia families living as part of Sunni tribes and vice versa. Hezbollah which is Shia has long been supported by the majority of Sunni muslims and so on. The current sectarianism, as we would expect, appears to be a response to the current political situation. And of course there are internal fissures as well. In Kurdistan I was repeatedly told that 'we pray for all Muslims, but we are beginning to realise that they do not pray for us.' Which, when unwrapped from its religious ideology simply identifies the political conflicts of interest between various muslim groups.
Hi Bill. Thanks for this. There is mention in the extract you posted of 'precontact' figures. Does it say anywhere what precisely they mean by' precontact', how they obtained these figures and particularly how they determined the percentage of precontact deaths that were casued 'by the Hiwi themselves'. I think this needs explaining!
Yes, Hmmmm. The Hiwi may have been described in the past as 'nomadic hunter gatherers', but this is what my encylopaedia [Ed: Richard B. Lee] says of them. "Paradoxically, conquest may have increased the importance of foraging (hunting and gathering) at the expense of agriculture in the tropical lowlands, where some groups became less reliant on agriculture in response to disruptions. In areas where maize was the staple in late prehistory, modern groups such as the Shipibo, Jivaro, Huaorani, Cuiva [Hiwi], and Yaruro (Pume) obtain their calories from manioc or introduced crops and their protein from fish or game (less than 10% of calories)"To compare African band hunter-gatherers (Eastern and Western 'Pygmies', 'Bushmen' and Hadza) with South American horticulturalists is today disingenuous.The homicide rates among African hunter gatherers have always been regarded as high, particularly among the Hadza. Long term fieldworkers like Jerome Lewis and James Woodburn take the view that the threat of homicide in these groups is one of the means by which they maintain social harmony. This is unlike some Indonesian groups where the taking of human life is taboo.I would be interested to know how Hill established 'precontact' rates of killing among the Hiwi, but even more how he established that the majority of killings were by the Hiwi themselves. Have you read the full article YMS?
alanjjohnstone wrote:i do argue that some laws are unversal and should be applied over and above local custom and practice. Brian's original comment tended to say that local rules take precedence. Again, the question is …do we when socialism is establish still apply the rules and conduct as defined in law-books, or do we immediately abolish law and permit lynch-law, which lets be honest, is often the first response and reaction a community has to a particularly nasty and anti-social crime. Hud i think agrees that these things are complex complicated questions to decide a priori, so isn't it sensible that existing law stands until it evolves into something else…which means such things as identified as the State (to once more return to the thread topic) such as police, courts, judges, prosecution services, lawyers and jails do remain until they are adapted and modified over time.I'd be interested to know what 'laws' you regard as universal, Alan. I think you are posing a false dichotomy here. Why should we suppose retaining 'rules of conduct' as defined in the law books, and applying lynch law are the only options?. Yes, I think these are complex questions. Right now we cannot prescribe answers; we can only attempt to clarify the issues as far as we can understand them. And as far as I understand it, it seems to me very likely that allowing existing law to stand would be the one thing we could not do.
LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Hud, We have always disinguished between private property and personal possessions.What if i covetted that signed first edition of Capital that you had on your book shelf and took it. There has to be a mechanism of resolution and arbitration on the disputed possession of it (perhaps after some detective work by some agency to determine that i was indeed the culprit and not another person)I am, of course , discussing the earlier days of socialism where personality traits are to some degree still influenced by the conditions of our upbringing. We have recognised laws that says the evidence is put to our peers who determine guilt or not. Do we begin all over again, or permit that type of justice to evolve in its own time to something else that reflects what people want and expect from accepted rules.Take the age of consent which will determine if someone is a paedophile of not. Culturally reached in many cases rather than biological. The importance in power realtionships is shown in the amendments that raises the age when the role of one is a position of responsibility..such as a teacher, yet in work where possible the same power-relationship can still exist, it is dealt with by sexual harassment laws and not automatically a crime. So we have blurred lines of justice that communities must accommodate in their appliction and apportion guilt and sanctions.I used to talk about being ostracised and exile as tools of punishment, but in our global community where travel and re-inventing oneself is very easy, is it now appropriately effective.I agree with your earlier statement…socialism and a socialist society will be dynamic…changing and evolving and adapting…but isn't that the argument being used by Vin, YMS in defence of the State withering and not being abolished, that it too does not remain the same…Hi Alan, That's a valuable issue you raise, but I'm not at all sure that it can be answered at this point in time. It would depend on the kind of institutions that a revolutionary working class decided it wanted. When imagining our socialist future there is a very powerful and natural tendency to project our own experience (of capitalism) into what we think that future will look like, so I always think there is value in undermining this imaginatively as thoroughly as we can. Of course, in the early days, that dead hand of the past will still lie upon the imagination of a revolutionary working class, but I suspect that even so, a revolutionary situation would generate a vast amount of creative energy and get people very quickly thinking along new lines. The distinction the party has always made between private property and personal possessions is a useful one to socialists. It helps us to explain to doubting members of the working class that in socialism we are not proposing to expropriate everyone and make all goods collective. Within capitalism however, there is no concept of personal possessions, only of property (property of a specific type), and capitalist legal structures are founded on this concept. The social relationships underlying private property and personal possessions are very different and the values and attitued will be different also. In the very early days you might be upset if I came into your home and took your prized copy of Capital, because I coveted and prized it too. But on the other hand you might not. You might even be happy for me to have it knowing that I valued it much more highly than you and be ready to let go of it. How could a punitive legal system based on property rights be applied consistently and meaningfully in circumstances where economic atomisation and the law of value did not exist? I think the difficulty and complexity of the task of adapting the institutions of capitalism to those of socialism are frequently underestimated in the party.How would you see a system of 'arbitration' working in a socialist society? Do you conceive of this as a 'law-bound' formal body with coercive powers derived from the community? I find it very difficult to see how a body of individuals with powers to pass judgement on other individuals could be made to work in an egalitarian society. And if it is an informal body, how would it execute its decisions? Under what circumstances would any such body, formal or informal,, chose to exercise its powers. Gazing into my crystal ball, I would imagine that a process of mediation would be more appropriate to such a society because there is a further underlying issue that needs to be considered.The purpose of a capitalist law court is the administration of 'Justice'. But in a socialist society, even a very young one would this still be the case. The very concept of 'justice' is itself a practical response to a propertarian system. We know that in existing egalitarian societies a concept of 'Justice' or 'fairness' is simply unknown. These societies have very sophisticated means of social mediation when disputes arise. Their aim, however, is not to administer justice. Wherever in the world they arise, their aim is always the restoration of social harmony, and the outcomes they achieve are very often not 'just' or 'fair' in our capitalist understanding of those terms, but something much more valuable: good relations between individuals. I'm sorry, I am short of time and unable to answer your more specific points, but I think this is a discussion that needs to be had within the party. Too often, it makes very broad assumptions and fails to consider issues of this kind. Yfs
I note LB, that you have once again attempted to disguise your evasion by launching an attack. I don't buy it.I will give you a brief response, though. I prefer to regard the points I have made as axiomatic or empricial rather than dogmatic since I do not insist on agreement (I wouldn't dream of doing anything so godlike as putting anyone 'right' – even if the 'god' in question was a proletarian one.); I don't regard them as 'correct' or 'proper', only as offerings in an ongoing debate; and I don't try to identify them uniquely and exclusively with working class interests. So no, not dogmatic.My experience of working people is that in the main they tend to be practical in their approach to life and don't give two hoots for the kind of close-fisted philosophising you like to trade in. My belief that working people will act on 'practical grounds' is therefore largely a matter for empirical determination, to be be proved true or false in the event, and not as the end point of a form of logic chopping, dogmatic or otherwise. All this has a considerable significance for the point at issue here. It is the working class collectively who will have to face the issue of how to conduct the revolution when the time comes (the point, after all, is not to interpret the world but to change it), so it is their approach to the issue, and not that of a purveyor of quibbles that will decide the issue. And this is significant, because whether we aim to take parliament or not as a tactical move in the revolution appears to me to be an immensely practical issue and involves a lot of practical considerations. At present we do not know the exact circumstances in which revolutions around the world will take place. How each will be conducted will depend largely on local circumstances. If in a particular area the military is not on board, would there be any point in taking parliament? If they are wavering, however, would taking parliament and establishing some kind of formal legitimacy for the revolution (in terms they would understand) sway them in the working class cause? If they are fully on board, would there, once again, be any point in taking parliament? Well, would there? Why? And in what circumstances? All these considerations would be further affected by how individual revolutions affected one another. We cannot therefore debate every possible tactic or circumstance, but we need to discuss this strategically. What are the broarder issues we are likely to face which can then be recognised in particular circumstances, and what outcomes would we expect? You can be as open as you like about your 'dogma', but it won't help much to settle the issue.
Brian wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:The present thread has neglected the issue of the courts and law. In abolishing the State, do we burn the courthouses and the law-books? Surely not. In the beginning of socialism, won't we maintain much of the same legal principles as the late capitalist society and only those legal principles that are contrary to socialist principles will be abolished. Do we retain the police to enforce socially acceptable laws albeit in a different form?Before I go ahead with further discussion what legal principles are you referring too? Criminal or Common Law? Not that it matters in my estimation seeing that all laws are a reflection of class rule. With no class issues to contend with there is no need for laws.However, it goes without saying, that there will be a need for rules and regulations which reflect the customs, traditions, norms and values of a given locality.
Burn the courthouses and the law-books? Most certainly! Since both are almost exclusively concerned with the maintenance and administration of property we could hardly do anything else. What socialist principles would make the maintenance of property (class) relations acceptable? I'm not sure I know of any. Customs, traditions, norms and values are one thing. Rules and regulations to enforce them are quite another. I think there is a detailed debate to be had on this, but as I'm thinking about it now, the underlying issues seem quite clear.
No, it's a socialist belief, LB, just one that lies outside your own individual belief of what socialism is. I'm interested in the practical issue of whether or not taking parliament is a necessary or vital action for a revolutionary working class, and it is to that effect that I wrote. So long as others who want to engage on that issue understand the point being made, I'm happy with my formuilation. I'll leave the pedantry to you. Taking parliament or not taking parliament, etc, are vital issues for the working class; the niceties of your brand of philosophical dogmatism are not. The fact is that these issues will be resolved by the working class on practical grounds and with reference to current circumstances when the time comes to implement them; and when that happens, they will have more pressing matters to think about than whether they have conducted their debates in a language that is atisfactory to LBird. Right now, though, we can usefully try to clarify our thinking on this subject by applying a little practical analysis. I've made my contribution and I'm hoping for a strong argument to the contrary, so that the debate can be opened out. That will not be possible if people attempt to limit creative thought or censor discussion by demanding that there is a 'proper' way to think about it. Socialism is a dynamic social process in my view, It will never be nailed down by any individual thinker or participant. it will, though, be derailed if we don't keep open a discussion on subjects like the present one to ensure our understanding of it is clear and appropriate. To that effect we need to ask what our aims are, what the circumstances will be in which we will achieve them, how we will achieve them and what the difficulties might be.
I agree with the point, LB. But it is a pedantic one. There is no such thing as purely material action for human beings. All human action has ideal content. That can be assumed. I deliberately stressed the term, 'material' to contrast it with the gassing that takes place in parliament (pointless without material power to enact parliamentary decrees). It's an imperfect opposition, but I thought it would be sufficient to convey the point. Obviously not. I disagree, though, with the use of ugly and dogmatic use of language as found in expressions such as, 'the proper formulation…' Such language belongs only to dogmatists and the power hungry. There is no such thing as a 'proper forumlation', only a useful, accurate, or effective one as determined by context. Our case is founded on a class interest not on a fixed ideology, and is made in the context of a changing world. There are no 'proper' or 'correct' positions for the working class – or indeed, for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the claims of authority. There is only an ongoing dialogue.
Young Master Smeet wrote:No, it's that if we try to take over our workplaces now, we'll be sacked (and this remains so until we have practical control of the machinery of state to prevent that, including having the police and army around). Don't forget, De Leon swapped around which bit was the sword and which the shielf, for us political action is the sword with the shield of union action to back it up.I think we all pretty much understand why taking over workplaces before we are a coherent, aware majority, would be counterproductive, but I have never understood why the SPGB regards the political struggle as primary. I have no objection to it; the taking control of parliament would be useful to the working class in revolutionary conditions, but I do not see the force of the argument made here.The revolution is about simultaneously removing class power from the capitalist class and taking it into the hands of our own class. The power of the capitalist class is maintained through working class consent which includes ongoing military and police coercion. If the military and the police are on board with the revolution and the working class refuse complaince with the capitalist class in the workplace, then taking control of parliament might be useful but will not be essential. Under these circumstances the courts will become irrelevant. If the military and police are not on board with the majority, then taking power in parliament will not avail us and we will have to fight it out. Power does not reside in parliament but in the hands of those forces it wields by consent. Capitialism is run from top to bottom by the working class as we always say, but that extends to the political and state sphere as well. Remove working class consent to capitalism in its fullest sense, and you remove the significance of parliament itself as an instrument of class oppression.To my understanding, the primary act of revolution lies in the material action of the working class and not in taking control of a gassing shop.
I think this encapsulates the dilemma of all socialists, We know we need to do this. The question is how, and what approach do we take. The SPGB solution which follows Marx in the importance of capturing political power from the state is one. But I think we need to keep the discussion open with all groups founded in genuinely working-class politics.
