[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Lbird,Well, we can quickly define  violence as the infliction of physical harm on one person by another…

[my bold]This is the problem, YMS.Who is this 'we'?Why would this 'we' define violence in terms of 'one person by another'?Then, to reinforce this definition, 'one's will upon another'; 'one person', etc.

YMS wrote:

This second layer is the context in which we can begin to define warfare.  To get to war…

Then having accepted this 'one person' definition of 'violence', there follows a massive, unexplained and unexamined jump to 'warfare/war'.This is an ideological sequence that I don't accept, YMS.My ideology does not jump from the individual/biological/genetic to the social/historical, in one untheorised, hidden leap.Unless we, on this thread, expose our differing ideological presuppositions, we will continue to 'talk past' each other.Anthropologists, as a part of their scientific method, should expose their ideologies, prior to discussing the societies which are the object of their research.One's 'viewpoint' will determine 'what' one 'sees'. And 'one' is a social being, a product of a society.

[LBird]

pgb wrote:

Robbo says:  … It is relevant to the topic because the whole point of the topic is to discuss what gives rise to war.Hear, Hear!   …

I've left this thread alone for a few days, to see how it progresses. It hasn't.I still think that we're in need of definitions of what is being discussed, like 'violence'.Is 'violence' a spectrum, from hitting one another as kids, through adult tantrums about jealousy of partners, all the way to thermo-nuclear war and total destruction of the planet.Or is 'violence' an emergent property of some societies, which when structured in a certain way, produce war?As I've said before, both of these definitions have ideological roots.The former encourages talk of 'biological roots of violence', inherent in human nature or genes, whilst the latter encourages talk of 'social roots of violence', historically from specific social arrangements. The former sees violence as inescapable and eternal, whereas the latter sees violence as a temporary socio-historic phase of human development.The answers to these philosophical questions are not in research about hunter-gatherers, but in our own beliefs, which we've picked up from our own society.Whichever 'proof' that one wants can be found in h-g society. H-g society is both violent and non-violent, depending upon the criteria that are applied by the anthropologist.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Violence is conventionally understood in terms of the presumed death count…

For any cohort in any society, the 'death count' is always 100%!

 Of course.  But I am saying this is the formal  measure of violence which these people chose to employ and one presumes by that that they mean the intentional act to inflict harm on others resulting in their deaths (although, of course they may not necessarily have the intention to actually kill the other person even if that is the outcome)

I think my 'bolds' emphasise the problem!I'm sure I've missed a few!I'll settle for your 'Of course', robbo, as a sign that we're not really that far apart.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Violence is conventionally understood in terms of the presumed death count…

For any cohort in any society, the 'death count' is always 100%! We can't get away from discussing meaning, by pretending that there is some 'objective' measure called 'death count', which all anthropologists can agree upon.'Violence' and 'death count' are ideological constructs. That's what you, perhaps unknowingly, acknowledge when you say "conventionally understood".Whose 'conventions'? In what way are they 'understood'? Who determines the 'period' of the 'death count'? What is a 'death' that counts? Falling off a cliff?I'm sure everyone can think up some more objections to 'death count'. Ideological, social and historical.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Of course there is some one-on-one violence in contemporary  HG groups as there no doubt was among prehistoric HG groups but that is not the same thing as war.

[my bold]robbo, I agree with much of your post.One key thing is your outlining of the concept of 'violence', which I've also stressed is an ideological concept, and how one regards 'violence' will determine one's view of h-g 'violence'.If the ideology being followed by the anthropologist is 'individualist', then 'one-on-one violence' counts as 'violence'.If the ideology being followed by the anthropologist is 'socialist', then 'war' counts as 'violence'.The former is about biological contact and personal pain, the latter about social conflict and widespread destruction.If the reader employs an individualist ideology, they will find that 'violence exists in h-g societies', and agree with the anthropologists who stress this form of 'violence'.If the reader employs a socialist ideology, they will find that 'violence does not exist in h-g societies', and agree with the anthropologists who stress this form of 'violence'.My advice to comrades is to read as many anthropological accounts as possible, by anthropologists who employ differing ideologies, and to be aware of their own ideological approach (ie. definition) of 'violence'.For those seeking 'The Truth' of 'what really happened', of an 'objective account of violence in hunter gatherer societies', I'd warn that you're going to be disappointed, comrades.

[LBird]

Are these serious posts from stuart?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

You see, this is where ideology gets you – you can't even see what's right in front of your face, ie, the propensity of biological individuals to violence. Have you never been out drinking? Or read this forum?

[my bold]Yeah, on the 1st July, 1916, right in front of my face a couple of hundred thousand isolated individuals (who, coincidentally, were all wearing khaki uniforms and had done basic training and had been subject to endless war propaganda about 'Boche frightfulness') just happened, all together on a natural whim, to jump out of their trenches, and due to their natural propensity to stick bayonets in other isolated individuals who wear field grey and have pointy helmets, ran towards hundreds of machine guns and got entangled on barbed wire, and 20,000 died and 40,000 were injured.Of course, about 1% of these hundreds of thousands, liked a drink on a Saturday night, got pissed, and battered each other over the head with beer bottles. This 'natural propensity', admittedly only present in a minute number, is the source of The Great War.So, I've seen it with my own eyes – drunken fights in pubs between thugs, and hundreds of thousands infected with this 'natural propensity for violence', set off to stick knives in other, equally culpable, men, who all just like killing.Yes, indeed, THIS IS WHERE IDEOLOGY GETS YOU, stuart.As an explanation for the terrible casualties caused by the Battle of the Somme, it seems lacking to me, a Communist.I'd think it was more to do with class society and capitalism, rather than 'human nature', but, one's "own eyes" don't lie do they, to the non-ideological?Quite frankly, YMS's post was pathetic, and your inability to see that, given our recent discussions, makes me wonder if I'm wasting my time talking to fellow workers, like you, stuart.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Stuart, you're onto a good point,moving the decision over that is truth to any sort of vote just brings back the same questions as it arouses for an individual.

No, it doesn't.This just shows your individualist ideology, that sees the decisions made by a group as being same as individual decisions.This is because a group decision is a democratic decision, but since you reject workers' power, you reject democracy. You want 'individual freedom', the bourgeois myth made real.

YMS wrote:

(and adds the further question of deciding what is the voting polity: whites in the the early 20th century US outnumbered blacks, and literally voted to make them inferior, so I guess black people must have been inferior, by that logic).

This shows that you can't tell the difference between proletarian class conscious democracy and bourgeois parliamentary democracy.You fear workers, and so assume that workers are racist.

YMS wrote:

Of course, if an observable event happens…

What's this got to do with science? Most real events are not observable.

YMS wrote:

There are masses of evidence that inter human viuolence occurs within hunter gatherer tribes,and that violence has occurred in history.

This 'evidence' exists for YMS because he employs an individualist ideology, and so 'violence' for him is 'individual on individual' violence, not 'class violence', which is what we're interested in.We're talking about politics and society, whereas YMS is discussing biological individuals. I warned readers earlier about the ideological definition of violence one uses determines whether 'evidence' exists or not.

YMS wrote:

Anyone who has been out on a saturday night and seen two gangs of lads kicking at each other is witnessing something on the size and scale of what would have been a war between HG groups.

Here we have a clear example of YMS's method. "Use your eyes, and look at individuals".No class analysis, no situating 'lads' within bourgeois society and culture, and the extrapolation of unhistorical analysis into a universal lesson."Thugs fight now, so all humans forevermore, even with socialism, will fight".This is laughable as serious anthropological analysis.

YMS wrote:

Stuart is right that it's obvious that in the right circumstance we all have the capacity and prepensity for lethal violence…

More pointless 'universal speculation' about 'individual propensities'. No situating in 'right circumstances'. Just emphasis on the 'capacity for lethal violence' that we all apparently have. "It's natural", comrades!This is just a joke, to anyone seriously interested in anthropology, especially from a Marxist perspective.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

No despair from me, LBird.The beauty of science (or human discovery) is in it's constant state of flux, without which we wouldn't be here.

Glad to hear of your high spirits, SP!Yeah, 'flux', but you try and say that to the 'disinterested' seekers of 'The Truth', who think that their 'knowledge' is a perfect copy of 'object', and so must be eternally true, outside of any social considerations, and watch them fume!The believers in 'objective knowledge' don't like talk of 'flux'.They like certainty, fixity, and the assurance that, if they bother to read something, that they now know the Truth Of The Matter.They don't like having to deal with the 'flux' of various positions, the 'flux' between hunter-gatherers being 'violent' and 'non-violent', and trying to understand why both answers can be 'true'.I hear that they're not too keen on 'beauty', either! That's because we all know that "it's in the eye of the beholder", and they will not have 'beholders' in science! They really think science is 'The View From Nowhere'.Have a beautiful day, SP, and long may you enjoy your state of flux!

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I have had enough of your bollocks LBird. I am wasting no more time on you.

Don't worry, Vin, you'll come round to my way of thinking, eventually.I'll persevere with you. Democratic workers' power is the answer, although you oppose any democracy in knowledge production.You have got a nasty temper, though!

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Someone on this forum wondered why workers turned to Syrisa and not us. The simple answer is that Syrisa were engaging with the immediate problems facing  the working class.

Yes, and that simple answer by Syrisa is: "Vote for us! You stay passive! We can solve capitalism's problems! No need for workers' democracy!"We can't give that answer, Vin, because we don't believe it.

Vin wrote:

We need to link our poverty with with a solution. Workers don't need lectures on 'science for socialists' or 'hunter gatherers'. They need to know why they have lost their job and why they are living on the streets. They want to hear "We know the cause and we know the solution!'

I'd argue that the 'solutions to poverty' do lie in 'science for socialists' and 'hunter gatherers'.We do know the cause, and we have a solution, and it flows from our understanding of both science and anthropology.

Vin wrote:

Understanding of the philosophy of science and hunter gatherers is not a precondition to class consciousness…Workers simply need to pursue their own economic class interests and as a revolutionary organisation that's where our energy should be.

What are their own economic class interests?These do not talk to workers.I'd argue that mass understanding of philosophy of science and anthropology are necessary for class consciousness.That task is where I think that any "revolutionary organsation's energy should be".Without mass class consciousness, we cannot build for socialism, Vin.Surely we know by now, that class consciousness doesn't simply emerge from 'material conditions'? That matter does not talk to humans? That humans have to build their knowledge? That workers have to build their consciousness?First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So what we have is evidence for violence and non-violence from our ancient hunter gatherer ancestors, with some investigators seeing war and others not.Back to the drawing board people.

No, on with science, SP!Don't despair. Human science provides us with 'choices', and we have to 'choose' which one we prefer.Whether that's Higgs Boson or Hunter Gatherer.Because we now know that science doesn't provide 'THE ONE TRUTH' (tm. religious productions), doesn't mean that 'THERE IS NO TRUTH' (tm. po-mo productions).The materialists insist, since Engels, that if one doesn't believe in the former (ie. materialism), then one must believe in the latter.The good news, as Marx pointed out in the Theses on Feuerbach, is that there is a third position.Humans, using theory and practice, produce social and historical truths, and then have to decide which, for them, is the 'truth' they wish to believe for their own good social and historical reasons, at any time.Since this is a human social task, it makes sense that, in a society like socialism that is run on democratic lines, that the choice made from the available 'truths' produced, is made on democratic lines.Our third choice is 21st century science, allied with socialism.Don't listen to the followers of god-matter, SP! They're religious fanatics, and deny democracy, because they claim to be at one with matter, and don't need 'mob rule' to tell them their 'TRUTH'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

It being the Higgs of course

So, they have found it!Wonderful news! You'll have to tell all those physicists who don't believe that it has been found.Bloody physicists! Just like anthropologists, and politicians… always arguing…Humans, or Higgs-Mirrors?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

So true LB. Makes you wonder why our societies spent all those billions on the Large Hadron Collider when we could have told them for nothing that they were bound to find it if that's what they were looking for. (Sarcasm alert.)

Yeah, makes you wonder why, when without all that human effort, nature tells us what it is.Touche.[/21st century science]

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

So what if it was found that a tendency towards violence and war is innate, hard-wired into our genes? If true, we need to know it.

You're still assuming that 'truth' is a property of the 'object', stuart, as opposed to a property of 'knowledge'.If you think so, that's OK, but then recognise that this is 19th century positivist ideology.Since 'knowledge' is a creation of humans, and NOT a reflection of the 'object', then if certain humans want to find 'the truth' that there is a 'gene for tendency to violence and war', they'll find it.Those humans who don't want to find that 'truth', won't, because they'll find 'the truth' that 'violence and war is social'.Your 'gene for violence' notion reminds me of Itchy and Scratchy, where the mouse is chopped into a million bits by the cat, which then inhales the bits, and each cell of the cat receives a murderous little mouse, which destroys the cell, and the cat turns grey and dissolves.This search for 'gene-based behaviour' is an ideological search, not a 'disinterested search for truth', stuart.If you are disposed, ideologically, to find one, you will. You'll find hunter-gatherers had 'an innate tendency to violence and war'.I, being a Communist, and open about it, will 'find' the opposite, that class societies make war, and have a 'social tendency to violence'.If you 'need to know it', you'll 'discover' it, stuart!Humans and their 'science', eh?

[Author]

Posts