[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?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

However you look at it,  that is an ideological battle  that you are engaged in, at the heart of which is what we perceive human beings to be and to be capable of.  On that point I agree with LBird…

Thanks, robbo.I think we agree about much more than we don't.On the rest, the debate will continue, hopefully with others, including Vin, involved.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

And if it is a thing, might we not agree, by reference to the thing, whether or not, for all its complexity, "round" or "flat" best captures it?

You've got it now, stuart!'Agreement', 'reference' and 'best'.Just like hunter-gatherer society – we need to agree the best way of referring to it.Liberals will 'agree' that 'violence' exists, and Communists will 'agree' that 'violence' doesn't exist.It's best to clarify your own definition of what 'violence' is, and apply it to your readings of various accounts of h-g society.I think that the earth is 'round' and that h-g are 'non-violent'. But that's because of my social and historical context, and my social education, and my social ideology.I'm aware that in other contexts, neither is the earth 'round' nor are h-g 'non-violent'.As you say 'best' is what 'captures it' – 'best' being a social judgement.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

It's a very complex thing – so it is a thing?

It's just like 'hunter-gatherer' society.

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

Vin, i might be mistaken but isn't the context we discussing about pre-socialism and about the actual process of achieving it…and LB is referring to the lack of consciousness amongst the working class, something we do require to get to socialism.

alan, I've had this discussion with Vin many times, and he doesn't want to understand. Even ALB has tried to same trick to divert discussion.robbo has provided evidence that Marx too employed 'workers' to refer as a catch-all for 'producers', covering both communist and capitalist society.If I say 'producer', Vin and ALB object that I haven't mentioned class and workers…If I say 'worker', Vin and ALB object that classless society doesn't have workers…It's all a ruse to avoid the meat of any discussion, by those who can't keep up with subtleties, I fear.This has happened so many times, I have to believe that it's a conscious attempt to derail me.Clearly, the 'proletariat' will evolve into 'all society', as the process of revolution proceeds.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I know it means god!But you still won't tell me how we are to decide whether the earth is flat or round. I mean, does the earth's actual shape in reality have anything to do with the decision?

If you know a method that gives us 100% truth about the shape of the earth, please tell us!If not, we're back to discussing what we humans think the shape is, given our 'best' 'evidence'.Both 'flat' and 'round' are human attempts to explain the 'shape' of the earth.The "earth's actual shape in reality" is a very complex thing…

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Or, to return to the thread topic, does not the term "hunter-gatherer" actually refer to something in the real world? Does not the question of whether they live more or less violent lives than us have some meaning, ie, refer to something "out there" rather than just "in here" in our minds? If not, I scarcely see the point of discussing anything with anyone.

[my bold] 'Meaning' is socially constructed. What 'out there' means to one society, it doesn't to another.I think that you're forgetting the rest of what I've argued, though, about 'theory and practice'.Science is not a isolated 'mind' activity.Marx's Theses on Feuerbach refer.The application of theory to what theory tells us counts as 'evidence' produces social knowledge.But different theories applied to the same 'hunter-gatherers' will produce different 'truth' about those societies.As I've said, liberal anthropologists will produce a liberal account of hunter-gatherers; communist anthropologists will produce a communist account of hunter-gatherers.Humans can't take the human out of science.If you want a scientific account, find out about your ideology of science, and the anthropologists' ideology of science.The idea that 'a disinterested search for The Truth' is going on, is scientifically and politically naive, given what we know about science, since Einstein.Just look at your link, again.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

What are we talking about? What are we referring to? Not the real world? Are we not arguing about which of the ideologies is the best approximation to the real world – which of the expressions of relative truth (our ideologies) best point to the absolute truth (the universe)?

[my bold]'Best' is a human decision – 'reality' does not talk to us.What one society sees as 'best', another doesn't. That's why 'truth' has a social and historical context, and changes.And 'absolute truth' is, in effect, a religious concept. It simply means 'god'.

[Author]

Posts