[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

There is no obvious reason why people wouldn't choose to organise themselves in a variety of ways, using  different decision-making processes at different levels (local, regional, global etc), in different circumstances and for different purposes.  There is no need to imagine they would be constrained by any of the limits that capitalism places on our own imaginations.  For fast, perhaps urgent decision-making then a straight vote might be sought of whatever section of the population will be affected by the decision, and the rules set for the assessing the outcome might be different depending on the circumstances.  The vote might be direct  or a delegated one.   For slower, more considered decision making, much broader forms of social choice might be adopted which consider the needs of minorities as well as majorities.  And at more local levels communities may seek simple consensus, using a variety of available techniques and skills.  

 Yes, this is a very good point Richard.  LBird's strange obsession with democracy for the sake of it and democracy, moreover, implemented by the entire working population everywhere and at all times is absurd.  We have been focussing on area of "truth production" – that is to say, the development of scientific theories.  I see absolutely no point in subjecting scientific theory to a vote to determine its " truth "and despite constantly being prodded to come up with a reason, LBird has supplied none.  The only inference one can draw is that once a scientific theory has been determined by means of vote to be "true" by the global working class (7 billion people), then according to him, no criticism of the theory will be permitted.  That is ridiculous and antithetical to everything that the scientific endeavour is supposed to be about – above all, self critical.  It also , moreover, assumes that 7 billion would have a close familiarity  with each of the thousands of scientific theories that are developed each year in order to knowledgeably vote on all of them. That is also ridiculous and it is not "elitist" to say so – no individual can possibly assimilate the totality of scientific knowledge out there, no matter how gifted a scientist this individual may be.  The sheer growth in scientific knowledge and the further development of a complex social division of labour is making this more and more true .  We cannot all – in a social sense – become competent neurosurgeons which takes years and years of study and if we did each individually strive to become this (which, I guess, is theoretically possible in an abstract sense) – who is going to be the competent structural engineer, the competent agricultural scientist , the competent marine biologist etc etc.  LBird typically has no answer to these questions. You have drawn attention to another another area, however – what we might call the area of "material production" where unlike in the case of truth production, democratic decision making will indeed have a role to play precisely because it involves practical decision that affect us in our daily lives.  However, even this needs to be qualified in various ways.Firstly , you have to differentiate between decision making at various levels – local, regional and global – as you have done.  LBird's utterly crude knee jerk and mantra-driven approach to the subject shows that he has not thought about the subject at all.  If the global working population – all 7 billion of us – is to be the sole agent of all decision making in a communist world then this by definition rules out any kind of decisioonmaking at the sub global level.  Why ? Because this would be "elitist" in LBird's fantasy world.  If only local people vote to build a local hospital in their locality this means  the vast majority of the world's population are ipso facto excluded from that decision. But there are millions and millions of such decisions that need to be taken every single day.  Is the global working class going to have consider each and every one of these decisions?  Is it possible? Of course it isn't. So by reduction ad absurdum LBird's whole argument must be completely rejected as utter drivel. Secondly, I  would suggest that the great majority of decisions that will be made in a communist world at every level  simply do not require democractic decision making anyway. They can be and will need to be taken on a spontaneous albeit it within a framework democratically decided upon.  Does Joe Bloggs really need to authorised by a democratic mandate to take a stack of pallets with his forklift from the loading bay to the back of the factory?  Is a special meeting going to be convened to discuss this burning question? Of course not.  The notion that life in communism will be an endless rounds of committee meetings and mass assemblies – a caricature which LBird is obsessively feeding with his preposterous folly – actually makes a laughing stock of communists and makes it harder for us as communists to put forward the case for a sane society.Logically speaking, when it comes down to it,  the logic of what LBird is arguing for is classic central planning – the idea of a single society wide plan covering the totality of production inputs and outputs which plan would be democratically decided upon, in LBird's viuew, by the global population.  The idea is a complete non starter at so many different levels and if it were even attempted, it would simply end up with power being totally concentrated in a tiny technocratic eliteThough he will not thank me for saying so, LBirds real ideology behind the bluster  that "I am a Democratic communist" is a kind of totalitarian Leninism

[robbo203]

stuartw2112 wrote:

This is what I meant when I said Robin was in danger of making his socialism a hostage to fortune. Violent and warlike tendencies almost certainly are a part of our human nature. And it's also why I said I was relaxed about it. Because whatever the case is, whatever our human nature turns out to be, we are more than capable of moulding human institutions, including those involved in war, to engineer the happiest outcomes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65R

 Thats an interesting post, Stuart, for which thanks.  My observations on the above snippet are two fold.Firstly, I think all we have the potential to be violent but I don't think that is the same thing as saying that "violent tendencies are part of our human nature".  "Human nature" to me suggests more than just potential; it suggests an irrepressible and ever present aspect of our behaviour and it is for that reason that i don't think one can say violent tendencies are part of our human nature – anymore than pacific tendencies, for that matter.  So it depends on what you mean by "human nature", I guess. Secondly, you have to make a distinction between violence in general and war which is particular form of violence that is, of its nature, a collective enterprise.  This is something that  gets to the heart of what this thread is all about. There is no convincing evidence that wars actually happened in the sense of systemic intergroup lethal conflict  much before the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years or so ago.  I wont rehearse the arguments behind this claim as they have already been made at length at various points in this long thread.  Even in the case of contemporary hunter gatherer groups  where the mechanism of conflict avoidance (that would have functioned in the case of prehistoric HG groups) has been considerably undermined by contact with "civilisation" and by significant restrictions on the traditional freedom to roam, we find that, overwhelmingly, violence is an individual affair i.e. one on one violence  (see Soderberg and Fry's recent survey) Thus, if war is a pretty  recent phenomenon as far as us human beings are concerned, there would simply not be enough time for "warlike tendencies" to have been naturally selected for.   For that reason too, as well as the above, it is simply not possible to say warlike tendencies are part of our human nature and the notion that some of  us possess a  so called "warrior gene" seems to me to be just a piece of poetic licence

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

It's much easier to label the unknown as 'trolling' or 'dishonesty', rather than question some of your own dearly-held ruling class ideas, like the issue of science, truth, academics and democracy.Ah well, Hud, back to good, old fashioned, 19th century, academic and scientific 'honesty' for you.Quite frankly, mate, you're just like most other academics that I've met: they shit themselves when confronted by self-confident workers who are Communists, and who insist upon undermining their 'authority' in the eyes of the other students.But, but… I'm a professor! I know things you don't! I can't accept that I've spent my whole career following the wrong method in my search for 'Truth'! I've written PAPERS! Who are you, anyway, you working class guttersnipe?!

 Says the man who earlier said this….

LBird wrote:

But no, you have to join the ignorant gang, who don't like philosophical 'kind of games'.Perhaps you should just stick to your simplistic world of 'evidence', and let it take you where it merely goes.As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method.

 What a hypocrite! And yes, LBird, the fact that you are pathologically dishonest in your gross misrepresentation of others has been pointed out to you time and time again but like a typically  pathologically dishonest individual you are in complete denial over this.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

Your one-sided condemnation of me, and ignoring of robbo's avoiding answering why he is contradicting himself, just shows me that I'm going to have the same problems with you as with the others.

 Has it not occurred to you that it might be  you who is the problem, LBird? Or is it  a case of everyone else walking out of step, bar you?  And what "contradiction" are you referring to anyway?

LBird wrote:

If you seriously were interested in discussing, you would have either been even-handed asking us both to 'answer the question', or you could have simply ignored robbo's confused views, and concentrated on our discussion.

There  is nothing "confused" about my views.  I've stated very clearly what they are. I've asked  probing questions of you several times which you have declined to answer, preferring to scuttle back to the comfort zone that is your own little worldview  which you shore up against rational assault by erecting  a wall of impenetrable dogma, tediously and endlessly regurgitated. You are the political equivalent of a doorstopping Jehovah Witness rep, frankly.And you apparently have no scruples about dishonestly misrepresenting what others say.  You portray me (and others here) as "elitist " for the sin of having simply stated that as mere mortals none of us , including the most brilliant scientist alive, is capable  of familiarising themselves with the details of each and every single  scientific theory doing the rounds. Its just not humanly possible! I know logic is not your strong point but if what I say is true then it follows logically that for any given scientific theory (and there are thousands upon thousands that are churned out every year) there is only likely to be a relatively small percentage of the population who are  likely to be intimately acquainted with the details of the theory in question.  Is this an unreasonable proposition? I don't think so.  If you say it is then what you are saying in effect is that we are all capable of knowing EVERYTHING in the world of  science.  In other words we are all capable of a kind of  godlike omniscience.  Is this what you are claiming? I dare you to put your money where your mouth and admit it because ,as far as I can see, that follows quite logically from your criticism of my position .  My position – I repeat – is that for any given scientific theory there is unlikely to be any more than a small minority who are acquainted with the details of the theory itself.Is this an elitist position?  NO IT IS NOT!!!  You don't  appear to understand what "elitism" means just as you do not understand what democracy is about either.   My position would be "elitist" if I were to insist on placing barriers on others, not familiar with a particular scientific theory,  becoming familiar  with that theory..   But I have gone out of my way to oppose the idea of any sort of barrier whatsoever being placed in front of individuals that would prevent  them from acquiring the necessary understanding to be able to competently critique the theory in question. I say let people become whatever they want to become, pursue any interest they wish to pursue.  I have also gone out of my way  to oppose your stupid idea of subjecting a scientific theory to a "vote" in order to determine its "truth". If anyone is potentially an elitist it is you because your idea of "voting" on scientific theories would mean in effect that some people not familiar with the theory could in theory  be prevented from voting. I reject the whole idea of voting on the theory. I' ll  say nothing  here of the utter stupidity of your idea of 7 billion people voting  on the thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that come on stream every year though clearly , it would seem, you are just too embarrassed to face up to what it is you are actually proposing in practical sense.  Having to descend from the clouds so to speak and put actual  flesh on the bones of what you saying terrifies you which is why you run away from every question that it is ever thrown at you.  You are the quintessential idealist with your head completely  in the clouds and  without a clue when it comes to putting theory into practice…

LBird wrote:

But no, you have to join the ignorant gang, who don't like philosophical 'kind of games'.Perhaps you should just stick to your simplistic world of 'evidence', and let it take you where it merely goes.As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method.

What a hypocrite!!!  And particularly in view of what LBird has  said on the "Chamsy" thread – viz

LBird wrote:

Sadly, now lost in the SPGB, if YMS, robbo and their 'elite, expert, academic' cadre, who will tell us dumb workers the Truth, are anything to go by.

 Yes, LBird it seems the only one here who considers himself to be several notches above the  "ignorant gang" and part of the elite of "educated people" is your good self!  LOL

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 CP, if you replace robbo's 'science' with 'means of production', you'll start to appreciate the dangers of robbo's stance, for anyone who seeks democratic control of the means of production, ie. socialism.The elitists, like robbo, will simply use the same arguments about us controlling production: they'll say that 'it is totally impracticable in order to vote', when we 'don't know what we are voting about'. And 'the LOGISTICS'! Heaven, however will the "dirty, thick one's" manage that! How can they PRESUME to know?Yes, the 'democratic control of production': "It's nuts, frankly!"

  Ha! Replacing "robbo's 'science' with 'means of production', indeed!  This shows the desperate lengths to which LBird will go save face and evade answering the questions I posed, questions  which expose his position for the utter folly it is .  I was specifically NOT talking about  controlling the means of production; I have no problem with the idea of "democratic control of the means of production", broadl;y speaking. I made it absolutely clear that I was talking specifically  about workers voting on the merits of scientific theories to determine their  "truth" – a suggestion that you yourself, might I remind you, specifically proposed.   I also made it absolutely clear that democracy is about practical decisions that affect us,  and decisions relating to managing the means of production would clearly come under this rubric.  The "truth" of scientific theories, however,  would clearly notLBird's  all too transpent attempt to dishonestly smuggle in the suggestion that what I am saying is equivalent to denying workers can democratically control the means of production shows that he is rattled, not thinking clearly at all, has his back to the wall and will grasp at even the flimsiest straw to get out of the ever deepening hole he has dug for himself. Oh and the jibe about "logistics" – well, go on LBird, I dare you –  EXPLAIN the logistics of your harebrained scheme whereby you propose to organise a democratic vote on each and every scientific theory that is churned out – multiple thousands of them every year  –  by the entire worlds population of 7 billion inhabits.  We are all ears, LBird, just waiting to hear this earth shattering explanation of yours that will enlighten us unelightened ones.   You basically want everyone to metamorphise into some kind of all knowing god , with a working knowledge of every scientific theory going and then, on top of that,  to be able to depatch 7 billion voting papers to the citizens of Planet Earth (or Planet GaGa land) as the case may be) multiplied by the number of new scientific theories – thousands of 'em – that come on stream, each and every year.  (I take it you are indeed a fully paid up citizen of planet Gaga despatched as an emissary to explain the merits of your higher so called democratic communist civilisation to us humanoids.  At least you are certainly not from this planet, good ol' Mother Earth)

LBird wrote:

 The clincher, from the elitist perspective. 'So, what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?' Why give it to workers? Or blacks? Or, god forbid, women!

More diversionary nonsense from LBird.  And you can't even get your basic argument straight, your thinking is so screwed up.  I am not talking about who should be "given" a vote  and you know damn well restricted electorates is not what I am talking about.  I am saying why vote at all on the question of the truth of some scientific theory?  What exactly is the point of it?  Are you intending for example that once a vote is taken, people should not be allowed to question this democratically decided upon "truth"? Or what? You just dont say. You waffle on aimlessly and pointlessly compleley lost in your own little world of mindless mantras.  I cant make up my mind whether your head is stuck in the clouds or up your own backside.Instead of getting into tizzy you could at least have made some minimal effort to try  to explain what that point was but no. All too predictably you did  not. And you wonder why nobody here takes you seriously any longer!

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I don't really understand how scientific theories can be ideologically endorsed. Its like saying that scientists should embrace pseudoscientists. But I don't know maybe I just need to read his post hehe…

 Wel,l LBird's position is that science can never really be "value free" and that the data that the scientist gathers to support his or her theory or hypothesis necessarily involves selection which in turn involves ideology – our particular set of basic assumptions we make about the world around us.  Ideology is the prism through which we inescapably view the world, in other words. Although LBird seems to think he is the only one here promoting this particular view of science and society in general he is not.  His constantly going on about it is only a cover to hide from scrutiny the much more questionable aspect of what he is saying – which is that because science is ideologically informed, so to speak, that the "workers" by which he means everyone – not "workers" in the class sense – should have a say in determining what is  "scientifically correct" or "scientifically true" I think that this is a ridiculous idea, not because I take an "elitist view" of science – to the contrary I believe that if anyone wants to become, say, an astrophysicist  that there should be absolutely no barriers placed in the way of him or her becoming an astrophysicist. It is ridiculous, rather, because it is totally impractical to expect everyone to know everything in science in order to vote on whether each and every scientific theory is true of not.  How can you possibly vote on something when you you don't know what it you voting about? (This is to say nothing of the logistics of organising many thousands of separate  worldwide votes for the many thouisands of scientific theories that appear each year). I know myself next to nothing about astrophysics, for instance. I would not dare to presume that a certain theory in astrophysics was true or false.  But LBird expects everyone to know everything that there is to know so that everything in science can be voted on by the entire global population to determine the truth of each theory.. Its nuts frankly. That apart , I don't see the need to vote on a scientific theory at all.  The popularity of a theory among the voters doesn't necessarily make it true in some absolutist sense and, more to the point, it is not going to convince those who think it is not true from continuing to believe it is not true. So what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

too many words…what are we talking about lol

 Ideology, CP , ideology One of the people on this list, LBird, thinks scientific theories should be ideologically endorsed  by the  workers (7 billion of us) by means of a democratic vote to determine whether such theories are true or not.  It is a dotty idea, of course, even if what LBird is  also saying – that there is no such thing as a "value free science"  – is true enough in itself. However, saying science is not value free is no justification whatsoever  for what LBird is proposing  and I for one am waiting to hear his response to post number 8 on this thread.  I will bet money on him once again evading these questions but let us see . I may be proven wrong!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 But, you can't give an accurate of my position 'LBird is in favour of democracy in truth production', because you can't imagine that this is possible, whereas I agree that your position is, not only entirely possible, but the one taken by the bourgeoisie and academics.

 We are all waiting with bated breath to hear why you think "democracy in truth production" is either 1) necessary2) practically possible for a global population of 7 billion Stop evading these questions, LBird. Answer them – if you can…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 You'll 'pooh-pooh' democracy in social production. You won't have 'truth' elected. You want elite control of science. Oh yeah, and you want 'free association', not 'workers' power'.

 This is oh-so-predictable.  Once again and for the umpteenth time, how are 7 billion workers going to democratically determine the "truth" of multiple thousands of scientific theories by means of a vote as you have explicitly advocated? HOW? HOW? HOW?   What are the ACTUAL REALISTIC PROPOSALS you have in mind by which you imagine this absolutely surreal and fantastic state of affairs can ever be put into effect ?  Stop, for once, perpetually running away from this question and answer it directly And, while you are about it, please explain why it is according to your "mystical holistic" ideology you feel some strange compulsion for all 7 billion of us to vote on the merits of all these thousands upon thousands  of scientific theories?   Assuming your batty idea was even remotely possible – what then?  The "workers" have given their stamp of approval to some obscure esoteric theory of cell division in microbiology, presumably having swotted up on the details in the months leading up to the Big Vote.  68.76% of the workers decide the theory is OK, the rest give it the thumbs down.  Are you then going to forbid any expression of criticism of the theory that the 68.76% have just voted in favour of? If not then what was was the whole point of that whole costly resource-consuming time-consuming exercise?  All of which goes to show you dont understand what democracy is for at all, do you? I'm all in favour of democracy but where it is needed – in practical decisionmaking -not where it is simply not needed.  It is stupid fetishising democracy  for its own sake. Next youll be having 7 billion workers collectively decide where we each live, what clothes we wear, what thoughts we think , what music we listen to  what books we should be allowed to read etc etc etc. If rejecting that makes me an "individualist" in your eyes then so be it.  I would far sooner be that than live in your fascistic Orwellian utopian nightmare misnamed "democratic communism" Your totalitarian  "workerist" ideology is the exact opposite of a self-critical open-minded undogmatic  approach that is supposed to be the hall mark of scientific endeavour where "the truth" is something that is never absolute but only provisional. In practice. moreover,  it is your approach, not mine,  that will lead to scientific elitism because by default the sheer impracticality of what you propose will concentrate power in the hands of the few.  Because in practice there is no way all 7 billion workers are going to be able to do what you suggest and if you think otherwise then prove it and stop pretending that you have already done so! If anyone is simply giving " knee-jerk reactions, based upon their own existing and unacknowledged ideologies., it is you LBird. You fail to realise that behind your claim to be a "democratic communist" is a much more sinister ideological thought process. Time for you to start acknowledging this hidden ideology of yours!

[robbo203]

I think LB's basic problem is that he has fallen into the trap of holistic thinking which people like Emile Durkheim had been accused of falling into by his detractors – namely of reifying "society", of giving it an objective existence over and above, and independently of, the individuals comprising it.  Hence, the latter's talk of  "social facts" as having a thinglike quality about them.  They externally impose themselves on individuals and Durkheim claimed to have demonstrated this in the case of his famous study of the pattern of suicide.  For instance, if you were a Protestant you were statistically more likely to commit suicide than if you were a  Catholic. But , of course, society or indeed "class", cannot exist apart from the individuals who comprise it – anymore  than mind can exist apart from the brain.  Which is not to say the brain determines what goes on in the mind or individuals "determine" society,  which is crude reductionism.  What we can say is that the latter supervenes on the former.  Society/class depends on individuals but cannot be entirely explained in terms of its individual constituents.  This is "emergence theory" which, to me at least, is a plausible middle ground position between the crude reductionism of atomistic individualism  and the methodological pitfalls of a thoroughgoing holism. The practical implications of LB's commitment to the latter are revealed in his often asserted and frankly  absurd suggestion that the the "truth" of scientific theories should be determined by the working class as a whole by means of a democratic vote since, according to him, the only alternative to this is to subscribe to an elitist view of science where the truth is determined by a tiny minority. I have repeatedly challenged him to show why it is even necessary to subject scientific theories to a  democratic vote – the democratic procedure is something that is more applicable to the implementation of practical decisions , not the merits or otherwise of sciejtific theories – and how it is remotely possible for the working class as a whole to familiarise itself with the fine grained details of literally thousands upon thousands  of scientific theories that are churned out every year in order to competently vote upon them.  Of course the idea is absurd.  Not even the most gifted scientist alive would be capable of comprehending in detail more than a small fraction of the totality of scientific theories generated yet LBird expects  all 7 billion of us to go much further than this gifted scientist and knowledgeably vote on the whole lot!  Refusal to fall in line with his surreal recommendations for a future communist society is to risk being accused of endorsing an elitist view of science based on a "bourgeois ideology". This constant mantra of his – that he is a "democratic communist" and his opponents are, inadvertently or otherwise, exhibiting their attachment to a bourgeois ideology –  is his get-out  clause by which he deftly evades all serious discussion of the practicalities of what he is proposing.  I have not been able to pin him down on this point but you might have better luck  Richard 

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

Hi Robin, this will have to be a very short answer (for me), as I am in the last stages of preparing for my holiday.  It is nearly thirty years since I read Evans Pritchard so I don't recall much about the Nuer, but here are some things to consider.  You can tell me if they fit what you know about them.  Egalitarianism seems to be  closely related to and consequent on the way in which societies obtain their means of life.  It is principally found among hunter gatherers, both immediate and delayed return, though it does extend to some pastoralists and herders and even some horticulturalists where finely balanced factors may tip them either way.  It needs to be noted, however, that delayed return hunter gatherers, although they generally retain a largely egalitarian structure including the use of demand sharing, do tend to have some status relations and sometimes chiefs.  Structurally induced warfare on the other hand seems to be related primarily to delayed return systems and so includes states, tribes and delayed return hunter gatherers.  In other words delayed return hunter gatherers do sometimes make war, though less on the whole than tribes and states.  If I recall (correct me if I am wrong)  the Nuer have a delayed return system  so the fact that they make war would not be entirely surprising.  There is another big factor to consider, and that is the relationships of a group to other societies.  Warlike behaviour may not arise from the internal structures of a group; it may arise from the need to respond to external conditions.  Even immediate return hunter gatherers are known to have developed a warlike culture in circumstances where they are subject to attack or have been predated, often by slave traders and colonial and post colonial states.  And that is especially the case where they are hemmed in by the territorial claims of neighbouring peoples and cannot therefore flee.  I think much of this is the situation with the Nuer.Either of these conditions my therefore apply. 

 Just an  afterthought…. With the Nuer being a tribe – or rather a collection of tribes –  and subject to both inter and intra-tribal violent conflict as well as conflict with neighbouring peoples like the Dinka – I think both these conditions you specify above would apply, Richard.  In other words, there would be both external pressure in the form of the encroachment of outsiders, whether it be Dinka  or some other Nuer tribe ,  as well as internal pressure arising from a developed sense of territoriality cum property  that goes with being a mainly pastoralist society in respect of grazing rights and the ownership of cattle. Simple hunter gatherer bands, as you say, being "immediate return" societies – they could immediately appropriate the fruits of nature wherever they went – had no sense of territoriality and therefore no reason to defend (or enlarge) "their" territory.  The very idea of "their territory" would have been meaningless to an essentially nomadic people.  So they wouldn't have seen any problem with outsiders "intruding" on their traditional hunting grounds.  Indeed, they sometimes collaborate with outsiders in organising joint hunting trips. Always at the back of their minds, one supposes, would be the idea that you can always just move on if localised resources got scarce.  This conflict avoidance mechanism would have operated from the get go – or at least up until the point some 10.000 years ago when the first signs of sedentarisation, agriculture and hence a sense of territoriality began to develop.  It was probably an important factor in the determing the pattern of human migration in prehistoric times out of Africa.  Up until then the human population on planet earth was no more than 15 million at most according to one estimate I came across. Meaning there was more than enough space for everyone to roam around in.  Climate change and widespread environmental scarcities would have been the key variable in bringing about a change in the mode of subsistence In other words, for the vast majority of our time on this planet there was no reason for nomadic groups to go to war with each other. If wars have only occurred recently, along with a sense of territoriality ingrained in an agricultural and pastoralist way of life, this is simply not enough time for war to have been "naturally selected for" as a fundamental human attribute amounting to an evolutionary adaptation In other words, E O Wilson's claim that “war is embedded in our very nature" must be dismissed as bunkum.  One-to-one violence may well have occurred in our prehistoric past but, even with this, there are strong grounds for thinking this would have been relatively subdued due to the deterrent effect of immediate retaliation and because of the awareness of the complete interdependence among group members.  This is to say nothing of the possibility of groups simply fissioning or breaking up should social tensions within the group reach unacceptable levels. However, one-to-one violence is not the same thing as war and the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that what violent deaths did occur within hunter gatherer band  society were the result of the former not the latter….. 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I heard that episode too. He did strongly make the point we do that at work and in the family "communism" prevails. The trouble is he doesn't think society as a whole could operate on this basis.

 This question of  the "scalability"  of communistic relationships seems to be often enough mentioned by those skeptical of the possibility of full communism in our sense – including professional anthropologists like Graeber. How did Graeber go about justifying his skepticism in this instance , Adam? I suppose to some extent it is rooted in the anthropological approach to forms of reciprocity.  There is a useful explanation of this here http://anthro.palomar.edu/economy/econ_3.htm I have always envisaged communism or socialism to be a system of "generalised reciprocity" – or as the article puts it  "gift giving without the expectation of an immediate return"  – as opposed to balanced reciprocity of negative reciprocity..  After all, the voluntaristic nature of work in communism means in a sense that it is a kind of "gift" that we give to society without the expectation  of a return (we dont receive any payment for our work) and in full awareness of the fact that we all depend on each other and benefit from the labour contributions of millions of anonymous others in a world in which production is a globalized and socialised phenomenon.  Voluntary work hangs togther with the idea of free access to the collective fruits of our labour. You cant have one withour the other.I suspect anthropologists, like Graeber, studying small scale face-to-face societies and observing  that the pattern of reciprocity within such societies tends to sometimes differ from that which develops between such societies – trade for instance occurs on the margins of such societies and not internally amongst the individuals constituting such societies – infer from this that when  you are interacting with outsiders or strangers from another society , such individuals cannot really be trusted and that consequently, the nature of your interactions with them must necessarily be different. In other words more impersonal and based on explicit rules of engagement – market trade.  Of course even this is slightlly misleading because trade in this sense did not occur on individual one-to-one basis but rather between groups. But even in small scale societies it doesn't necessarily have to be like this.   According to Richerson et al for instance:The !Kung and the desert people of the Australian interior had elaborate institutions to link people together beyond the bounds of normal kinship. The !Kung, according to Polly Wiessner, used a gift exchange system to cultivate friendships with people in distant bands.Women exchanged fancy beadwork and men arrows. The Central Australians had elaborate “section” systems of extended kinship that classified marriage with all but a few women as incestuous. Men might have travel hundreds of kilometers to find an eligible mate. According to Aram Yengoyan and Wiessner the effect of these institutions was to ensure that every family had friends and inlaws scattered everywhere.When subsistence or political problems occurred, people could seek aid from any of a number of kin or friends in a number of different environments (Peter J. Richerson, Monique Borgerhoff  Mulder, and Bryan J. Vila, 1996. Principles of Human Ecology. Pearson      Custom Publishing, Part II, ch 3).    Whereas a gift economy unites people and cements social relationships, a market economy atomises people and places them in position where they confront each other with antagonistic interests as buyers and sellers In any event, this is quite an important subject – this question of the "scalability" of a communist or socialist society – and it would be good to see more attention being focused on it in order to be able to answer the skepticism of people like Graeber….. 

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

Hi Robin, this will have to be a very short answer (for me), as I am in the last stages of preparing for my holiday.  It is nearly thirty years since I read Evans Pritchard so I don't recall much about the Nuer, but here are some things to consider.  You can tell me if they fit what you know about them.  Egalitarianism seems to be  closely related to and consequent on the way in which societies obtain their means of life.  It is principally found among hunter gatherers, both immediate and delayed return, though it does extend to some pastoralists and herders and even some horticulturalists where finely balanced factors may tip them either way.  It needs to be noted, however, that delayed return hunter gatherers, although they generally retain a largely egalitarian structure including the use of demand sharing, do tend to have some status relations and sometimes chiefs.  Structurally induced warfare on the other hand seems to be related primarily to delayed return systems and so includes states, tribes and delayed return hunter gatherers.  In other words delayed return hunter gatherers do sometimes make war, though less on the whole than tribes and states.  If I recall (correct me if I am wrong)  the Nuer have a delayed return system  so the fact that they make war would not be entirely surprising.   

 Hi Richard,Like you, its a long time since I read Evans Pritchard's book on the Nuer but I still possess a copy which has been well thumbed and scribbled through (as is my habit).  EP describes the Nuer as essentially pastoralists but also "fishermen and gardeners".  So, yes, a mix of immediate and delayed return, I guess.  They are also to some extent nomadic, living in temporary villages and their social structure in EPs view, is heavily influenced by their physical environment,  They are divided into tribes which are in turn divided into territorial or tribal segments and they have no "centralised administration" . The only functional figures that stand out but have little power are the leopard skin chief and the prophet. Some points about Nuer violence.  According to EP intertribal fighting among the Nuer is generally fiercer than fighting with the neighbouring Dinka but is however governed by certain conventions – woman and children  were not molested, huts and byres were not destroyed and captives were not taken. Within the  tribe itself,  fighting among sections such as within a village itself tended to be carried using clubs rather than spears to minimise the risk of death and hence  blood feuds erupting  – quite an interesting point I thought. A brief quote from EP to give a flavour of the Nuer The ordered anarchy in which they live accords well with their character for it is impossible to live among the Nuer and conceive of rulers ruling over them. The Nuer is a product of hard and egalitarian upbringing, is deeply democratic and is easily roused to violence.  His turbulent spirit finds any restraint irksome and no man recognises a superior. Wealth makes no difference. A man with many cattle is envied but not treated differentl;y from a man with few cattle. You say also  that "There is another big factor to consider, and that is the relationships of a group to other societies" In the case of the Nuer it is (or was) mainly the Dinka who I think (I'm just giving the book a very quick skim!) are to all intents and purposes more of less identical to the Nuer. Indeed it is possible for individual Nuer tribesmen to have descended from the Dinka though they wont thank you for pointing that out and will probably club you according to EP!That very crudely is a basic summary of the Nuer and I'm wondering how these brief facts fit in with the model of violence you have put forward.  There are some things that accord with that model like the link between delayed return economies and violence chiefly because of the association of violence  with territoriality and border defence.  Other aspects of the Nuer Society I'm not quite sure of .  EPs claim that they are highly egalitarian and deeply democratic are a bit difficult to square with their apparent proneness to violence.Anyway have a great holiday and maybe take EP's book as part of your holiday reading material to ponder upon. I'm sure we will renew the discussion when you return

[robbo203]

Hi Richard, Just a quick point of clarification – on the distinction between complex HG societies and tribal societies… I take your point about hunter gatherer specialists tending to keep these terms separate and apart.  Tribes as you say are "generally clan-based, patrilineal, status societies, of relatively recent origin, and they are almost invariably horticulturalists, drovers or pastoralists"  They also tend to be chiefdoms and although chiefs are also to be found among complex HG societies, they tend not to be formalised status-based positions.  There is a degree of social hierarchy and inequality in complex HG societies but it tends to be muted. Here's the problem though.  I recall reading Evan Pritchards, "The Nuer" quite a few years ago.  The Nuer are clearly a tribe in the above sense but they don't have chiefs. In fact if I remember correctly there is only somebody called the "leopard skin man" who arbitrates between individuals but has no special power  vested in him. The Nuer are highly egalitarian – what you call "extreme individualists" (which I personally think is a misleading term because "individualism" is not the same as "individuality" or "individuation" but never mind). However the Nuer are also clearly warlike and engage in wars with the neighbouring Dinka. This is not just the case back in the days when Evans Pritchard was doing his fieldwork but can be seen also today in the new state of Southern Sudan which I believe is still in the throes of civil war.  It is this combination of a highly egalitarian society and a proneness intergroup conflict that I find somewhat disturbing.  It kind of clashes with the thesis that in a society characterised by – to use your term – extreme " individualism", it is much more difficult  to organise and motivate intergroup conflict.  Of course , against that there is the fact that among the Nuer the principle of territoriality would prevail which would not be the case with a simple hunter gather band society. But all the same it is a bit of theoretical puzzle. By the way I'm curious about this distinction between complex hunter gatherers  and simple hunter gatherers. How and why did the former come about  and, also, when and where?  As I understand it complex HG groups are a peculiarity of particular resource=rich regions  which means that they tend to be more sedentary and large scale.  They don't need to move around to the extent that simple HG groups do becuase of the loicalised abundance of resoruces and this has implications for their social structure. Thoughts?….

[robbo203]

For anyone who is interested in this subject of early human "warfare" (and its alleged implications for "human nature") there is a whole bunch of fascinating articles I came across on Brian Ferguson's "profile page" at the Rutgers University web site.  Just scroll down to his list of publications near the bottom of the pagehttp://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/r-brian-ferguson

[Author]

Posts