Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That individualism can also manifest as indifference: I've herad someone mention that some huinter gatherers have been known to just watch someone drowning.
1) We do share the same biology. That is the basic fact.2) The common ground of humanity is a necessary component of understanding the difference in circumstance.3) There is no such thing as the masses, there are only concrete subjects in concrete circumstances.Or, put another way:
Quote Bomb wrote:The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature.Thus, hunter gatherer bands of a specific type (the immediate gratification kind) tend towards small mobile groups, with limited possessions, wherein individual humans can wander off and join other bands, and in which no material bonds are formed other than direct exposure to nature.There is more than this, but that is the rock bottom.
I'm going to regret this: but isn't ideology intrinsic (inherent) in the utterence? i.e. don't we address ideology by dealing with the expressed ideas, rather than seeking an additional text in the formal account of the utterances conditions?
You know, I'd have thought the a description of people wandering from site to site and wandering from band to band, and the concommittant requirement to not have too much by way material goods was a description of a material process of production.As it is, I've just been pointing up information that might help discussion.
robbo203,Bit of hunting about and I think I've found the title of the book I saw:
Quote:Violence and warfare among hunter-gatherers / Mark W. Allen, Terry L. Jones, editors. Walnut Creek, California : Left Coast Press, [2014] Allen, Mark W., editor. 9781611329391 hardbackCan't find any reviews. This is the blurb:
Quote:How did warfare originate? Was it human genetics? Social competition? The rise of complexity? Intensive study of the long-term hunter-gatherer past brings us closer to an answer. The original chapters in this volume examine cultural areas on five continents where there is archaeological, ethnographic, and historical evidence for hunter-gatherer conflict despite high degrees of mobility, small populations, and relatively egalitarian social structures. Their controversial conclusions will elicit interest among anthropologists, archaeologists, and those in conflict studies.And the table of contents is here: http://www.lcoastpress.com/book_toc.php?id=486 Public libraries should be able to supply if you don't fancy shelling out eighty dollars….
I've not read it through, but in the search for freely available texts:http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_125.pdf
Quote:Hunter-gatherers are highly mobile, not just in the sense of whole bandsmoving from place to place but also in the sense of individuals and familiesmoving from band to band. Bands are not permanent structures with fixedmemberships. Everyone has friends and relatives in other bands who wouldwelcome them in. Because of this, and because they are not encumbered byproperty, individuals may move at a moment’s notice from one band to another.People move from band to band for marriage, but they also move to get awayfrom conflicts or simply because they are more attracted to the people or theprocedures that exist in another band. Disgruntled groups of people withinany band may also, at any time, leave the original band and start a new one.Thus, the decision to belong to any given band is always a person’s choice.The freedom of band members to leave sets the stage for the other playlike qualities of hunter-gatherer life.His source for this is Hunters and Gatherers, Volume 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change, ed. Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn (1988) Happy, erm, hunting.
Robin,as I say, it was a flick through. Certainly it was dealt with contemporary hunter gatherers (it was a collection of essays, and I just scanned the conclusion). But, as I said, sometimes the definition is key "systematic" violence is different from "socially sanctioned violence". Obviously, systems don't leave archaeological evidence (especially in warfare between two hunting bands, say), also, hunter gatherer warfare, from things I read, suggest ambush and slaughter would be preferred to a stand up fight.The problem is, we do, I believe, know that the principle of 'substitutability' comes fairly early in the expansion of communities beyond isolated family groups (i.e. you kill my nephew, so I consider it fair play to kill your cousin in revenge). Also the doctrine of 'we were here first' would suggest that being prepared to chase of interlopers.So, while I wouldn't expect two large groups to confront each other, I wouldn't be surprised if groups of hunters went after strays and stragglers from nearby groups when they could.
I've lost the reference, a book recently came across my desk looking at early warfare. The conclusion (all I had time to look at) was that if you defien war as "socially sanctioned violence against another polity" (I think that was teh formula) then war has always been with us, including among hunter gatherers, however, if you don't take on that definition, and become stricter in your definition of war, then it hasn't been.
SP,my ability to screen information is context dependent. The channel limitations of an online forum mean it takes considerable time to decide whether to ignore a post, whereas in real life I have sight (and smell, etc.) in order to decide whether I want to listen to a person. BY coming to this forum, I have made a series of decisions regarding filtering of information, and the content I expect here.I do deny that pre-moderation is censorship, in fact I maintain it is the very opposite, and much better than simply silencing someone. It *could* be used for censorship, but I have confidence in the robust procedures we have in place to prevent that.Deliberate disruption is a form of censorship, but some people create noise inadvertently, as we have seen, some people just do not know how to behave on online forums, and create a lot of posts about themselves, and we need ways to help them get their ideas across without simply shutting the door on them.Our responses cannot be abstract and 'rule driven' but need to be made on a case by case basis tailored for each individual and their communication and information needs.
A couple of aspects.
Article four of the European Convention of Human rights wrote:Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent Statesfrom requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprisesand
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.I've bolded a few words, to highlight an important aspect, which is the right to receive information. This, in part, covers what I mean by maintaining channel clarity. If someone is shouting at a public meeting, or sending spam to a forum, we have to screen that out. Now, at, say, Speakers Corner, I just walk away from a platform I don't like, or tune out a speaker, and concentrate on theone I want to hear. On the internet I might us Google alerts. Here on the forum, I rely on myself and editors, who might screen some of the noise and let some of it through.I find it had to believe that some individuals here would infring my rights to receive information, rather than allow a moderator to use the moderation facility to check posts from suspect/possibly disruptive sources for useful information, and censor people by silencing them.
Vin wrote:Forum discussions do not resemble public/party meetings. A moderator is not a chairperson. He/she is appointed annually..You can't move a motion 'That the chairperson be removed' for example, as you can with branch meetings. Nor could the mover of such a motion be warned for being drunk, abusive or disruptive as is the case with forums and moderators. The comparison in nonsensical to say the least.You couldn't move such a motion at a public meeting, the chair person being appointed by the branch at a previous business meeting; howeverm, as it stands, a branch could send a motion to the EC, or, in extremis, a complaint to the moderator's own branch. The IC can remove moderators. There is accountability.That online fora are different to face to face meetings is obvious. That doesn't make the necessary moderation any less democratic.
SocialistPunk wrote:Looks like I'm having to go through it again.Ok, so the Socialist Standard has limited space for letters, meaning editorial decisions need to be taken. Articles or letters? Tough one there.So you accept that different media, and different communication channels demand different conditions on the manner of expression?
SocialistPunk wrote:At a physical meeting you could find yourself removed for disruption, likewise on the forum via the system of reminders, warnings and suspensions. So there is no difference there. I don't see the problem with removing people who are disruptive. And it's a pretty poor argument to say they are being censored, as by that defintion there would be many a censored individual cooling off in police cells come the weekend.Not all disrupters are drunks, some are sincere opponents of the meeting's aims
SocialistPunk wrote:Imagine the scenario at a physical meeting whereby all contributions had to be heard by the chairperson before the audience could hear them, with any "unsuitable" bits disallowed".That would be difficult to organise in a live environment. But, lets say it was a very busy meeting, and contributors were asked to pass a note to the chair asking to speak, and saying what they would generally say. The chair could decide in such circumstances to not choose to call off-topic speakers, those whose contribution may be abusive, disruptive, etc. That, again, would not be censorship, but maintaining channel clarity. So long as democratic methods for redress existed (again, which did not clog up nor disrupt the meeting) that would be fine.The point is, on the internet, people can go and spot their opinions elsewhere if they want, freedom of speech doesn't mean they have to do it here, or that we have to give bandwidth over to them.There is no embarrasment here.
Of course, there is method behind the crisis:http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31438699Factories in Apple's supply chain have been exploiting bonded labour.
Quote:Bonded servitude or labour sees new workers charged a fee – sometimes equivalent to a month's salary or more – for being introduced to a factory, typically by third-party recruiters.It means many employees will begin work in debt. Some have their passports confiscated.A BBC Panorama programme investigation last year highlighted the poor treatment of workers in Chinese factories.Of ocurse, the story is that Apple have 'banned' the practice. But hark, what are their new enlightened terms:
Quote:It said that it had tracked more than 1.1 million workers on average per week in 2014 and that suppliers had achieved 92% compliance with its 60-hour maximum working week.Anyone fancy a 60-hour week? Also
Quote:Last year suppliers repaid $3.96m (£2.57m) in excess fees to more than 4,500 foreign contractors, according to the audit.Did Apple bear the cost of that repayment? And how many millions from previous years has Apple held onto? It appears that Apple is now basking in teh halo of new reports that they genuinely have stopped beating their wife. Well done for stopping beating your wife, Apple.
ALB wrote:Maybe because there will be no "workers" in socialism as all classes, including the working class, will have been abolished.Better yet: work might be abolished, and we can leave it all to the robots.
