Can one be a misanthrope and a socialist?

[Lodestar]

I'm just curious...As much as I feel motivated towards belief in socialism out of compassion, as well as evidence and reason...Can a misanthrope also be a socialist?

What's the Marxist understanding of misanthropy?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there is a conflict there. I would define a misanthrope as someone who thinks that social problems come out of basic failings in people... people are too greedy, too envious, too dumb, too apathetic etc.

I'm a humanist and a materialist and a marxist, so to me problems in society come from problems in the structure of society. If people are greedy in capitalism, it isn't because it's human nature or the biblical fall of man, it's because most people are faced with unnecessary shortages of things they need and want. If people are apathetic in capitalism it has more to do with people being alienated and discouraged in believing they can control the things in their life.

I honestly don't understand misanthropy because generally misanthropes exclude themselves from their judgement on the rest of society. "People are too dumb" is one I hear a lot... "well everyone buy me is dumb" is the actual meaning.

[Lodestar]

I think there is a conflict there. I would define a misanthrope as someone who thinks that social problems come out of basic failings in people... people are too greedy, too envious, too dumb, too apathetic etc.

I'm a humanist and a materialist and a marxist, so to me problems in society come from problems in the structure of society. If people are greedy in capitalism, it isn't because it's human nature or the biblical fall of man, it's because most people are faced with unnecessary shortages of things they need and want. If people are apathetic in capitalism it has more to do with people being alienated and discouraged in believing they can control the things in their life.

I honestly don't understand misanthropy because generally misanthropes exclude themselves from their judgement on the rest of society. "People are too dumb" is one I hear a lot... "well everyone buy me is dumb" is the actual meaning.

What about simply a revulsion for the human species, and not necessarily a belief that one is "better than others" but merely that the current order of things (capitalism, commodity fetishism, false consciousness, etc.) have alienated man to such the extent that he's become more or less a contemptible being drowning in a cesspool of his own hopeless delusion and stupidity?

I'm a Marxist, Materialist, and Humanist myself...

[yuon]

I can't see how you can't hate humans, but still want a decent society to live in (i.e. socialism of some description).

So, you can be a misanthrope and a socialist.

Indeed, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy) says that "Misanthropes can hold normal and intimate relationships with people".

[Anaximander]

There was a quote in Brothers Karamazov that went something a long the lines of:

"I can hardly stand the company of another for long without feeling hatred and revulsion, yet I would willingly go to the cross for humanity whole."

My memory is poor, so that is probably way off as far as wording goes. I think that sums up my feelings pretty well. Humans can be and indeed are often contemptible, greedy, apathetic, ugly inside and out. But upon considering the happy chance we live and are able to transcend our specific conditions by conceptualizing ourselves as part of a greater abstract humanity, I cannot help but feel love for others. I wish to see humanity become something able to live with itself. The only way to do that is through community, and therefore, I cannot reject the individual human, regardless of his obvious faults. Consider me a trans-humanist.

Anyway, that is only my take.

[Parker]

Someone once asked Marx if socialism meant a brotherhood of man. Marx is said to have replied that there are plenty of men whom he didn't want for a brother.

[Anaximander]

^^^
We share the same name!

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

The problem I have with misanthropy is that while it's advocates call themselves materialists, they tend to believe in a preset human nature that has humanity being innate greedy,sadistic,lazy,stupid and generally self destructing instead of understanding that human nature is a very flexible thing,shaped by the circumstances and mostly the society.

Other than that if you mean that you hate how the way humanity is in our current age, as in how is the general consciousness and social morals working then I guess that everyone on this site is a misanthrope :)

[Parker]

Anaximander wrote:


We share the same name!

:cool:

[proudcomrade]

One can feel misanthropy as an emotion, or embrace it as a philosophy, yet still practice socialism out of a sense of moral duty that transcends his or her own individual position and recognizes the needs and well-being of the people that our misanthrope despises on a personal level. That is, a person can feel contempt, even hatred, for others, yet actively work for their good; although it may seem like a profound disconnect, it is not necessarily so. Perhaps the misanthrope recognizes the shortcomings in his or her own position, and wishes to remedy them, atone for them, or simply fulfill a duty grudgingly.

I might not be making sense today. I did not get much sleep last night.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think it's possible, i think people are socialists for largely selfish as well as collective interests, ie. Self preservation.

Id say im fairly misanthropic, but thats probably more a hang up of the fact that i work in the customer service industry and hate having to deal with the general public. Especially toffs though.

[Vanguard1917]

Someone who sees in the majority of humanity the potential to change the world for the better cannot be a misanthrope. Like Gravedigger said, there certainly is a conflict there.

[Glenn Beck]

What's the Marxist understanding of misanthropy?

A perspective born out of an advanced degree of social alienation and thus marked by bourgeois ideology, but possible to overcome.

[thesmokingfrog]

I have a friend who is both a die-hard marxist and a heartless motherfucker. I'd say it as possible as being both a christian and a cruel bigot

[Lodestar]

I have a friend who is both a die-hard marxist and a heartless motherfucker. I'd say it as possible as being both a christian and a cruel bigot

A little off-topic, but what do you mean by "heartless"?

I generally agree with most posters here, man's present state of misery and depravity is not one that we are naturally inclined to, nor one that we are immutably set to become; it's a product of our circumstance, and the system in which we have been reared.

I wouldn't say I'm a misanthrope myself, as much as simply a grouch with a soft-heart (or something like that...I am generally motivated by compassion and empathy) that feels we can do better as a species...

Thanks for the input...

[NecroCommie]

It's OK as long as you recognize that it is not any biological predetermination that makes people stupid but culture and bourgeois state. You also have to identify your own flaws and understand you are no better. But then, if previous prerequisites are met, are you truly a misanthrope?

I personally have tough time believing in humans when I live in the western world. Perhaps a pure coincidence, or an illusion created by etiquette, I have had more positive experiences with people from other cultures. If there is something "wrong" in a human, it is not due to the human itself but due to the enviroment in which that human has grown.

[New Tet]

A little off-topic, but what do you mean by "heartless"?

I generally agree with most posters here, man's present state of misery and depravity is not one that we are naturally inclined to, nor one that we are immutably set to become; it's a product of our circumstance, and the system in which we have been reared.

I wouldn't say I'm a misanthrope myself, as much as simply a grouch with a soft-heart (or something like that...I am generally motivated by compassion and empathy) that feels we can do better as a species...

Thanks for the input...

As I understand it, a misanthrope is a "hater of men". That is, someone who detests humanity in general and people in particular.

I suppose a misanthrope is an incorrigible cynic, a pessimist; Someone who cannot love others because he has lost faith in his own capacity to bring about positive and edifying results from his own personal interaction with other human beings.

Marx touched upon it somewhat in his discussion of alienation. Erich Fromm covers it almost as thoroughly as is humanly possible.

[TC]

There are plenty of reasons for wanting socialism apart from empathetic compassion: you might want it for self interest (i'd certainly prefer to live in a socialist society), because you object to exploitation and find it undesirable, because socialism is, all things being equal, more economically efficient and productive, etc.

[Lyev]

I wouldn't really say I'm exactly a people person. Increasingly I'm finding I don't at all look forward to meeting new people because, I've found, a lot of people are vacuous twats with such indoctrinated, dogmatic, wanky opinions. Maybe I am a bit misanthropic; but for the sake of Marxism I'm willing to put my disdain for people to the side. Do you get my drift?

[al8]

Well, I would say yes. You don't need to like your fellow potential revolutionary agents, be it individually or collectively, all that much for what they are now, but more importantly like them for what they can become.
You only have to be able to engage with people from where they are at. Grumbling has its place, but having a practical task oriented approach and a spirit of problem solving is what does it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is humanity the root of the problem (if so, there's not much we can do to change things) or is it the social structures in man-made society (which are definitely malleable)?

I think there may be some different ideas about what people mean by misanthrope. For example, there are plenty of people I detest - plenty of things I see every day and think: god how can people be so stupid. Trust me I'm familiar with customer service which is the fastest way to develop a loathing for everyone. That to me is not necessarily misanthropy.

While I hate many things people do in modern society, I still believe that with decent education; free of material needs and many wants; free of inequality; free of competition (the cause of 90% of the asshole-ish behavior in modern society); and with democratic control over work and government and our own lives, humanity can construct a better more humane society where the asshole levels are down considerably. Just abolishing the cops would take care of a big chunk by itself.

To me, a true philosophical or ideological (?) misanthrope would be someone who would think a better society is not possible because ultimately people are the source of the problem not societal conditions.

[Mo212]

To me, a true philosophical or ideological (?) misanthrope would be someone who would think a better society is not possible because ultimately people are the source of the problem not societal conditions.

But that is why slavery, racism, religion has survived and done so much damage because you can't get rid of (kill off) that certain segment of the population... The state of the world is the result of each individual acting in a certain way, if you eliminate those individuals that act in a negative way you create a better world.

So having a healthy dose of misanthropy is a sign real intelligence. Think about this:

Mankind has had the ability to know the consequences of it's actions for many millenia, yet still engages in all sorts of worthless endeavors. No amount of education can fix things like discrimination.

Since the source of all wrongdoing comes from our ability to become part of a group or leave people out of our group and engage in certain acts with or against others.

People have animal desires and not all those animal desires can be fulfilled, therefore leading to conflict because each individuals animal desires are constantly in conflict within itself and with others.

Mankind's record of civilization is pretty bad, I have no doubt artifiical intelligence or a hybrid combination of the two will supercede the primitive minds of mankind. We already have the capacity for a peaceful world its' the members of this world who don't really want it, think about this: If you could replicate yourself into billion copy of yourself, with your values, you could create a peaceful world since there would one consciousness (your own).

The real problem is having human autonomy, too much diversity of people who don't value higher principles and who are ignorant. The problem with commmunism IMHO, is that it wants bourgoise individualism and freedom but it neglects that people divide themselves into groups hostile to one another over time.

Human beings don't really believe in unity because they'll exclude others from groups from having different values, behaviours and sexual mores.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But that is why slavery, racism, religion has survived and done so much damage because you can't get rid of (kill off) that certain segment of the population... The state of the world is the result of each individual acting in a certain way, if you eliminate those individuals that act in a negative way you create a better world.No one was born to be a bigot or believe fucked-up things that hurt other people, ancient pre-agrarian people didn't occupy neighboring villages and take their land because they would have no concept or need for land-ownership; they may have raided other people when food was scarce or war over hunting or fishing territory. Greeks and Romans didn't enslave people because of skin color, they enslaved people they captured during war but they could care less about race and had different ideas of what "races" actually were.

So in other words, war and bigotry and all the rest are not programed into humans, they result from material conditions (needing food, wanting land to expand crops, a ruling class coveting new markets or trade routes and so on).

Getting rid of individuals but leaving the systems that created the "ills" in the first place doesn't do a thing to solve the problem.


Mankind has had the ability to know the consequences of it's actions for many millenia, yet still engages in all sorts of worthless endeavors. No amount of education can fix things like discrimination. Mankind is not uniform - discrimination exists because it is in the interests of ruling classes to keep the population divided. Additionally in capitalism, individuals and groups of workers are forced into competition and this creates tensions: blacks in the US were used as scabs to break strikes, native workers are told to blame immigrants for lack of jobs or poor social services, the ruling class promotes female labor when needed during WWII but then pushes women out and promotes ideas about work being unwomanly (and women being bad at work... you go from Rosie the riveter in the 40s to Lucy Ball the total on-the-job fuck-up 10 years later).

It's true that simple education is not enough to get rid of these problems... this is why to get meaningful reforms, class struggle and struggle of the oppressed is needed but ultimately we have to get rid of the whole damn system that promotes rule by the few while the rest of us fight with eachother for crumbs.


Since the source of all wrongdoing comes from our ability to become part of a group or leave people out of our group and engage in certain acts with or against others.

People have animal desires and not all those animal desires can be fulfilled, therefore leading to conflict because each individuals animal desires are constantly in conflict within itself and with others.Sorry, but this is standard post-modern malarkey. I can be in whatever group I want but since I do not own productive property (or any property) I have to work for a living and that means that no matter how I choose to define myself, I am a worker and in order to live I must make wages. Fulfilling my "animal" desires for food shelter and clothing depends on my bosses... that is the main conflict in my life and the source of most of the other conflicts in my life (with landloards, cops, courts etc)


Mankind's record of civilization is pretty bad, I have no doubt artifiical intelligence or a hybrid combination of the two will supercede the primitive minds of mankind. We already have the capacity for a peaceful world its' the members of this world who don't really want it,I think most people want a peaceful world... maybe you get to decide police and military policy in your region, but no one I know gets to decide these things. Again, was in Iraq or WWII or whatever were not because 50,000 americans independantly got angry at everyone in another country, these conflicts come out of the desire by a small minority of people to shape the world in their interests... this is why this minority of rulers spends so much time, money and effort convincing people that "national" or "business" interests are the same for everyone in the nation; this is why they use so much propaganda; this is why even "democracies" have totally unelected and unaccountable military and police forces.


think about this: If you could replicate yourself into billion copy of yourself, with your values, you could create a peaceful world since there would one consciousness (your own).WTF? This is so abstract I don't even know if I should respond. First, people are always changing so even if there were 1,000,000 of me as soon as they began having different experiences they would change and no longer be just like me. Second, how boring would that be? I think a world where many different individuals can pool their knowledge, varying skills, imaginations, together cooperatively would be much better and would advance much further than one where everyone thought alike. Third, I'm always at war with myself anyway.


The real problem is having human autonomy, too much diversity of people who don't value higher principles and who are ignorant. The problem with commmunism IMHO, is that it wants bourgoise individualism and freedom but it neglects that people divide themselves into groups hostile to one another over time. If people had democratic control over their own lives and worked together without the individual competition of capitalism then I'm sure that some future version of punk rockers would still hate some future version of goths or what have you, but this does not cause wars or problems in society, this causes fanclubs and high school cliques.

I am not interested in bourgeois individualism, I am interested in the liberation of the individual from the dictatorship of capital and our bosses. How much of an individual can I really be in bourgeois society when I have to work for a set number of hours a day doing things that do not enrich my life or make life better for others except for the people who make profit from my efforts. When people do not have to fight eachother for jobs, don't have to abide by the desires of the establishment in order to have a decent place to live and food to eat, when we all get to have a say in how society is run, then individuals are really free and able to follow their own interests and spend most of their time doing what they want to do.

[Rise Above]

I suppose it all depends on your definition of "misanthrope." I mean, I'm a socialist and have referred to myself as a misanthrope a number of times; not because I hate people, it's a classier way of saying "hermit."

[Mo212]

No one was born to be a bigot or believe fucked-up things that hurt other people, ancient pre-agrarian people didn't occupy neighboring villages and take their land because they would have no concept or need for land-ownership;

This is 100% bullshit you need to go study some anthropology, the further one goes back in time the more violence there is. Stephen Pinker did a lecture on it on TED saying violence (comparitively speaking) is slowly decreasing (but obviously still there).



So in other words, war and bigotry and all the rest are not programed into humans, they result from material conditions (needing food, wanting land to expand crops, a ruling class coveting new markets or trade routes and so on).

Lies... kids tease fat kids without having to be taught and many of them become adults and still do it. Attractive women discriminate against ugly guys all the time.



Getting rid of individuals but leaving the systems that created the "ills" in the first place doesn't do a thing to solve the problem.

The system is the people, if you had divine moral beings running a capitalist society they would optimize the rate of profit vs the rate of what they paid out andwould socialiize the basics like food, housing, electricity via taxes.


Mankind is not uniform - discrimination exists because it is in the interests of ruling classes to keep the population divided.

I agree mankind is not uniform, I disagree discrimination exists as something merely pushed by media or higher ups, discrimination exists because the seeds of it are already there in all human beings just waiting to be exploited.


Additionally in capitalism, individuals and groups of workers are forced into competition and this creates tensions:

I agree but you forget people are naturally territorial, if they are so oppressed why don't they just form communes and setup their own means of production? i.e. like the amish? No one is stopping the formation of a communist/socialist society, why can't they just move to somewhere remote, delcare themselves their own nation amd will not have to subject themselves to capitalism. Capitalism, money, property, only exist within a sphere of influence of a geographic bit of land the physical world, so if why hasn't anybody done it?


It's true that simple education is not enough to get rid of these problems... this is why to get meaningful reforms, class struggle and struggle of the oppressed is needed but ultimately we have to get rid of the whole damn system that promotes rule by the few while the rest of us fight with eachother for crumbs.

But what is class struggle? So say people revolted and they killed all the capitalists tomorrow, what does your society look like, does it use money, what are it's characteristics, how does it function?


Sorry, but this is standard post-modern malarkey. I can be in whatever group I want but since I do not own productive property (or any property) I have to work for a living and that means that no matter how I choose to define myself, I am a worker and in order to live I must make wages.

Except no one is forcing you to live in capitalist society, you can go find a piece of land and till/farm the land and give the big evil capitalist society the middle finger in complete freedom. The thing I hate most about the left is that it has a choice to go setup shop somewhere else but they want to kill and take over other peoples property, why not just go find like minded people and build your own means of production? Sure it might take a while to get off the ground but it's not like anyone is forcing you to stay in capitalist society.


Fulfilling my "animal" desires for food shelter and clothing depends on my bosses... that is the main conflict in my life and the source of most of the other conflicts in my life (with landloards, cops, courts etc)

But no one is forcing you to go to work for your bosses you do have options (go find a piece of land and start your own society with likeminded people - i.e. like the amish), move to venezeula and join their revolution, etc.


I think most people want a peaceful world...

We don't else we would destroy and/or shut down the economy and go disrupt the corporations and manufacturing plants making such weapons. We are not serious about a peaceful world if we don't really put our lives on the line for it, and want to "reform", you can't sit in fear and hope and pray that maybe one day your grandchildren willl reform war away.



WTF? This is so abstract I don't even know if I should respond. First, people are always changing so even if there were 1,000,000 of me as soon as they began having different experiences they would change and no longer be just like me.

You're missing the point in my example I'm talking about shared consciousness, i.e. all those copies of you sharing your mind


Second, how boring would that be?

Boring is not an argument, I was using the example that in order to create a stable society you have to have people that are similar enough so that everyone doesn't go their own seperate way and society breaks down because of disagreement. Societies and nations exist because people naturally disassociate from one another who are too dissimilar to themselves in their beliefs, customs, and behaviour, this has very little to do with the ruling class. Tribalilsm, tribal warfare, religious shamanism pre dates captialism by a landslide.

[qoute]I think a world where many different individuals can pool their knowledge, varying skills, imaginations, together cooperatively would be much better and would advance much further than one where everyone thought alike. Third, I'm always at war with myself anyway.[/quote]

Except this is a red herring, they don't have to think exactly alike, you've misunderstood what I mean. They have to share the same overall beliefs but also live those beliefs, i.e. look at something like christianity, the real genuine christians obey jesus (live their teachings, not just say they beleive them) of the new testament, this does not limit their diversity of entertaining thoughts but it does constrain them from behaving in certain ways and indulging themselves excessively to the detriment of the social groups and societies to which they belong.


If people had democratic control over their own lives and worked together

People do have democratic control over their own lives, they just don't have democratic control over other peoples property. You and all other people on the left could go settle the north and get away from capitalist society no one is stopping you. But what the left wants the easy way out, i.e. kill those who have power of ownership over societies current productive facilities within a society where a large portion of the people support the system itself, rather then finding someplace else and making their own means of production.


I am not interested in bourgeois individualism,

Yes you may not be but most people I've met on the left certainly have materialistic outlooks, i.e. they talk of travelling, having lots of free time, etc, etc. Just who is taking care of the reponsibilities in society I wonder if everyone on the left that I have had contact with is doing this?


I am interested in the liberation of the individual from the dictatorship of capital and our bosses.

But exactly what would change? what do you mean by "liberation", is it a moneyless society? Who decides who gets what scarce goods?


When people do not have to fight eachother for jobs, don't have to abide by the desires of the establishment in order to have a decent place to live and food to eat, when we all get to have a say in how society is run, then individuals are really free and able to follow their own interests and spend most of their time doing what they want to do.

And this is the problem - society requires constant maintence and shipping of goods back and forth 24/7, if everyone's doing what they want to do then many things in capitalist society that we take for granted cannot be maintained in a sustainable way since some aspects require 24/7 work which you cannot simply divide up evenly between people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Mo212, well you've done a good job of illustrating just how misanthropy and socialism are incompatible. I don't know if you are just repeating the post-modern arguments you've heard from professors or what, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

1. I have studied anthropology and I don't know what you are smoking if you think that society is getting less violent - the 20th century was the most destructive and violent century on record thanks to mechanized warfare and a couple of head-on collisions between imperialist powers.
2. Any first-year anthro major could tell you that saying "society is more violent in the past" is completely illogical. What society are you talking about; what qualifies as more or less violent - number of deaths, repression, number of battles, tons of explosives? Some Native Americans had warfare with few casualties because deaths would have hurt production in some small communities. At the same time, other Native Americans were more violent and at the same time some societies in Europe were going through an inquisition.


Attractive women discriminate against ugly guys all the time.HA! You mean by choosing not to date someone they don't want to date? That's hardly the same a systematic structural opression such as Jim Crow laws, DOMA, redlining and so on. Sorry to tell you, but in a worker-run society without the systematic opression of groups, little men will not be able to date women who don't want to date them (and vica versa). In fact it will be worse because all relationships will be mutual and so if someone is married to someone else and the marriage goes sour, they can leave without worrying about loosing a place to live or the ability to provide for themselves. Unlike now where people say in loveless relationships for the sake of not loosing their appartment of not being able to pay a morgatge on one salery alone.


Societies and nations exist because people naturally disassociate from one another who are toodissimilar to themselves in their beliefs, customs, and behaviour, this has very little to do with the ruling class tribalilsm, tribal warfare, religious shamanism pre dates captialism by a landslide.So why am I in the same nationa and society as Bill Gates and Glenn Beck? Are their interests the same as mine? So 17th century French pesants were just like Louis the 14th? Or did a French peasant and an Prussian peasant actually have more in common with eachother - worries about the same things, felt similar ways about their respective landloards?


People do have democratic control over their own lives, they just don't have democratic control over other peoples property,You mean like the public ariwaves... wait, the US government gave that to corporations.


you and all other people on the left could go settle the north and get away from capitalist society no one is stopping you. But what the left wants the easy way out, i.e. kill those who have power of ownership over societies current productive facilities within a society where a large portion of the people support the system itself.You're a nazi right? Your talk of tribablism and people separating into similar groups; the nation is just a bunch of people who share the same values. You think the left should model ourselves on the nazis that want to create an all-white country in the Pacific Northwest? Funny I thought you were a post-modernist, but I guess you could be a nazi. If you're not, I'm sorry for the speculation... nazis sometime come here and pretend not to be nazis so they can debate us. Maybe it's you're obsession with killing people you don't agree with (or assuming that revolution means killing all the rich people) that make me think you just might be a nazi. Anyway, you clearly are not familiar with the Left because you have quite a warped view of our politics and tactics. I have no interest in killing anyone who isn't activly trying to kill me, I don't want to force any workers into some top-down socialism... revolution can not bring about socialism if it is not done consiously by a large portion of the working class in their own interests.


Yes may not be but most people I've met on the left certainly have materialistic outlooks, i.e. they talk of travelling, having lots of free time, etc, etc. Just who is taking care of the reponsibilities in society I wonder if everyone on the left that I have had contact with is doing this?You know how when there is overproduction in capitalism, the economy fails and workers are laid-off: this is because profit can not be made, production could still go on, people still need things, but it's just not profitable enough. I think if workers ran production democratically on a societal level then instead of laying-off people, you could keep the same number of people but reduce everyone's hours... since you are able to produce enough to meet the demand. It's materialism, if production was done for use rather than profit and decided on by workers then the goal would not be to gain profits so you could capture the market and put other similar companies out of work (competition) the compelling factors would be how do you produce what is needed while making it as easy on yourself as possible. If there was a revolution tomorrow I think we could probably cut average working hours in half, have full employment and produce at the same level as we do now. Additionally there are som many worthless jobs that add nothing of value for society other than move some profit from one company to their competator. People who do worthless jobs like going around to stores to make sure they know they can carry Coke or telemarketers or vallets or people who hold signs on street-corners or Advertising executives or Corporate Lawyers or Health Insurance claims checkers could find better uses for their time and skills.

[Mo212]

1. I have studied anthropology and I don't know what you are smoking if you think that society is getting less violent - the 20th century was the most destructive and violent century on record thanks to mechanized warfare and a couple of head-on collisions between imperialist powers.

Stephen pinker on the counterintuitive decrease of violence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html


2. Any first-year anthro major could tell you that saying "society is more violent in the past" is completely illogical.

See above.




HA! You mean by choosing not to date someone they don't want to date? That's hardly the same a systematic structural opression such as Jim Crow laws, DOMA, redlining and so on. Sorry to tell you,

You're missing the point, all discrimination BEGINS as whether you associate or disassociate with someone, they are the seeds of all discrimination. I gave the attraction example that DISGUST which leads to teasing, insults, avoidance of others is innate and instinctual because you said it wasn't. That innate feelings of disgust grew into hate and lead to that opppression

See the woman who was beaten for being fat, and also read the comments about fat people from women and men. Here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1221405/Overweight-people-campaign-make-Britain-fat-friendly.html?ITO=1490


You're a nazi right? Your talk of tribablism and people separating into similar groups; the nation is just a bunch of people who share the same values. You think the left should model ourselves on the nazis that want to create an all-white country in the Pacific Northwest?

lol, I show you how you are free to leave capitalist society and go setup your own society on land that no one has settled because you claim you are "oppressed" and "enslaved" but NO capitalist is stopping you from moving and settling somewhere else and setting up your socialist society as you want it.


You know how when there is overproduction in capitalism, the economy fails and workers are laid-off: this is because profit can not be made, production could still go on, people still need things, but it's just not profitable enough...

I don't disagree that some production could still go on. But my point is people tend to want to avoid work, how would you convince people to clean/fix sewers, do dirty or really hard jobs, etc, etc ,etc? There is a supply and demand problem in socialism, you need x number of doctors for x number of people demanding such services, etc, etc. Socialism has massive incentive problems especially when a job is difficult (think being a doctor). There would still be haves and have nots that would lead to division and social breakdown, just look at the enormous argument going on in the state over healthcare.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Stephen pinker on the counterintuitive decrease of violence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

In the first few minutes there were several historical inaccuracies such as homosexuality being punished by death in biblical times. He probably meant the act of sodomy since Romans had no concept of homosexuality as a sexuality separate from heterosexuality.

Can you summarize his (probably Weber-based) argument.

[QUOTE]You're missing the point, all discrimination BEGINS as whether you associate or disassociate with someone, they are the seeds of all discrimination. I gave the attraction example that DISGUST which leads to teasing, insults, avoidance of others is innate and instinctual because you said it wasn't.You can "discriminate" against genres of books you don't like, it doesn't mean that these books are oppressed. Bigotry, that is not liking some people, is not the source of systematic oppression. Jim-Crow laws were constructed to divide the population, as Fredrick Douglas said: they divide poor white against poor blacks in order to conquer both.


lol, I show you how you are free to leave capitalist society and go setup your own society on land that no one has settled because you claim you are "oppressed" and "enslaved" but NO capitalist is stopping you from moving and settling somewhere else and setting up your socialist society as you want it.Communes do not work - capitalists couldn't just leave feudalism and set up markets because they needed a labor force for their society. Socialism can not exist in some isolated spot without technology just as capitalism can not exist without acess to materials and labor. It's a straw-man argument and one that is well over 100 years old and I'm sure has been discussed at length in the learning section of this website.


I don't agree that production could still go on, but my point is people tend to want to avoid work, how would you convince people to clean/fix sewers, do dirty jobs, etc, etc ,etc? Socialism has massive incentive problems especially when a job is difficult (think being a doctor).Imagine you are on a isolated island with a bunch of castaways. No one wants to clean up the huts 40 hours a week, so what do you do. Most groups of people would work out some kind of plan so that no one is stuck cleaning up all the time but the job gets done in the least burdonsome way. Higher wages or other perks such as lower than average working hours might be an incentive for some jobs that no one really wants to do and can't be automated. There's a lot more shit jobs in capitalism where it's cheaper just to get some low-wage person who has no choice but to do it, any remaining shit jobs can easily be delt with when people put their heads together.

What's your angle anyway? You have not been sincere in your intentions here and you have not been honest in representing yourself. You're not a leftist, you didn't respond to weather or not you are a nazi. What else could you be? Self-important college student out to proove he's smarter than lefties? Ayn Randite... probably reduntant after my first speculation.

[Mo212]

You can "discriminate" against genres of books you don't like, it doesn't mean that these books are oppressed. Bigotry, that is not liking some people, is not the source of systematic oppression.

Not liking some people is how racism/sexism/classism/misogyny, etc, etc, emerge in the first place, you're not grasping that our ability to to accept or reject because we are attracted or repulsed by something is just grown or shrunk, bigotry and hatred are just the volume of dislike turned up.

You're also missing the point "oppression" is a relative perception, many workers in capitalist society do not feel they are "oppressed". My point WAS the seeds of biogtry, hatred, war, discrimination, etc, are not from the system itself but are from the human beings that compose the system itself, the system and the PEOPLE are the SAME, since if you removed teh people the system ceases to be, the "system" you so speak of is the minds of each person, therefore discrimination, hatred, bigotry, etc, are of the minds and bodies of human beings, the seeds of which are already there.

For instance: Human beings have instincts to sex, eating, etc, so they have instincts for loving, disgust and hating.

The system does not "produce" these things, the seeds of these things are inherent to human beings.


Communes do not work - capitalists couldn't just leave feudalism and set up markets because they needed a labor force for their society. Socialism can not exist in some isolated spot without technology just as capitalism can not exist without acess to materials and labor. It's a straw-man argument and one that is well over 100 years old and I'm sure has been discussed at length in the learning section of this website.

I was not talking about communes. You said you were "forcefully oppressed' (i.e. you had no other choice, implying it was that or death) So I countered, and I was talking about about SETTING UP YOUR OWN SOCIETY. I did not say a million leftists all have to bunk up together in communes. My point is that NO CAPTIALIST IS FORCING YOU TO TAKE WAGES OR LIVE IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY, capitalist society is an asbtraction, it only exists in a geographic region that has people that believe in the profit system. i.e. your oppression is not the result of capitalists forcing you to take a wage with a gun to your head or else, it is self imposed by the lefts own divisions and atomization, and lack of intelligence, courage and fortitude to go setup their own society.

Society is just a group of people that live on a chunk of land on the earth. To use a hypothetical example: Lets say for the sake of argument....North america was not settled and all the capitalists were in europe/asia and russia, you could go setup shop in North america and have your way, the whole entire world does not have to be "socialist", since socialism is an abstraction. The people and their behaviours and perceptions are the society itself, and ceases when those people stop existing.


What's your angle anyway? You have not been sincere in your intentions here and you have not been honest in representing yourself. You're not a leftist, you didn't respond to weather or not you are a nazi. What else could you be? Self-important college student out to proove he's smarter than lefties? Ayn Randite... probably reduntant after my first speculation.

My angle is that I am non-idealogical but share values with people who espouse various labels or ideologies (want for a better society, etc) and I want to find out what is true and workable for a better society, therefore it requires complete neutrality in the search for what is true and workable over what is misconception and illusion. Many people on the left I talk to don't seem to have any real, realizable solutions for society. I'm merely trying to provoke thought on the matter and unmask ignorance (my own and others) and false beliefs in others as I go.

A lot of people on the left believe in abstractions and blame "the system" not realizing that the people and the system are the same thing, so if you don't like the people where you live then no one is forcing you to stay there. i.e. Just like religious people fron europe moved hen they were persecuted and oppressed.

So if the left is oppressed, why not just move to places where they are not oppressed and work on making the society they want? It's not rational to think the whole world has to be "socialist" to live in democratically controlled workplaces.

[Plagueround]

So if the left is oppressed, why not just move to places where they are not oppressed and work on making the society they want? It's not rational to think the whole world has to be "socialist" to live in democratically controlled workplaces.

Where exactly would they move to? The only scenario you've outlined is an imaginary uninhabited north america, which wouldn't stop capitalists since they destroyed and invaded an inhabited north america. Until you can come up with a more workable scenario your ideas are precisely the fairy tale you're rallying against.

[Mo212]

Where exactly would they move to? The only scenario you've outlined is an imaginary uninhabited north america, which wouldn't stop capitalists since they destroyed and invaded an inhabited north america. Until you can come up with a more workable scenario your ideas are precisely the fairy tale you're rallying against.

No it's not, there is plenty of uninhabitied land for leftists in the world (i.e. say greenland, northern provinces in canada) whether or not leftists want to live there is due to their lack of conviction and courage to just go claim a piece of land and secede from capitalist society and have that politically recognized, that's all leftists have to do to 'have it there way'. The truth is the left simply does not have the conviction, courage or fortitude to do such things because they are too attached to the comforts of the old society and don't want to do the work of starting fresh, they want to steal the productive facilities from others that already exist and gain political control over them, because they don't want to create their own themselves because they are lazy. In short, the left really isn't that serious because their actions do not match their words.

It's you that's in the fairy tale, no one is forcing the people on the left to live as they do. i.e. no one would kill you if a bunch of left people immigrated on masse to someplace practically uninhabitted. It's a matter of getting up off your butt and taking the risks of doing it.

Even the pirate bay thought of setting up it's own mini country on sealand.

http://www.sealandgov.org/

[mel]

No it's not, there is plenty of uninhabitied land for leftists in the world (i.e. say greenland) whether or not leftists want to live there is due to their lack of conviction and courage to just go claim a piece of land and secede from society and have that politically recognized.

It's you that's in the fairy tale, no one is forcing leftists to live as they do, it's a matter of getting up off your butt and taking the risks of doing it.

Even if Greenland was uninhabited (it isn't), a bunch of leftists moving there would not actually bring any of us any closer to our goals.

The success of socialism requires the means of production, currently in the hands of capitalists, to succeed. The sort of society that socialists could build in Greenland, lacking the material resources to do much of anything with it, would not be a socialist one but a primitive one.

Beyond even that, the emancipation of the world proletariat is bound up in class struggle, not the retreat of a bunch of people into isolation. All these people inhabiting this isolated area have done nothing to improve the lives of the oppressed worker the world over.

While your criticisms here may apply to primitivists, it can't apply to those socialists whose vision of a better world requires the means of production which have been built up under capitalism to provide for everyone.

[Mo212]

Even if Greenland was uninhabited (it isn't), a bunch of leftists moving there would not actually bring any of us any closer to our goals.

The success of socialism requires the means of production, currently in the hands of capitalists, to succeed. The sort of society that socialists could build in Greenland, lacking the material resources to do much of anything with it, would not be a socialist one but a primitive one.

Beyond even that, the emancipation of the world proletariat is bound up in class struggle, not the retreat of a bunch of people into isolation. All these people inhabiting this isolated area have done nothing to improve the lives of the oppressed worker the world over.

While your criticisms here may apply to primitivists, it can't apply to those socialists whose vision of a better world requires the means of production which have been built up under capitalism to provide for everyone.

This is another red herring, your argument is a non sequitor. Setting up your society has nothing to do with primitivism. I used greenland or northern canada as an example of free land, you could find other area's that are uninhabited that have enough resources for you to make your own means of production. Also I find it fascinating you don't deal with trading with the outside world, why exactly would such a society have to be "isolated" and engage in "primitivism" there is no logical connection between what I have said and your strawman. My whole argument was that you make your own means of production on your own so then you have your own means of production but as I pointed out earlier that might require effort and hardwork, fortitude and conviction, it's just easier to do nothing, complain, write books and criticisms and "hope" for change.

[mel]

This is another red herring, your argument is a non sequitor. Setting up your society has nothing to do with primitivism. I used greenland or northern canada as an example of free land, you could find other area's that are uninhabited that have enough resources for you to make your own means of production. Also I find it fascinating you don't deal with trading with the outside world, why exactly would such a society have to be "isolated" and engage in "primitivism" there is no logical connection between what I have said and your strawman. My whole argument was that you make your own means of production on your own so then you have your own means of production but as I pointed out earlier that might require effort and hardwork, fortitude and conviction, it's just easier to do nothing, complain, write books and criticisms and "hope" for change.

"Making our own means of production" is simply not a possibility. We can't wish material resources into existence and the goal of socialism is not to simply have a pretty little society where everyone gets along but to emancipate the world proletariat.

Nevermind the fact that while this land may be uninhabited, it certainly isn't unclaimed. To move there en masse would require enough money to buy up the better part of a country or what would be seen as an invasion by the surrounding capitalist countries.

Isolationism is a sad necessity, as it's been shown historically just what the capitalists will do when faced with a budding socialist nation. In all honesty, your so-called suggestions are a load of bullshit. A socialist society cannot work until the means of production have already been developed, you cannot simply move into the middle of nowhere, and start a society from nothing and call it socialism. That society will not have the means to sustain itself, and the capitalists will not willingly provide any support to such a project.

[Raúl Duke]

It depends on what is meant by misanthrope...

I bet people who are ashamed/loath at the position humanity and its society is in could in a way consider to be misanthrophic but it doesn't stop one to wish for something better for all humanity (or to wish that humanity rose up and better itself).

I met someone in Italy who could be somewhat misanthrophic but was mostly a socialist (and anti-fascist) politically.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not liking some people is how racism/sexism/classism/misogyny, etc, etc, emerge in the first place, you're not grasping that our ability to to accept or reject because we are attracted or repulsed by something is just grown or shrunk, bigotry and hatred are just the volume of dislike turned up.This is just totally ahistorical. Christians in feudal europe hated jews, blamed them for everything from the plague to bad bread and even had bloody pogroms against Jewish enclaves. Was hatred that much worse under Nazi germany - not particularly - what was different was the form the hatred took (blood/ethic hatred vs. religious hatred) and that this bigotry was systematized into the society and carried out by the state.

These structures and political parties can be removed and therefore Nazi antisemitism can be confronted and stopped. If your view of innate hatred and bigotry were true, then I guess we should have killed off a whole generation of German people in order to get rid of antisemitism.:rolleyes:


You're also missing the point "oppression" is a relative perception, many workers in capitalist society do not feel they are "oppressed". My point WAS the seeds of biogtry, hatred, war, discrimination, etc, are not from the system itself but are from the human beings that compose the system itself, the system and the PEOPLE are the SAME, since if you removed teh people the system ceases to be, the "system" you so speak of is the minds of each person, therefore discrimination, hatred, bigotry, etc, are of the minds and bodies of human beings, the seeds of which are already there.Oppression as I see it is material and can be empirically measured, not some academic game. Th3e number of gay people turned down for marriage or kicked out of the military or other jobs is measurable. The economic cost of redlining (only renting and selling homes to black people or Latinos in certain slum areas) or targeting poor people for sub-prime mortgages is measurable and not relative.

Finally workers can or can not feel oppressed (even slaves can or can not feel oppressed) but empirically, in order for profit to be made, exploitation of labor much occur at some point of the process: i.e. someone gets paid in wages less than the value they produce. This is emprical and can be observed and measured. Further many workers don't feel opressed because they do not believe that there could be any alternative... do they like the economic order? Well considering how many people fantasize about starting their own business, being the boss, running off to live somewhere else, killing the boss, winning the lotto, being a movie star, floating your kid off in a balloon to get a reality tv show... I'd say most workers are not all that happy with the arrangement.


For instance: Human beings have instincts to sex, eating, etc, so they have instincts for loving, disgust and hating.This is based on society, not instinct. Love: arranged marriages have been the norm in many cultures and many people accepted that this is the only way "love" could be. Sex: in some cultures, any non-reproductive sex is considered taboo while in other cultures, same sex-relationships between old men and young boys was considered not only normal but "true love" and an "apprenticeship". Eating: I'd love a hamburger, but in India, that thought might be met with disgust - some people eat dog, but I would find that disgusting... is this disgust innate or social?


The system does not "produce" these things, the seeds of these things are inherent to human beings.The system clearly produces these things. In colonial America, racial law codes for white and black servants were only introduced in Virgina after a revolt of both black and white servants... the House of Burgess then created less strict rules for white servants while introducing tougher laws for black slaves (including laws segregating social interaction).

Additionally is bigotry was inherent, why would racial codes have been different in the north compared to the south? Why would the southern ruling class feel the need to regulate white interactions with blacks at all if this was a natural hatred of black people?

The system produces these socially regulated forms of racism and hatred, it's far from "natural" or inborn.


I was not talking about communes. You said you were "forcefully oppressed' (i.e. you had no other choice, implying it was that or death) So I countered, and I was talking about about SETTING UP YOUR OWN SOCIETY. I did not say a million leftists all have to bunk up together in communes. My point is that NO CAPTIALIST IS FORCING YOU TO TAKE WAGES OR LIVE IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY, capitalist society is an asbtraction, it only exists in a geographic region that has people that believe in the profit system. i.e. your oppression is not the result of capitalists forcing you to take a wage with a gun to your head or else, it is self imposed by the lefts own divisions and atomization, and lack of intelligence, courage and fortitude to go setup their own society.

Yes, I have a choice in capitalism, I can choose to play the game by our ruling class's rules or I can be a homeless bum, harassed by cops by day, set on fire by neo-nazis by night.

Seriously, so if I don't pay my rent, then the sheriff that comes to my door WITH A GUN, is an ABSTRACTION? No, it is a material reality and a system just like Feudalism and Slavery. And if slavery is any guide, you can run away to the north for a time but if you actually start to be a threqat to production, the system will force the north to hunt you down and bring you back to slavery. If East Berlin is any indication, the bosses will build a wall if the workers begin to leave in too great of numbers.


Society is just a group of people that live on a chunk of land on the earth.Individuals are also people who live on chunks of land in groups or not in groups... your definition is lacking. Societies are groups of people organized in a particular way. Society can be democratic or is can be any number of hierarchical or non-hierarchical systems. Where we find class society, there is typically a hierarchy where the rulers are a minority and get to make most decisions and this creates a material effect on the way people live.

If these structures were just the result of nature's will, why would there ever be revolutions or civil wars? Did the small French Capitalists just hate the aristocracy and monarchy or was there a social conflict where the french merchants and business people could not peruse their interests without hurting the aristocracy and visa versa?


My angle is that I am non-idealogical but share values with people who espouse various labels or ideologies (want for a better society, etc) and I want to find out what is true and workable for a better society, therefore it requires complete neutrality in the search for what is true and workable over what is misconception and illusion. Ok, you are a post-modernist... sorry for thinking you are a NAZI, they often come here and conceal their politics.


Many people on the left I talk to don't seem to have any real, realizable solutions for society. I'm merely trying to provoke thought on the matter and unmask ignorance (my own and others) and false beliefs in others as I go.Workers occupy and take over their workplaces... representative democracy from the bottom up through workplace and community councils to decide how to organize production cooperatively and so needs are met.

A lot of people on the left believe in abstractions and blame "the system" not realizing that the people and the system are the same thing, so if you don't like the people where you live then no one is forcing you to stay there. i.e. Just like religious people fron europe moved hen they were persecuted and oppressed.


So if the left is oppressed, why not just move to places where they are not oppressed and work on making the society they want? It's not rational to think the whole world has to be "socialist" to live in democratically controlled workplaces.Well first off, the left in particular is not generally oppressed (maybe at times politically repressed) but workers are exploited and many groups in society are oppressed. Why don't LGBT people or Blacks or Latinos just move to a place where police can not target them, banks won't take advantage of them, and discriminatory laws can't reach them? Well for most working people, packing it up and moving is just impossible. Many of us live paycheck to paycheck and so moving to a remote part of Alaska without other income prospects is a fantasy.

You treat socialism as if it is some kind of social clique like being goth or something - it is not a lifestyle, it is political and people can belong to whatever subculture they like our goals involve challenging an inherently exploitative system, not listening to the same music or wearing similar clothing styles.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

I certainly struggle with misanthropy. In fact, it was a major factor in why- for a while there- I was attracted to the line of MIM and the "Maoist"-ThirdWorldist movement. Now I see the ludicrousness of their line, but it was attractive to someone who hated capitalism but saw humanity as his enemy...

I really have trouble trusting people in real life, and assume the worst of them. I love THE people, but frankly, I often find myself hating PEOPLE. Much of this is due to my abusive and fractured upbringing, and my being abandoned by some of my closest friends.

It takes all the power in me to keep on the revolutionary road every day, because even with all the theory I study, the demonstrations I go to, and the activist links I make, people seem to constantly prove to me otherwise with their behavior... :(

[proudcomrade]

I certainly struggle with misanthropy. In fact, it was a major factor in why- for a while there- I was attracted to the line of MIM and the "Maoist"-ThirdWorldist movement. Now I see the ludicrousness of their line, but it was attractive to someone who hated capitalism but saw humanity as his enemy...

I really have trouble trusting people in real life, and assume the worst of them. I love THE people, but frankly, I often find myself hating PEOPLE. Much of this is due to my abusive and fractured upbringing, and my being abandoned by some of my closest friends.

It takes all the power in me to keep on the revolutionary road every day, because even with all the theory I study, the demonstrations I go to, and the activist links I make, people seem to constantly prove to me otherwise with their behavior... :(

Yep- this. I know exactly what ^^^ feels like.