Once Again Science Confirms Anarchism

[Havet]

Commentary by Division by Zer0

"Who would have thunk it eh? Once again, actual empirical research points out (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all) that humans are primarily co-operative rather than competitive and the hard primitivism assumptions of Hobbes (and favourite excuse of Clergy and Statists for their authority) get even less realistic.

Ah, if only we had a society that was organized with such knowledge in mind rather than the harmful assumption that humans need to be protected from each other. If only..."

The science appears to be legit. What do you guys think?


That’s why we have moral dilemmas, because we are both selfish and altruistic at the same time.

[mykittyhasaboner]

What do you guys think?
No shit. It doesn't take a scientific study to realize that humans are more cooperative than competitive.

Though I don't see how this "confirms anarchism"....although that's obviously just your interpretation of the pinnacle of human cooperation.

[Havet]

No shit. It doesn't take a scientific study to realize that humans are more cooperative than competitive.

Some people still had/have doubts about that...lol

[mykittyhasaboner]

Some people still had/have doubts about that...lol

Well then fuck such people, I guess that's all their is to say in their case. If they have a hard time getting around the concept of society as a social product which results from cooperation/relations of human beings then they need to get out more. Even though we are divided by class, which incites struggle and competition between said classes (and inter-class competition and struggle), we wouldn't have such progress in technology or infrastructure without massive amounts of cooperation: cooperation which in most cases transcends class. If I didn't cooperate with my boss to do my job, the business would stop running. It's pretty damn simple when you get down it imho.

[Bankotsu]

Professor Carroll Quigley's views on some left wing ideas:



The appearance of stability from 1840 to about 1900 was superficial, temporary and destructive in the long run, because, as I have said, you must have communities, and communities and societies must rest upon cooperation and not on competition.

Anyone who says that society can be run on the basis of everyone's trying to maximize his own greed is talking total nonsense.

All the history of human society shows that it's nonsense.

And to teach it in schools, and to go on television and call it the “American way of life” still doesn't make it true.

Competition and envy cannot become the basis of any society or any community.

To get back to sovereignty and the structure of the state, another cause of today's instability is that we now have a society in America, in Europe and in much of the world which is totally dominated by the two elements of sovereignty that are not included in the state structure: control of credit and banking and the corporation.

These are free of political controls and social responsibility, and they have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in American society.

They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labor, entrepreneurial- managerial skills, and everything else the economists once told us were the chief elements of production. The only element of production they are concerned with is the one they can control: capital...

http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Individuals-AD-1776-1976.htm

[IcarusAngel]

Yet more experiments and data that contradicts right-Libertarian beliefs. If humans are socially cooperative why should anyone support markets and other 'competitive' institutions that lead to a consolidation of resources.

[Bright Banana Beard]

They did not confirm anarchism, but cooperative desire which is thwarted by the capitalists.

[New Tet]

The title of this thread is nothing short of brilliant!

[Jazzratt]

I thought you supported some sort of competative price system? Why should you be cheering this?

[Havet]

Yet more experiments and data that contradicts right-Libertarian beliefs. If humans are socially cooperative why should anyone support markets and other 'competitive' institutions that lead to a consolidation of resources.

There is degrading competition (what we have today) and constructive competition (voting for example).

[Havet]

I thought you supported some sort of competative price system? Why should you be cheering this?

Even a competitive price system requires cooperation at its most basic level in order to create a basis for a just society (intersubjective consensus, majority decision)