Human Nature "There's always going to be Leaders" argument

[Hexen]

I've been talking to a person lately about societies and he argues that "There's always going to be leaders that's how Human Nature works" and he even said that "I betcha even egalitarian societies had leaders" which I felt weak trying to counter his arguments which he even said that "Communism failed because because of leadership".

Is there anyway counter these arguments?

[Mr. Natural]

Leaders are fine and natural so long as they arise from the grassroots and the grassroots maintain bottom-up relations with the "top."

This is how life works. Local beings and relations develop necessary "higher" levels of organization and leaders as complexity increases. This organization, which must be rooted in the lower levels, becomes "roundabout." Top and bottom are interdependent in a unity of things, systems, and hierarchies that maintains the being of all.

Your body is the "leader" of its organs, which "lead" its cells. But your body is dead unless this "leadership" is rooted in the cells, and humanity will soon die at the hands of capitalism unless we learn to organize community from the bottom-up with higher levels of self-government rooted in the lower. This is communism: "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto).

Your body is such an association in which the free (self-organized) development of each of its living systems--cells to organs--is the condition for the free development of your body.

Of course, each of us needs to become our own leader in community with other such leaders. That's democracy; that's communism; that's life.

My red-green best

[ed miliband]

i honestly find it absurd that so many people - and so many intelligent people - believe that some unchanging, mystical "human nature" is hardwired into the human mind. people who would otherwise balk at the idea of "intelligent design" or whatever.

some seem to think that there's no way around the "human nature" argument, that a person who uses it has won, when in reality anyone who makes an argument based on "human nature" has lost automatically.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

The Spanish Civil War (Especially the Anarchist) had no leaders. Society (Andalusia, Zaragoza, Catalonia and Barcelona) went on well for 3 years.

[KrimsonV]

some seem to think that there's no way around the "human nature" argument, that a person who uses it has won, when in reality anyone who makes an argument based on "human nature" has lost automatically.

Pretty much this. It's a very easy shortcut to a "perceived" victory, as most people just give up at that point rather than going all the way back explaining why "human nature" is not a solid basis for any kind of argument.

[The Machine]

nah there were leaders in the Spanish Civil War

e: ever heard of a guy called Buenaventura Durruti

[Permanent Revolutionary]

If you look at it from a biological perspective, humans have always had a need for leaders. This can also be seen in nature, with the alpha and beta males.
Leaders, though, aren't inherently a bad thing, if they have been chosen with due consideration by the people who want to be lead.

A plurality of leaders (i.e. a council) can also technically be seen as one leader, so this instinct will probably be hard to get rid of in the future, but who knows.

[Manic Impressive]

Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Sapere Aude! Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.
Mother fuckers still stuck in pre-enlightenment thought. we're doomed

[Yuppie Grinder]

Human beings are soft-wired towards communalism and cooperation. We are artificially conditioned into roles of submission and domination by hierarchical society. People are short-sited and foolish for thinking the way live today is the only way we've ever lived and only way we ever can live.

[Fawkes]

I've been talking to a person lately about societies and he argues that "There's always going to be leaders that's how Human Nature works" and he even said that "I betcha even egalitarian societies had leaders" which I felt weak trying to counter his arguments which he even said that "Communism failed because because of leadership".

Is there anyway counter these arguments?

You're friend is flat out wrong. Anthropologist Colin Turnbull wrote of the Mbuti people of Congo that "there were no chiefs, no formal councils. In each aspect of...life there might be one or two women who were more prominent than others, but usually for good practical reasons... The maintenance of law was a cooperative affair." Eleanor Leacock wrote that "Consensus was reached within whatever group would be carrying out a collective activity."

Further, anthropologist Richard Lee wrote of the !Kung people saying they "are a fiercely egalitarian people, and they have evolved a series of important cultural practices to maintain this equality, first by cutting down to size the arrogant and boastful, and second by helping those down on their luck to get back in the game."

The only human nature that exists is one of extreme adaptability to existing material conditions.


If you're interested, most of this information was taken from A People's History of the World, a great book that definitely comes in handy when people try to use human nature arguments.

[Tim Finnegan]

Pick up Societies Against the State by Pierre Clastres. Discusses exmaples of societies (primarily Amerindian, that being Clastres' area of speciality) that lacked states and authoritative leadership. Pretty much empirical disproves the whole "human nature, therefore coercion" line of argument.

[Ocean Seal]

I've been talking to a person lately about societies and he argues that "There's always going to be leaders that's how Human Nature works"
Award him the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine, because this is a huge breakthrough in biology.


and he even said that "I betcha even egalitarian societies had leaders"
Probably, but this is because there was probably a necessity to delegate responsibility. I don't see what his point is here.


which I felt weak trying to counter his arguments which he even said that "Communism failed because because of leadership".

This is idealism. There are various material causes for why communism failed. If anything you can cite Mao's turn to the right in the early 70's as evidence of the materialist worldview. Did he suddenly become right-wing?
Obviously leadership does play a role in the development of any mode of production, but there are various historical factors which obfuscate this, and as such there is a counter-example to any absolutist conclusion.

[Rafiq]

Human beings are soft-wired towards communalism and cooperation. We are artificially conditioned into roles of submission and domination by hierarchical society. People are short-sited and foolish for thinking the way live today is the only way we've ever lived and only way we ever can live.

What an absurd, and Idealist thing to say. You cannot exclude the Bourgeois class from being Human... There does not exist an artificial "other" which stands in the way of our "Organic" "Human Nature".

To say Humans are naturally communal is just as bad, if not worse than to say they are naturally "corrupt".

Now, in regards to the thread: Leaders are of absolute necessity, at least now. And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with something "Inside of us", it's just that representatives and delegation is necessary to help organize a mass society, and so on.

Leaders are of absolute necessity, but they are not "Great", i.e. This doesn't mean they are all powerful will driven beings who aren't influenced by material conditions. Indeed, Leaders are easily replaceable.

[Rafiq]

You're friend is flat out wrong. Anthropologist Colin Turnbull wrote of the Mbuti people of Congo that "there were no chiefs, no formal councils. In each aspect of...life there might be one or two women who were more prominent than others, but usually for good practical reasons... The maintenance of law was a cooperative affair." Eleanor Leacock wrote that "Consensus was reached within whatever group would be carrying out a collective activity."

Further, anthropologist Richard Lee wrote of the !Kung people saying they "are a fiercely egalitarian people, and they have evolved a series of important cultural practices to maintain this equality, first by cutting down to size the arrogant and boastful, and second by helping those down on their luck to get back in the game."

The only human nature that exists is one of extreme adaptability to existing material conditions.


If you're interested, most of this information was taken from A People's History of the World, a great book that definitely comes in handy when people try to use human nature arguments.

And quite evidently, this "Evil, and Corrupt" Capitalism is a thousand times better then any previous "Natural" mode of organization and production experienced by Humanity.

For Communists, we should not ask for a return to our roots. We should go beyond and move much farther away from it, on the contrary.

[Rafiq]

Leaders are not "Natural", i.e. there is no mode of organization that is natural. They have proven themselves, though, necessary for virtually every mode of organization. You must note that this isn't some all powerful inscription within us, set forth by the gods, that necessitates such.

[Yuppie Grinder]

d
What an absurd, and Idealist thing to say. You cannot exclude the Bourgeois class from being Human... There does not exist an artificial "other" which stands in the way of our "Organic" "Human Nature".

To say Humans are naturally communal is just as bad, if not worse than to say they are naturally "corrupt".

Now, in regards to the thread: Leaders are of absolute necessity, at least now. And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with something "Inside of us", it's just that representatives and delegation is necessary to help organize a mass society, and so on.

Leaders are of absolute necessity, but they are not "Great", i.e. This doesn't mean they are all powerful will driven beings who aren't influenced by material conditions. Indeed, Leaders are easily replaceable.
It's actually very true that we are soft-wired towards communalism.
l7AWnfFRc7g
It's not that hierarchical society is standing in the way of our "true nature" or whatever, it's that the way in which we relate to each other adapts to different conditions.
I agree with you nine times out of ten but calling people who disagree with you idealist constantly gets a bit old.

[Rafiq]

You don't strike me as an Idealist, but the concept of us being naturally "hard wired" to communalism is Idealist in nature. It implies we have a built in organizational method devoid of any material conditions which could influence it, destroy or change it.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I specifically said soft-wired twice, there is a difference. Under most conditions humans live communally. We have for 90% of our existence.

[Rafiq]

I specifically said soft-wired twice, there is a difference. Under most conditions humans live communally. We have for 90% of our existence.

But for 90% of our existence we haven't amassed a more powerful mode of production than the capitalist mode of production.

[NewLeft]

To the original poster: You should check out this article (http://www.isreview.org/issues/38/genes.shtml).

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

nah there were leaders in the Spanish Civil War

e: ever heard of a guy called Buenaventura Durruti
Who did he make decisions for? The peasants governed their communes democratically during the civil war. If someone did not wish to partake in a commune, he was given just enough land to provide himself with his needs. There was no vanguard nor transitional authority in existence for the CNT and FAI controlled land in Spain.

[Geiseric]

"leadership," is kinda necessary when you're trying to get thousands of people to act in coordination. Not even one person, but collective leadership as a workers organization is a necessity. the opposite of leadership in my mind is opportunism, so it isn't as black and white as "i'm a great man, follow me because i'm charasmatic." But it's more of a de facto situation depending on who is most dedicated and fearless when opposition to what's right comes around.

[Geiseric]

Who did he make decisions for? The peasants governed their communes democratically during the civil war. If someone did not wish to partake in a commune, he was given just enough land to provide himself with his needs. There was no vanguard nor transitional authority in existence for the CNT and FAI controlled land in Spain.

And look how that turned out, there was no vanguard who took power from the bourgeois government so the fascists were able to win. Anarcho Syndicallism proved to be a failure in its libertarian view on authority.

[X5N]

99.9% of the things people chalk up to "human nature" really are just cultural/social/whatever thingies, rather than anything hardwired into our brains. Biological determinism doesn't really work at all with sapient beings (such as humans), despite how much popular psychology likes to portray us as essentially brainless ogres who are only a few steps away from lizards in terms of our level of control over ourselves.

[hatzel]

This kind of argument is only effective as long as communists continue to maintain that some perfect transparent wholly non-hierarchical society is imminently possible. A hierarchy might spring up here or there, some may linger longer than others, there may be gaps and lapses in socialism, whatever, and a uniformity of horizontally-organised 'pure' communism may never come into being. Two words, the first being 'so,' the next being 'what?' Does that discredit the project? This or that individual may hold certain prejudices, some may seek to dominate others...and we fight against that. Society's like one of those whack-a-mole games: one doesn't stop whacking moles just because one knows that another mole will inevitably pop up it's head (until the end of the game, of course), nor does the assertion that there will always come a new mole imply that one is misguided in whacking those one sees before one's eyes...

[Revolution starts with U]

And look how that turned out, there was no vanguard who took power from the bourgeois government so the fascists were able to win. Anarcho Syndicallism proved to be a failure in its libertarian view on authority.

Yes yes. And in Russia the capitalists won. So both versions failed. Good point! :rolleyes:


Oh wait... I forget... did bourgeois rule fade in and out, overtaking the planet through punctuated equilibrium? Was there ever a failed capitalist government, overtaken by manorism (feudalism, tho for most of the world there were no feifs)?

[ckaihatsu]

Obviously leadership does play a role in the development of any mode of production, but there are various historical factors which obfuscate this, and as such there is a counter-example to any absolutist conclusion.


So simply tell him, "Absolutist conclusions are precluded by historical factors since they obfuscate leadership roles in the development of any mode of production."

See? Easy.


x D


(Just playing.)





Your body is the "leader" of its organs, which "lead" its cells. But your body is dead unless this "leadership" is rooted in the cells, and humanity will soon die at the hands of capitalism unless we learn to organize community from the bottom-up with higher levels of self-government rooted in the lower.


Ever see 'Osmosis Jones' -- ?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181739/





"leadership," is kinda necessary when you're trying to get thousands of people to act in coordination. Not even one person, but collective leadership as a workers organization is a necessity. the opposite of leadership in my mind is opportunism, so it isn't as black and white as "i'm a great man, follow me because i'm charasmatic." But it's more of a de facto situation depending on who is most dedicated and fearless when opposition to what's right comes around.


I'm fed up with the traditional, personage-centric paradigm of politics. As a baseline common denominator I advocate abandoning *all* representational leadership entirely, in favor of the *policy*.

Why should we mindlessly ape the political convention of one-person-one-vote-for-a-person when even the economics of *capitalism* uses a far more advanced system of the-most-dollar-votes-gets-the-prize -- ? (Of course it's not democratic, but let me finish....)

My *point* is that we should combine the two, where consistent multiple "votes" per-person can be spread out over any number of policy proposals. Those proposals that enjoy the most total votes from voters are prioritized ahead of the rest.


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://postimage.org/image/35hop84dg/

[Mr. Natural]

ckaihatsu, I'm not positive that your "Osmosis Jones" comment was meant as dismissive satire, but I'm assuming that it was. If I'm wrong, I apologize for the tone of the remarks that follow. If not, you owe me a response to your dismissal of the natural organization of life and humanity.

Has or has not matter self-organized into the living systems that create and constitute the life process on Earth? It has.

Don't these living systems (cells to biosphere, including human beings) develop hierarchical relations as complexity increases that serve to keep them integrated and alive? They do.

As self-organized, material living systems, don't humans have to follow the "rules of life"? As living social beings don't we need to self-organize from the bottom up and create higher levels of organization as complexity increases? We do.

Wouldn't this be communism? It would be. It would be human beings consciously organizing our communities in the pattern of organization of life that was established 4 billion years ago and has been maintained ever since. Such social formations would be in agreement with Mother Nature and Father Marx.

There would be leaders in such communities. All would be leaders: all would self-organize together in community, and individual leaders in areas of expertise would also emerge. Then these communities would also need to establish "higher" levels of organization and leadership rooted in the base as complexity increases and necessitates.

This is how life organizes. Are we not life? Not much longer, as the rejection of natural organization by we who must learn to organize naturally dooms the human species.

You have made claims to work with complexity, ckaihatsu. You have created "pictures" of life's hierarchical oranizational levels. Were you forgetting this with your "Osmosis Jones" dismissal of my attempt to bring organization to a demoralized, lost, reductionist left?

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, I'm not positive that your "Osmosis Jones" comment was meant as dismissive satire, but I'm assuming that it was.


No, no it wasn't. It was merely a mentally-connecting-the-dots reference.





If I'm wrong, I apologize for the tone of the remarks that follow. If not, you owe me a response to your dismissal of the natural organization of life and humanity.


No prob.





Has or has not matter self-organized into the living systems that create and constitute the life process on Earth? It has.

Don't these living systems (cells to biosphere, including human beings) develop hierarchical relations as complexity increases that serve to keep them integrated and alive? They do.

As self-organized, material living systems, don't humans have to follow the "rules of life"? As living social beings don't we need to self-organize from the bottom up and create higher levels of organization as complexity increases? We do.

Wouldn't this be communism? It would be. It would be human beings consciously organizing our communities in the pattern of organization of life that was established 4 billion years ago and has been maintained ever since. Such social formations would be in agreement with Mother Nature and Father Marx.

There would be leaders in such communities. All would be leaders: all would self-organize together in community, and individual leaders in areas of expertise would also emerge. Then these communities would also need to establish "higher" levels of organization and leadership rooted in the base as complexity increases and necessitates.

This is how life organizes. Are we not life? Not much longer, as the rejection of natural organization by we who must learn to organize naturally dooms the human species.

You have made claims to work with complexity, ckaihatsu. You have created "pictures" of life's hierarchical oranizational levels. Were you forgetting this with your "Osmosis Jones" dismissal of my attempt to bring organization to a demoralized, lost, reductionist left?


I'd imagine our history of past conversations could be taken in a *positive*, constructive way -- you obviously know where I'm coming from in the context of natural and large-scale organization.

Again, to clarify -- I didn't think a mere tangential reference would be summarily taken as being in a *dismissive* tone, but I realize that text exchanges do not always readily convey a sense of tone.

I do hope you'll have a chance to see that movie if you haven't already.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

And look how that turned out, there was no vanguard who took power from the bourgeois government so the fascists were able to win. Anarcho Syndicallism proved to be a failure in its libertarian view on authority.
And the Vanguard, in the form of the Bolsheviks, brought peace to society and Socialism :laugh: :rolleyes:? During the Civil War they [Anarchists] lacked equipment. You even had the 5th Stalinist Regiment receiving support from the USSR and the Anarchists did not, they [Stalinist] too failed.

What did Russia get when they had their magnificent Bolshevik overlords? They brought in a new Bureaucratic state where they screwed over and robbed the proletariat like the bourgeoisie of the former epoch.

Kronstadt is a prime example of the Bolsheviks trying to destroy any true left-wing revolution.

Italy sent about 75,000 men, 150 tanks and 660 aircraft and as Beevor wrote “the Italian contribution to the Nationalist cause was enormous and more general than the German contribution. “This included a major role in the blockade of Republican ports. Portugal, led by General Salazar, sent 12,000troops. General Eoin O’Duffy led about 700 volunteers from Ireland.

German aid totalled about 16,000 men, 200 tanks and 600 planes. Some of the activities of the German Condor Legion especially the bombing of Guernica became infamous but militarily Beevor noted the Condor Legion was “the most efficient and influential assistance in Spain.”

The United States also adopted a policy of non-intervention influenced by the powerful Catholic lobby there. This prevented the Republic from purchasing arms openly and hampered its ability to resist the Nationalist threat.

Your ignorant comment presents your lack of acumen in regards to the civil war, comrade.:lol:

[Regicollis]

Any collective effort needs some kind of leadership but that doesn't mean that there always have to be authoritarianism.

I imagine that in an egalitarian society there will be "leaders" who are chosen formally or informally because of their greater skill or experience. After all if you are building a house together you would want to listen to what the skilled bricklayer says. These leaders will however always be subject to collective decisions and they would not enjoy any special privileges. So while there would still be leadership the manager kaste of today would disappear.

[ckaihatsu]

Any collective effort needs some kind of leadership but that doesn't mean that there always have to be authoritarianism.

I imagine that in an egalitarian society there will be "leaders" who are chosen formally or informally because of their greater skill or experience. After all if you are building a house together you would want to listen to what the skilled bricklayer says. These leaders will however always be subject to collective decisions and they would not enjoy any special privileges. So while there would still be leadership the manager kaste of today would disappear.


As an aside I'd also like to point out that knowledge, skill, and experience is *not* the same as leadership. Someone who is an expert at something may not necessarily have a sense of *direction*, as in what may be the best ways in which to *apply* what they know and what they can do. (Unfortunately capitalism doesn't help with this kind of thing, either.)

If the abilities that go with knowledge, skill, and expertise automatically conferred leadership ability then there would be no need for (revolutionary) politics whatsoever -- those who could *do* the best would simply be seen as also knowing how best to use their abilities. Even education would be premised on this.

In reality knowledge and know-how is not one-and-the-same as a person themselves -- we're able to add to our *collective* knowledge through the use of language and the written word (and diagrams)(!)(etc.).

[ckaihatsu]

As self-organized, material living systems, don't humans have to follow the "rules of life"? As living social beings don't we need to self-organize from the bottom up and create higher levels of organization as complexity increases? We do.

Wouldn't this be communism? It would be. It would be human beings consciously organizing our communities in the pattern of organization of life that was established 4 billion years ago and has been maintained ever since. Such social formations would be in agreement with Mother Nature and Father Marx.


Also, MN, since I'm looking at your politics in front of me, I may as well address it here....

Nature, and natural patterns, are not *conscious* the way sentient beings like people are -- just because we can discern consistent regular patterns from natural living systems doesn't mean that those are automatically *indicative* of how we can or may organize our own political economy. (Much within nature is *arbitrary*, within certain parameters, and so many variations on life itself -- like appearance, for example -- will vary widely.)

You would probably agree that political systems are at a *qualitatively higher* degree of organization than natural systems are, and so would require a different kind of attention than that paid to understanding *lower* forms of organization.

While it's generous of you to describe the "rules of life" as pointing towards communism, you may want to elaborate on the connection from the lower to the higher here.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think the big problem with leadership is how it is derived; is it organic or imposed? And if its organic... is it really "leadership" as such?

[Firebrand]

Human nature if you can call it that is basically the way in which human beings respond to external situations. Different situations trigger different responses, thus in a situation in which survival depends on competition and domination (i.e. capitalism) people will respond by competing and trying to dominate. Not conciously, or rigidly, but there will be a tendency towards these traits. Whereas if survival depends on co-operation and mutual agreement people will tend towards these traits.


Human nature is basically the drive to maximise chances of survival in any given situation, we are not in the business of changing that, the aim of leftist politics as I understand it, is to change the situation not the people

[TheMyth]

I've been talking to a person lately about societies and he argues that "There's always going to be leaders that's how Human Nature works" and he even said that "I betcha even egalitarian societies had leaders" which I felt weak trying to counter his arguments which he even said that "Communism failed because because of leadership".

Is there anyway counter these arguments?
Talk about the Commune of Paris and they will have no arguments .

[ckaihatsu]

Human nature if you can call it that is basically the way in which human beings respond to external situations. Different situations trigger different responses, thus in a situation in which survival depends on competition and domination (i.e. capitalism) people will respond by competing and trying to dominate. Not conciously, or rigidly, but there will be a tendency towards these traits. Whereas if survival depends on co-operation and mutual agreement people will tend towards these traits.


Human nature is basically the drive to maximise chances of survival in any given situation, we are not in the business of changing that, the aim of leftist politics as I understand it, is to change the situation not the people


Sorry, but I don't think we should even be *validating* the language and framework of Social Darwinism here -- it's easy to get sucked downward into making facile comparisons between nature's 'survival of the fittest' and everyday social life and politics, but the two (or three) are nowhere near comparable.

To characterize class politics this way is to over-dramatize it -- yes, politics have life-or-death *implications* for billions, but no, it's not the savannah out there where only the fleet and quick-witted live another day. To cast the class struggle in the language of natural selection is to distort it and even trivialize it -- *any* society has a *mixture* of cooperation *and* competition, and I'd imagine even a future socialist society would retain characteristics of both as well.

As you've noted, what counts is the overall *situation*, and *that's* what the class struggle is about. On the whole people would not be wasting so much of their efforts for the sake of the world and more people could direct their own lives much more readily if capitalist economics was finally laid to rest for the good of everybody.

[Firebrand]

Sorry, but I don't think we should even be *validating* the language and framework of Social Darwinism here -- it's easy to get sucked downward into making facile comparisons between nature's 'survival of the fittest' and everyday social life and politics, but the two (or three) are nowhere near comparable.

To characterize class politics this way is to over-dramatize it -- yes, politics have life-or-death *implications* for billions, but no, it's not the savannah out there where only the fleet and quick-witted live another day. To cast the class struggle in the language of natural selection is to distort it and even trivialize it -- *any* society has a *mixture* of cooperation *and* competition, and I'd imagine even a future socialist society would retain characteristics of both as well.


You misunderstand me, i'm not talking about social darwinism. I'm talking about how situations trigger behaviours. Human nature changes according to context, in different situations people respond differently. It's all to to with which chemical triggers are switched in our brains.

And yes I know that it's not really a matter of life and death. I was simplifying. Your brain doesn't make distinctions between argh i'm in a famine situation and argh i'm unemployed, both trigger scarcity responses. When I talk about survival, i'm talking in terms of your brains interpretation of the situation, your brain doesn't have an objective concept of negative consequences, consequences are always relative, thus if the worst thing that's ever happened to you is losing your job then as far as your brain is concerned that is a life or death situation.

Its not about survival of the fittest its about built in behaviours and tendencies manifesting in different situations. Thus if you are in a situation where it is necessary to compete to achieve a decent living standard that triggers competition responses, if you are in a situation where co-operation brings a better living standard then that will trigger co-operation responses.

[.Commie]

Isn't all arguments "From Human Nature" sort of problematic? Since "Via Natura" is sort of a constructed concept and not really intrinsic? I may be missing something

[ckaihatsu]

You misunderstand me, i'm not talking about social darwinism. I'm talking about how situations trigger behaviours. Human nature changes according to context, in different situations people respond differently.


Okay, I'm in agreement with this premise.





It's all to to with which chemical triggers are switched in our brains.


*This* premise, though, "competes" with the one you just mentioned -- if behaviors are triggered by situations, within contexts, then *that's* the origin of the cause, with the effect that people respond differently in different situations. Brain chemistry would just be the *medium* through which these material conditions interact with the person's self-awareness.





And yes I know that it's not really a matter of life and death. I was simplifying.


Okay.





Your brain doesn't make distinctions between argh i'm in a famine situation and argh i'm unemployed, both trigger scarcity responses. When I talk about survival, i'm talking in terms of your brains interpretation of the situation,


Yes.





your brain doesn't have an objective concept of negative consequences, consequences are always relative, thus if the worst thing that's ever happened to you is losing your job then as far as your brain is concerned that is a life or death situation.


Depending on the person's interpretation of the situation, as you've noted.





Its not about survival of the fittest its about built in behaviours and tendencies manifesting in different situations. Thus if you are in a situation where it is necessary to compete to achieve a decent living standard that triggers competition responses, if you are in a situation where co-operation brings a better living standard then that will trigger co-operation responses.


I suppose so, but my objection continues to be the simplification aspect of this, and also that it's very individualized. Even competitive capitalist society is not so dire, on the average, as you seem to be indicating -- life expectancy rates and infant mortality rates would be an empirical guide here.

Again, I think our realm as revolutionaries is the overarching *political* one, and we shouldn't lapse into individualized treatments if our aim is to address the overall *global* situation.

[Geiseric]

All i'm saying, is that in Russia the PG leadership would of retained power or it would of been somebody like Kornilov, had the bolsheviks not taken the leadership role in mobilizing the masses. The red army wouldn't of been organized if things were truly "libertarian," and I don't think the Reactionaries will really care if the revolutionary proletariat are disorganized and if even in terms of what's to be done with the state power, the answer is nothing based on principle. Leadership is a good thing, if it's organic. stalinism was not organic, it gained the role of oppressor after purging the actual leadership of the U.S.S.R. I already know where this is going though, somebody's going to say "trotsky was a bureaucrat too! he was just as bad as Stalin because he oversaw the oppression of a mutiny!" but using Kronstadt as evidence is opportunism on the "history channel," level.