Mind Control

[VCrakeV]

I was recently playing a game, Civilization, and my cities were quite unhappy from multiple sources. So, I immediately thought about building mind-control centers (which reduce unhappiness in cities to 0). However, I paused for a while, thinking about the ethics of it. I always play the game with my personal beliefs in mind. For example, I never adopt the bureaucracy civic.

I ended up building them in every city that could make use of them. Is mind control immoral? Most people would say yes without questioning anything. But it depends-what're are you putting in their brains? Is it justifiable to control minds for a better good? What if minds were controlled to get rid of the evil in people-greed, stupidity, hate, and more-to better humanity?

And what about the method? What if we could control minds with chips, or waves? What if we used propaganda and broadcasting? What about mandatory drugs? There are many potential methods, and surely some are more/less ethical than others.

Your thoughts?

[Palmares]

I guess you really need to define "mind-control".

But I'm guessing from your post you mean more than simply the practice of an individual hypnotist or similar. Rather, institutional means of thought control. Enter 1984.

What I would posit, is how do you know what's best for someone? To the point of knowing it better than themselves?

I think there's a definite difference between influence through equal engagement (e.g. discussion amongst equals), as opposed to coercive influence from above (e.g. an education system giving you bad marks for disagreeing with it's version of history).

[jullia]

In a way, education is a form of mind control.

[VCrakeV]

In a way, education is a form of mind control.

Precisely! Is it wrong for us to teach people what's wrong and what's right? What about evolution vs creationism? Surely there's a fine line created by schools. Either you're in a catholic school, or you're Biology teacher fills you in (or, like my Biology teacher, she'll make evolution and Darwinism the independent studies for that course...).

What if schools taught not to discriminate? What if we had a scenario like 1984 (thanks Palmares for the reminder), but it was all "good" stuff-don't discriminate, make sure to share and be fair, don't harm others, don't create a monopoly on toothbrushes, etc.?

Is it wrong to tell people what's wrong? EDIT: In an assertive manner. That is, telling them without allowing/encouraging debate or disagreement.

[Sewer Socialist]

What if schools taught not to discriminate? What if we had a scenario like 1984 (thanks Palmares for the reminder), but it was all "good" stuff-don't discriminate, make sure to share and be fair, don't harm others, don't create a monopoly on toothbrushes, etc.?

Well, isn't that sort of what Brave New World was about, sort of? Controlling people through drugs, making them happy, so there wouldn't be conflict? To me, the bad thing about that world wasn't that the world was like that. It's difficult to say that a world filled with happiness is bad. The problem was that someone slipped through the cracks, and had the most alienated existence.

Also, with regards to "What if minds were controlled to get rid of the evil in people-greed, stupidity, hate, and more-to better humanity?" - evil does not exist in people. These things are encouraged by class societies, commodity markets, and their insecurity - insecurity of hoarded wealth held at the top, and insecurity of the next paycheck at the bottom.

[VCrakeV]

Well, isn't that sort of what Brave New World was about, sort of? Controlling people through drugs, making them happy, so there wouldn't be conflict? To me, the bad thing about that world wasn't that the world was like that. It's difficult to say that a world filled with happiness is bad. The problem was that someone slipped through the cracks, and had the most alienated existence.

I actually never read it before. Maybe I should sometime... I might look into an e-reader sometime. There's so much to read, and too much space to fill for me to be buying books.

EDIT: Not enough space. XD

[consuming negativity]

Precisely! Is it wrong for us to teach people what's wrong and what's right? What about evolution vs creationism? Surely there's a fine line created by schools. Either you're in a catholic school, or you're Biology teacher fills you in (or, like my Biology teacher, she'll make evolution and Darwinism the independent studies for that course...).

What if schools taught not to discriminate? What if we had a scenario like 1984 (thanks Palmares for the reminder), but it was all "good" stuff-don't discriminate, make sure to share and be fair, don't harm others, don't create a monopoly on toothbrushes, etc.?

Is it wrong to tell people what's wrong? EDIT: In an assertive manner. That is, telling them without allowing/encouraging debate or disagreement.

it's wrong if the person doesn't want to learn and you force them to sit and listen anyway under penalty of the entire rest of their life being screwed up.

people like to learn. if they don't want to, it is because it is being forced on them or they realize that they're being taught a bunch of bullshit. or, maybe, they usually like to learn, but right now they'd rather eat some cake. there are plenty of reasons. but if they don't want it, giving it to them is not doing what is in their best interest; it is doing what you wrongly think is in your best interest. "altruism" in this manner is to treat the individual as an object through the disregard of what makes them who they are - their actual selves - through lack of recognition of their informed consent or lack thereof for the particular activity. this is never in anybody's best interest, least of all the person being disregarded "for their own good".

[VCrakeV]

it's wrong if the person doesn't want to learn and you force them to sit and listen anyway under penalty of the entire rest of their life being screwed up.

people like to learn. if they don't want to, it is because it is being forced on them or they realize that they're being taught a bunch of bullshit. or, maybe, they usually like to learn, but right now they'd rather eat some cake. there are plenty of reasons. but if they don't want it, giving it to them is not doing what is in their best interest; it is doing what you wrongly think is in your best interest. "altruism" in this manner is to treat the individual as an object through the disregard of what makes them who they are - their actual selves - through lack of recognition of their informed consent or lack thereof for the particular activity. this is never in anybody's best interest, least of all the person being disregarded "for their own good".


What if they aren't forced? What if we lived in a system in which you're taught these things from birth? Either you're taught what's "right", or nothing at all. No one forces you to go to school—save for your parents, usually—but people will be inclined to go to school, and send their children to school. If you choose to learn nothing at all, what would there be to life? People wouldn't know the basics of communication.

What if people are brainwashed from birth? If they are, there's nothing to dislike. Look at religion. Parents teach their children religion as they grow up. Because they grew up with it, they will be brainwashed to enjoy further brainwashed... If that makes sense. If people were brainwashed as children/babies to go to school, they'd be brainwashed into wanting to be brainwashed. Got that? :p

[The Intransigent Faction]

What if they aren't forced? What if we lived in a system in which you're taught these things from birth? Either you're taught what's "right", or nothing at all. No one forces you to go to school—save for your parents, usually—but people will be inclined to go to school, and send their children to school. If you choose to learn nothing at all, what would there be to life? People wouldn't know the basics of communication.

What if people are brainwashed from birth? If they are, there's nothing to dislike. Look at religion. Parents teach their children religion as they grow up. Because they grew up with it, they will be brainwashed to enjoy further brainwashed... If that makes sense. If people were brainwashed as children/babies to go to school, they'd be brainwashed into wanting to be brainwashed. Got that?

That's an interesting point. I recently discussed this with a family friend who's a Liberal teacher. Alfie Kohn's book "Punished By Rewards" makes a solid case that reliance on punishments and/or rewards as incentives for kids to embrace education are counterproductive, but my friend raised the point that "Kids aren't naturally inclined to go to school".

My thoughts at the time were "Okay, but kids do demonstrate a 'natural curiosity' (desire to learn) and are socialized into accepting schools as the normal institution through which this takes place. The problem is not inherently with public schooling but with these practices used in an attempt to either coerce or bribe kids into 'doing well' at school."

As for the original question, I'm glad somebody else treats gaming as a moral/political exercise on occasion, too. ;) It brings to mind "A Clockwork Orange". While I reject the notion of free will, I still see mind control as ethically and practically objectionable. In this scenario, is there some kind of upkeep needed to maintain the device? If so, a breakdown is possible, and in such a case people who otherwise unthinkingly did X would no longer do so and may even actively set out to do the opposite.

I would contend that we can, in fact, determine objectively what is in someone's interests, but that a huge or even primary part of such is their ability to autonomously recognize them for themselves. That is the single best guarantee possible for the fulfillment of their interests in the event that either mind control were no longer possible or its implementation was prevented from the beginning.

[Tim Redd]

In a way, education is a form of mind control.

Especially bourgeois education. Genuine Maoist proletarian education among other things should teach you to question authority.

[cyu]

Yep, I'd say all human communication can be seen as an attempt at mind control. The communicator is trying to put a certain train of thought into the recipient's head - and those thoughts have a purpose - to bring about some kind of change in that person's mind, ie. "mind control".

In fact, I'd say "politeness" is one of the most effective forms of mind control. True, it's quite different from the aggressive actions one typically associates with "mind control" in the movies, but what is "politeness" really? You say what you typically say, except you add a "magic word" to your requests, and suddenly your target is more likely to comply with your request.

In any case, I suspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed was written with these very issues in mind. Freire was probably well aware of the potential for abuse by teachers in positions of authority, and the pitfalls of not being conscious of their own power. I'd say the book is written from the perspective of those in power (ie. the teacher) who is trying to be mindful of inadvertently doing the "wrong" thing by not realizing their power over their students.

From the other side, the side of those who are not in positions of authority, whether it is students, or the audience of the mass media, I would say it is less about the tactics used in "mind control" and more about empowerment. Instead of saying only certain segments of society should be allowed to have weapons, everyone should be allowed to have weapons. Instead of saying only certain segments of society should understand propaganda tactics, everyone should understand propaganda tactics. Instead of saying only certain segments of society should control the media, everyone should control the media.

[Dean]

I was recently playing a game, Civilization, and my cities were quite unhappy from multiple sources. So, I immediately thought about building mind-control centers (which reduce unhappiness in cities to 0). However, I paused for a while, thinking about the ethics of it. I always play the game with my personal beliefs in mind. For example, I never adopt the bureaucracy civic.
I play civilization - which version are you playing? I have never seen mind control facilities.

I almost always try to be an ethical leader, just because that comes naturally to conservative play styles. But you can't apply your own ideology to the game, partly because it is a game, but also because it includes doctrines and elements that are rigid reflections of the (Western/Anglo-American view of) real world ideologies. For instance, Civilization 5 has competing "freedom" "order" and "autocracy" options which represent Western Liberal Democracy, Communist Bloc and Fascism respectively. These choices are not in the ideals of Jeffersonian Democrats, Marxists Communists or Nietzscheans, but in the form of the Really Existing state capitalist regimes that each one of those blocs represented.

Not every Communist-aligned state was an autocratic mess, but they mostly were. The Liberal Democracies which most champion free markets have, today, the most regulated markets in the world, frequently with monopolies and very little social mobility. All of the states which succeeded from the 1930s on (and continue to enjoy the fruits of this success) have or had hyper-autocratic enterprises based on state purchases and institutions, closely resembling fascist economic models.

The real world is messy, and Civilization does a decent job of codifying some of the most overt differences between these models. Nonetheless, in most of these games there is no way to implement the kind of state like that seen in the US, which takes significant influence from each of the three models and finds its strongest expression of liberal democracy in the ideological and legal foundations, rather than the economic and even political/legal institutions that really exist.


I ended up building them in every city that could make use of them. Is mind control immoral? Most people would say yes without questioning anything. But it depends-what're are you putting in their brains? Is it justifiable to control minds for a better good? What if minds were controlled to get rid of the evil in people-greed, stupidity, hate, and more-to better humanity?

And what about the method? What if we could control minds with chips, or waves? What if we used propaganda and broadcasting? What about mandatory drugs? There are many potential methods, and surely some are more/less ethical than others.

Your thoughts?


Mind control is unethical and creates a system of control that can be abused and create a stratified society: an overclass of those who can control that information, and an underclass who is not able to control it, but is influenced by it.

Communism, and most leftist political doctrines like Anarchism, specifically refer to education as a means to empower the population to have control over their own lives. Even using education as a means to indoctrinate by choosing specific historical and political data to emphasize represents a possible means to selectively influence people and reduce the capability for a population to self-govern. This is not to say that a liberated educational system shouldn't have certain compulsory information (as an example, lessons meant to teach students how to navigate road signs are obviously necessary).

Education should be the extent of propaganda and indoctrinate that is official policy in any way, and it should never stray from the Latin root: "E Ducere," to draw out - in other words, education is to find what is in the student. There are significant professional movements encouraging this kind of education. The moment that education is meant to put something in a students mind, rather than to allow the student to form their own position and relationship to something, that education is actually meant as an external control mechanism, susceptible to all the pitfalls of class and instability that creates.

[VCrakeV]

I play civilization - which version are you playing? I have never seen mind control facilities.


I was playing Civ 4 with an overhaul mod.

[BIXX]

Fuck mind control.

I am of the opinion that unhappiness and happiness are equally important. In fact...


Joy and sorrow are only two liquors with which life merrily gets drunk.

To go further, we might understand that the "bad" in people (stupidity, greed, hate, etc...) Is part of what fundamentally makes certain people who they are, also it would exemplify the qualities they have that we enjoy, such as love, altruistic impulses, and intelligence.

Fuck bettering humanity, we are living for ourselves, as that is why I oppose capitalism and civilization- if we are struggling for a better humanity than a better life then the war is already lost.

[Redistribute the Rep]

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/socialists/english/e_fun

Orwell's thoughts on it are interesting.

[Invader Zim]

Well, I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the ethical questions being discussed but 'mind control' seems to have taken some steps of late, in that scientists have been able to manipulate the brain to control non-bodily objects - i.e. when a person thinks something in particular, then it causes an LED to light up. Using the electrical signals from the brain to send a signal to an electronic object. This, they hope, will lead to the creation of devices that will be implanted in the brain that will have medicinal purposes. So, for a person who suffers from epilepsy, when a fit is coming on the brain's signals will activate an implant which will automatically stimulate a part of the brain to release chemicals will which alleviate, if not avert, the seizure.

I also read about not dissimilar technology (well, it didn't sound too dissimilar from position of absolute ignorance) that was about brain implants designed to stimulate elements of the brain that would encourage the creation of neural pathways associated with empathy in psychopaths.

I guess this isn't mind control as we would normally think of it, but it is artificial intervention, however crude, on how brain functions.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the ethical questions being discussed but 'mind control' seems to have taken some steps of late, in that scientists have been able to manipulate the brain to control non-bodily objects - i.e. when a person thinks something in particular, then it causes an LED to light up. Using the electrical signals from the brain to send a signal to an electronic object. This, they hope, will lead to the creation of devices that will be implanted in the brain that will have medicinal purposes. So, for a person who suffers from epilepsy, when a fit is coming on the brain's signals will activate an implant which will automatically stimulate a part of the brain to release chemicals will which alleviate, if not avert, the seizure.

I also read about not dissimilar technology (well, it didn't sound too dissimilar from position of absolute ignorance) that was about brain implants designed to stimulate elements of the brain that would encourage the creation of neural pathways associated with empathy in psychopaths.

I guess this isn't mind control as we would normally think of it, but it is artificial intervention, however crude, on how brain functions.

They are able to send signals to a rats brain to make it run around too.

[VCrakeV]

Fuck mind control.

I am of the opinion that unhappiness and happiness are equally important. In fact...



To go further, we might understand that the "bad" in people (stupidity, greed, hate, etc...) Is part of what fundamentally makes certain people who they are, also it would exemplify the qualities they have that we enjoy, such as love, altruistic impulses, and intelligence.

Fuck bettering humanity, we are living for ourselves, as that is why I oppose capitalism and civilization- if we are struggling for a better humanity than a better life then the war is already lost.

Wouldn't a better humanity result in a better life?

[consuming negativity]

Well, I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the ethical questions being discussed but 'mind control' seems to have taken some steps of late, in that scientists have been able to manipulate the brain to control non-bodily objects - i.e. when a person thinks something in particular, then it causes an LED to light up. Using the electrical signals from the brain to send a signal to an electronic object. This, they hope, will lead to the creation of devices that will be implanted in the brain that will have medicinal purposes. So, for a person who suffers from epilepsy, when a fit is coming on the brain's signals will activate an implant which will automatically stimulate a part of the brain to release chemicals will which alleviate, if not avert, the seizure.

I also read about not dissimilar technology (well, it didn't sound too dissimilar from position of absolute ignorance) that was about brain implants designed to stimulate elements of the brain that would encourage the creation of neural pathways associated with empathy in psychopaths.

I guess this isn't mind control as we would normally think of it, but it is artificial intervention, however crude, on how brain functions.

step 1: thinking certain thoughts that are not Approved™ begets a punishment, such as an electric shock
step 2: the person is trained not to think about certain things through conditioning
step 3: actual literal brainwashing/mind control/thought policing

[BIXX]

Wouldn't a better humanity result in a better life?
Not really. Because we aren't us at that point- we would be more similar to bees.

[jullia]

Mind control remind me "a clockwork orange"

[VCrakeV]

Not really. Because we aren't us at that point- we would be more similar to bees.

Exactly. A hive works better than segregated groups. That doesn't mean losing our individuality though; it just means having a common interest.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The apparatus necessary to carry out any sort of large scale mind control is necessarily premised on fundamentally unjust forms of social organization. It think it necessarily implies, first, the contradiction between those who are the conscious carriers of the project and those who carry it out; then between its being carried out and its affect on those who are subject to it.
If it follows, and I think it does, that an unjust form of social organization cannot justly control minds, then given the first premise there can be no just mind control.

[/fake philosophy]

[Tim Redd]

Fuck bettering humanity, we are living for ourselves

The whole goddam point of revolution is about bettering humanity. You are really dishonest to pretend you are some kind of revolutionary.

Many of you are over thinking this and are somehow accepting what he says above as valid for a revolutionary. But get a grip, this is bald face reactionary, right wing, counterrevolutionary ideology. What is this person doing to make anyone on RevLeft accept this? He should be restricted to "Opposing Ideologies".

If this is anarchism there is no further proof of it's bankruptcy than what this person says above. This makes me seriously wonder about all the people who give this person reputation points.

Come on people wake up!

[VCrakeV]

The whole goddam point of revolution is about bettering humanity. You are really dishonest to pretend you are some kind of revolutionary.

Many of you are over thinking this and are somehow accepting what he says above as valid for a revolutionary. But get a grip, this is bald face reactionary, right wing, counterrevolutionary ideology. What is this guy doing to make anyone on Revleft accept this? He should be restricted to "Opposing Ideologies".

If this is anarchism there is no further proof of it's bankruptcy than what this person says above. This makes me seriously wonder about all the people who give this person reputation points.

Come on people wake up!

'Twas well needed, Tim. I thought no one liked d&d anyway?

[BIXX]

'Twas well needed, Tim. I thought no one liked d&d anyway?
i like d&d

oh wait you meant me

well in that case i'm curious as to how you'd explain how my rep expands faster than my post count, despite posting a large amount of inane shit?

sorry but you're an idiot and i had to deal with this affront on my massive ego


The whole goddam point of revolution is about bettering humanity.
while i disagree with you this would be yet another reason to say fuck revolution


You are really dishonest to pretend you are some kind of revolutionary.
sorry mister, i didn't realize i was pretending

i can't remember the last time i claimed i was a revolutionary, please enlighten me


Many of you are over thinking this and are somehow accepting what he says above as valid for a revolutionary. But get a grip, this is bald face reactionary, right wing, counterrevolutionary ideology. What is this guy doing to make anyone on Revleft accept this? He should be restricted to "Opposing Ideologies".
oh youd like that wouldnt you

also im not a guy, also this is not right wing, nor is it counter revolutionary per say, its just not revolutionary, its also not an ideology, and if you feel i should be restricted to opposing ideologies, there is a rule regarding that...


If you think the member should be restricted or banned, PM any mod or admin with the relevant information (quoted text demonstrating violation of board rules). They will either act directly, or in controversial/unclear cases bring the matter up in the Board Administration forum.[QUOTE]

I dare you.

[QUOTE=Tim Redd;2812185]If this is anarchism there is no further proof of it's bankruptcy than what this person says above. This makes me seriously wonder about all the people who give this person reputation points.
im not an anarchist



Come on people wake up!
yeah wake up sheeple i'm deceiving you into my illuminati plot of convincing all of you to not follow marx-lenin-stalin-mao-tim redd thought.

[Tim Redd]

well in that case i'm curious as to how you'd explain how my rep expands faster than my post count, despite posting a large amount of inane shit?

Many people don't see your right wing thinking because you embed it within quasi progressive comments in other and the same post.

This by you should be seen to be the right-wing mentality it surely is:



Fuck bettering humanity, we are living for ourselves.


while i disagree with you this would be yet another reason to say fuck revolution


i can't remember the last time i claimed i was a revolutionary, please enlighten me

Why you are allowed to post other than "Opposing Ideologies" is due to habit and a major failure on the part the moderators.


oh youd like that wouldnt you

Yes, as I would to quarantining any right winger one who craps in/on discussion amongst revolutionaries.


im not an anarchist

Just a right winger who has been able deceive many on RevLeft.


yeah wake up sheeple i'm deceiving you into my illuminati plot of convincing all of you to not follow marx-lenin-stalin-mao-tim redd thought.

You got it.

[BIXX]

Many people don't see your right wing thinking because you embed it within quasi progressive comments in other and the same post.

This by you should be seen to be the right-wing mentality it surely is:
Lol the right wing is a bunch of fucking idiots, more so than the left.

However, I think you are insulting the intelligence of many of the people on this board by saying they cannot see through a right wing facade just because quasi progressive comments are made. Or, do you believe that only the great Tim Redd can lead them away from reactionary views?


Why you are allowed to post other than "Opposing Ideologies" is due to habit and a major failure on the part the moderators.
Then report me, and they will take it to vote.


Yes, as I would to quarantining any right winger one who craps in/on discussion amongst revolutionaries.



Just a right winger who has been able deceive many on RevLeft.



You got it.

Lol good luck. Report me. We will see.

[Dean]

So, please get back to discussing mind control doxxer / Redd.

I have brought this interaction to the attention of the other mods.

[VCrakeV]

i like d&d

oh wait you meant me

well in that case i'm curious as to how you'd explain how my rep expands faster than my post count, despite posting a large amount of inane shit?


You said it yourself in a different thread.

Is it just me, or do you change your mind more than a girl changes clothes?

... Pardon the sexism. It's just a joke.

[The Disillusionist]

well in that case i'm curious as to how you'd explain how my rep expands faster than my post count, despite posting a large amount of inane shit?



Not many people like me, and somehow my rep has been expanding fairly quickly. :blink:

Overall, I would say that education is vastly different from direct mind control. Mind "control" implies a lack of options. Education should, ideally, be a means of exposing kids to knowledge so that they can come to their own conclusions through reason, rather than indoctrinating them. That's why so many kids struggle with education nowadays, I think, because it isn't a natural process of reasoning, it's rote memorization, which doesn't really work.

Also, I agree with Tim that revolution is about bettering humanity. However, you can't benefit humanity with a top down cultural approach, suppressing human diversity and destroying cultural variety won't get you anywhere. You start from the bottom, helping people on a material level, and you allow greater, more healthy diversity to develop from that foundation. You will never get everyone to agree about everything, but if you can introduce the right material conditions, you might be able to get people to at least agree that exploitation and killing are not good ideas. Without material conditions that faciliate that though, no amount of cultural manipulation will make any real difference, because the underlying problem will still be there.

I also agree with doxxer (shocking, I know), that human nature includes selfishness, and that that selfishness cannot be erradicated in any kind of moral, humanistic manner. As a result, humanity cannot be made perfect, and human societies will always need to have some kind of mechanism to keep those selfish actors from harming others, hopefully in the most understanding, sympathetic way possible. Mind control is not that way.

[cyu]

human nature includes selfishness, and that that selfishness cannot be erradicated in any kind of moral, humanistic manner.

Reminds me of http://revleft.com/vb/people-say-capitalism-t175359/index.html?p=2523800

Robert Trivers demonstrated how reciprocal altruism can evolve between unrelated individuals, even between individuals of entirely different species. it "takes the altruism out of altruism." The Randian premise that self-interest is paramount is largely unchallenged, but turned on its head by recognition of a broader, more profound view of what constitutes self-interest.

rationality and deliberate choice are not necessary, nor trust nor even consciousness. Often the initial mutual cooperation is not even intentional, but having "discovered" a beneficial pattern both parties respond to it by continuing the conditions that maintain it.

work on the evolution of cooperation has expanded to cover prosocial behavior generally, and in religion. It has also been used to challenge the rational and self-regarding "economic man" model of economics, and as a basis for replacing Darwinian sexual selection theory with a theory of social selection

It is shown that the nature of self-interest is more profound than previously considered, and that behavior that seems altruistic may, in a broader view, be individually beneficial.

[The Disillusionist]

Reminds me of http://revleft.com/vb/people-say-capitalism-t175359/index.html?p=2523800

Robert Trivers demonstrated how reciprocal altruism can evolve between unrelated individuals, even between individuals of entirely different species. it "takes the altruism out of altruism." The Randian premise that self-interest is paramount is largely unchallenged, but turned on its head by recognition of a broader, more profound view of what constitutes self-interest.

rationality and deliberate choice are not necessary, nor trust nor even consciousness. Often the initial mutual cooperation is not even intentional, but having "discovered" a beneficial pattern both parties respond to it by continuing the conditions that maintain it.

work on the evolution of cooperation has expanded to cover prosocial behavior generally, and in religion. It has also been used to challenge the rational and self-regarding "economic man" model of economics, and as a basis for replacing Darwinian sexual selection theory with a theory of social selection

It is shown that the nature of self-interest is more profound than previously considered, and that behavior that seems altruistic may, in a broader view, be individually beneficial.

I love this stuff! As an anthropology student, reciprocal altruism and economic/cultural group vs individual selection is one of my favorite focuses. I just wrote a paper on the nature of altruistic punishment/spite and its role in maintaining cooperative systems, as well as how it could evolve in a population of selfish actors.

[BIXX]

I also agree with doxxer (shocking, I know), that human nature includes selfishness, and that that selfishness cannot be erradicated in any kind of moral, humanistic manner. As a result, humanity cannot be made perfect, and human societies will always need to have some kind of mechanism to keep those selfish actors from harming others, hopefully in the most understanding, sympathetic way possible. Mind control is not that way.

For me it has nothing to do with being selfish, really, though I don't find selfishness to be a bad thing in a person. It, for me, has to do with desire, which is very different from selfishness.

[Vogel]

If you force people to think certain things and to do certain things, you are basically becoming the exploiter in a new class relationship. Your incentive will be to secure your position, so I don't think it would ever turn out well unless Jesus or Buddha were in charge. Of course, I don't think Buddha or Jesus would like doing that to people in the first place.

[Fakeblock]

It is erroneous to assume a difference between the 'brainwashed' mind and the mind in its natural state. All minds are controlled by the forces of the class struggle.

[Vogel]

The whole goddam point of revolution is about bettering humanity. You are really dishonest to pretend you are some kind of revolutionary.

Many of you are over thinking this and are somehow accepting what he says above as valid for a revolutionary. But get a grip, this is bald face reactionary, right wing, counterrevolutionary ideology. What is this person doing to make anyone on RevLeft accept this? He should be restricted to "Opposing Ideologies".

If this is anarchism there is no further proof of it's bankruptcy than what this person says above. This makes me seriously wonder about all the people who give this person reputation points.

Come on people wake up!

If I were to guess, dirty doxxer simply strongly believes in, as Marx titled it, the Ancient class system. Though I disagree with his philosophy on humanity that he uses to justify his beliefs, it is the 2nd of two non-exploitative class systems. Anarchy, which could go wrong, turn into small groups despotism for example, could also expand the Ancient class system amongst the populace.

[consuming negativity]

I feel compelled to share the source of the line in my signature. The part before the star is for context, while the "get to the point" read would require just reading what comes after it.



Another word about the alibis of power. Suppose that a tyrant took pleasure in throwing prisoners who had been flayed alive into a small cell; suppose that to hear their screams and see them scramble each time they brushed against one another amused him a lot, at the same time causing him to meditate on human nature and the curious behaviour of men. Suppose that at the same time and in the same country there were philosophers and wise men who explained to the worlds of science and art that suffering had to do with the collective life of men, the inevitable presence of Others, society as such -- wouldn't we be right to consider these men the tyrant's watchdogs? By proclaiming such theses as these, a certain existentialist conception has demonstrated not only the collusion of left intellectuals with power, but also the crude trick by which an inhuman social organization attributes the responsibility for its cruelties to its victims themselves. A nineteenth century critic remarked: "Throughout contemporary literature we find the tendency to regard individual suffering as a social evil and to make the organization of society responsible for the misery and degradation of its members. This is a profoundly new idea: suffering is no longer treated as a matter of fatality." Certain thinkers steeped in fatalism have not been troubled overmuch by such novelties: consider Sartre's hell-is-other-people, Freud's death instinct, Mao's historical necessity. After all, what distinguishes these doctrines from the stupid "it's just human nature"?

Hierarchical social organization is like a system of hoppers lined with sharp blades. While it flays us alive power cleverly persuades us that we are flaying each other. It is true that to limit myself to writing this is to risk fostering a new fatalism; but I certainly intend in writing it that nobody should limit himself to reading it.

*

Altruism is the other side of the coin of 'hell-is-other-people'; only this time mystification appears under a positive sign. Let's put an end to this old soldier crap once and for all! For others to interest me I must first find in myself the energy for such an interest. What binds me to others must grow out of what binds me to the most exuberant and demanding part of my will to live; not the other way round. It is always myself that I am looking for in other people; my enrichment, my realization. let everyone understand this and 'each for himself' taken to its ultimate conclusion will be transformed into 'all for each'. The freedom of one will be the freedom of all. A community which is not built on the demands of individuals and their dialectic can only reinforce the oppressive violence of power. The Other in whom I do not find myself is nothing but a thing, and altruism leads me to the love of things, to the love of my isolation.

Seen from the viewpoint of altruism, or of solidarity, that altruism of the left, the sentiment of equality is standing on its head. What is it but the common anguish of associates who are lonely together, humiliated, fucked up, beaten, deprived, contented together, the anguish of unattached particles, hoping to be joined together, not in reality, but in a mystical union, any union, that of the Nation or that of the Labour Movement, it doesn't matter which so long as it makes you feel like those drunken evenings when we're all pals together? Equality in the great family of man reeks of the incense of religious mystification. You need a blocked-up nose to miss the stink.

For myself, I recognize no equality except that which my will to live according to my desires recognizes in the will to live of others. Revolutionary equality will be indivisibly individual and collective.emphasis mine

source (the revolution of everyday life by raoul vaneigem): http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/38

[cyu]

I feel compelled to share the source of the line in my signature.

That's just the mind control talking ;)

[Rafiq]

The notion of mind control assumes that the mind is by default in a state of non-control. This is an impossibility.

[Rafiq]

The whole goddam point of revolution is about bettering humanity. You are really dishonest to pretend you are some kind of revolutionary.

No, it is about a specific class composed of humans fulfilling their interests by conquering the state. The notion of humanity, or claiming to represent it is meaningless and ambiguous. As is any form of utilitarian logic, bettering humanity or otherwise. The point of reference is not the sacred "individual" as doxxer claims, or your vague notions of "humanity" - it is a real existing class.

[BIXX]

The point of reference is not the sacred "individual" as doxxer claims

Yet again you ignore what I actually say. Oh well.

[Tim Redd]

No, it is about a specific class composed of humans fulfilling their interests by conquering the state. The notion of humanity, or claiming to represent it is meaningless and ambiguous. As is any form of utilitarian logic, bettering humanity or otherwise. The point of reference is not the sacred "individual" as doxxer claims, or your vague notions of "humanity" - it is a real existing class.

Humanity is the socio-politco-eco-culturo endeavor of all homo-sapiens constituted as a whole in all of those areas and more across millions of years.

I agree with Marx who said that while various particular classes fight for dominance in all forms, including crucially for state power, in some cases the nature of their dominance and economic practice embodies the next progressive step for the advancement of humanity as whole. This is what is going on with proletarian revolution and its use of the dictatorship of the the proletariat to transform society in order to abolish classes and hand in hand as a corollary to that, the elimination of all exploitation and oppression.

[Rafiq]

In many cases the nature of their dominance and economic practice embodies the next progressive step for the advancement of humanity as whole.

We are only able to articulate any notion of progress based on our present, relative standards of reason. Progress is only possible in proximity to our relative historical circumstances, i.e. progress is only possible if we construe progress in such a way as to find relevance in present dichotomies of struggle. There is no "next step" of humanity, there are no pre-defined stages. While societal advancement is indeed objectively existent, measured by the complexity of our social organization, technological, linguistic sophistication - in some more effective and more efficient means by which our survival is reproduced and can sustain more of us - this however is not linear. There are no "next steps" of humanity, there are possible advances as a result of transformations of our mode of production, but this is not a next step. There are several steps our current society could take. The dichotomy is and has always been between reaction and progress - defending civilization in these circumstances amounts to its supersession.

[Tim Redd]

We are only able to articulate any notion of progress based on our present, relative standards of reason. Progress is only possible in proximity to our relative historical circumstances, i.e. progress is only possible if we construe progress in such a way as to find relevance in present dichotomies of struggle.

And what Marx and I are saying is that relative to what capitalism is right now, the next step is the for the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) to come about and for it to abolish classes and eliminate all exploitation and oppression. We Maoists understand that necessary to that mission is that during and using the dotp we must target and remove capitalist roaders (those who would restore capitalist ways and capitalism in general) who have positions the state and the party.

That the last point is why I can't understand why anarchists are wary of the dotp the way Maoists practice it. Anarchists are skeptical of the state even after the revolution, but we Maoists are saying that the essential activity of the proletarian controlled state is to rid the state and the party of those who would drag society back to capitalism, those who would restore a capitalist society.

Get with it anarchists, we need a state after the revolution controlled by the revolutionary masses and their party - in a dotp - in order to prevent the capitalists from returning to power. Anything less is a high school student fantasy dream.

[The Intransigent Faction]

And what Marx and I are saying is that relative to what capitalism is right now, the next step is the for the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) to come about and for it to abolish classes and eliminate all exploitation and oppression. We Maoists understand that necessary to that mission is that during and using the dotp we must target and remove capitalist roaders (those who would restore capitalist ways and capitalism in general) who have positions the state and the party.

That the last point is why I can't understand why anarchists are wary of the dotp the way Maoists practice it. Anarchists are skeptical of the state even after the revolution, but we Maoists are saying that the essential activity of the proletarian controlled state is to rid the state and the party of those who would drag society back to capitalism, those who would restore a capitalist society.

Get with it anarchists, we need a state after the revolution controlled by the revolutionary masses and their party - in a dotp - in order to prevent the capitalists from returning to power. Anything less is a high school student fantasy dream.

If a socialist revolution is successful, how exactly is a centralized state necessary to avoid a return to capitalism? What you essentially just said is that you need a state to prevent capitalist-roaders from taking control of the state. Aren't centralized state institutions if anything inherently far more vulnerable to hijacking by capitalist intellectuals than autonomous collectives or democratic workers' councils? Who exactly would these deposed capitalists kill or replace in order to seize control of a leaderless movement in which he or she wouldn't be able to pass a vote, let alone unilaterally direct everyone back into capitalism.

[Comrade #138672]

I disagree with the concept of "mind control". It overestimates the capability to control a population purely by controlling their minds. As far as "mind control" goes, it can be said that "the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class".

[The Intransigent Faction]

I disagree with the concept of "mind control". It overestimates the capability to control a population purely by controlling their minds. As far as "mind control" goes, it can be said that "the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class".

That quote is true, but I'm not sure what you're getting at...

Insofar as ruling ideas are adopted in the consciousness of a ruled class, it's certainly not overestimation to say that 'consensual' class rule is a more effective method of control than coercion.

[cyu]

It overestimates the capability to control a population purely by controlling their minds. Yes, the ruling class needs to control both the military and the mass media. That's how they put down the Egyptian revolution. Lose control of either and control cannot be maintained.

...and for a revolution to succeed, a leftist-occupied media cannot succeed without either converting the rank-and-file military, or rallying an equivalent military from the working class. A rank-and-file-based military revolution cannot succeed without liberating the mass media - for example, the Venezuelan military would be playing into the hands of capitalists if they let protests of "freedom of the press" result in the wealthy retaining their domination of the political ideas in circulation.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-freedom-of-the-press-is-guaranteed-only-to-those-who-own-one-a-j-liebling-112230.jpg

[noble brown]

bottom line, mind control, however you define it, is a tool to secure and protect power structures. no matter how you cut it this results in coercion. the ONLY education should be to teach ppl how to think critically. i dont care what you believe as long as youve thought about it critically. there is no coercion if youve made an informed decision. the masses are the "masses" because they dont know how to think critically, you must not only think critically about whats around you but also whats inside you, your own thoughts and feelings must continually be challenged and analyzed.

[BIXX]

i dont care what you believe as long as youve thought about it critically.

I don't think you realize how dangerous this statement is.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

While I am wary of universalizing notions like humanity, I feel there's something in terms of emancipatory possibility in Marx's species-being that's missed in Rafiq's "specific class". While I would agree that the former notion is meaningless absent the latter, I don't think it should be jettisoned. This is particularly the case when we come up to the notion of progress, which I disagree can be assessed in terms of complexity. Rather, I would say that if such a notion is useful (and I have my doubts), it's only useful relative to the realization of human capacities and inclinations (something I'd say "primitive communism" was better suited to than capitalism, and which will also be true of "future communism").

But I'd also say that communism is immanent, so I'm probably off on some weird anarchist-y "orgasms of history"-y deep end shit.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Bringing that back around to mind control though, I really do believe their is a "pre-subjective" which will always and everywhere thwart the realization of a "total ideology" - that, at the level of bodies, there are gestures which can't be subsumed by capital (or any system).

[Tim Redd]

If a socialist revolution is successful, how exactly is a centralized state necessary to avoid a return to capitalism? What you essentially just said is that you need a state to prevent capitalist-roaders from taking control of the state. Aren't centralized state institutions if anything inherently far more vulnerable to hijacking by capitalist intellectuals than autonomous collectives or democratic workers' councils? Who exactly would these deposed capitalists kill or replace in order to seize control of a leaderless movement in which he or she wouldn't be able to pass a vote, let alone unilaterally direct everyone back into capitalism.

The capitalist-roaders would form, or enable a centralized state apparatus that usurps the various local centres.

There are dangers either way - with a mostly powerful centre or decentralized local power. But within a nation you need to be able pull key decisions and key directives together in a centralized apparatus in order to enforce an effective dictatorship against capitalist-roaders.

[noble brown]

I don't think you realize how dangerous this statement is.

& i don't think u realize how dangerous your statement is...

[cyu]

I'm probably off on some weird anarchist-y "orgasms of history"-y deep end shit.

I like this term. End Timers can have their Rapture. Atheists can have Orgasms of History :laugh:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I like this term. End Timers can have their Rapture. Atheists can have Orgasms of History :laugh:

Reference is to a pretty good concept from a mediocre book (http://www.akpress.org/orgasmsofhistory.html) (though I've heard it's better in the original French).

[BIXX]

& i don't think u realize how dangerous your statement is...
So you don't care that people who have thought about it critically decide to kill queers in the street? Or do you believe there is no way that could be considered critical thought? Then what is critical thought? Anything that agrees with you?

Basically, this statement is dishonest, or it supports the intentional oppression of racial minorities, women, queer bashers, etc... Your statement is really fucked in that regard.

[Rafiq]

This is particularly the case when we come up to the notion of progress, which I disagree can be assessed in terms of complexity. Rather, I would say that if such a notion is useful (and I have my doubts), it's only useful relative to the realization of human capacities and inclinations (something I'd say "primitive communism" was better suited to than capitalism, and which will also be true of "future communism").


What you are missing, crucially, is that more advanced societies, and complex forms of social organization develop for a reason. During "primitive Communism", as you should know, hunger and disease were common and the conditions of primitive Communism couldn't possibly suit the existing population we have now. The neolithic revolution happened for a reason and I promise you any hunter-gatherer society that still remains on this planet, any non-historically conscious indigenous society would in a heartbeat lead itself to class society following more efficient means of resource extraction unless it bases its existence on a superstitious aversion to the rest of the world (which would in effect ALREADY be a form of self-consciousness, i.e. the "purity" of it is lost and it effectively becomes part of our world-historic totality). All "progress" means is the development, sophistication and advancement of our productive capacities (to produce more, for more people) - insofar as we are able to support more people, develop a better understanding of the world, distribute resources to more people in a more efficient manner and so on. It has nothing to do with moral superiority: Progress exists objectively because the struggle for survival and the expansive reproduction of life (which therefore designates a wider understanding of the world) is constant trans-historically (or culturally) - the problem with claims to acting on "behalf of progress" or history for that matter are not that they are relative, but that they assume a goal - an abstracted idea - whereby a real existing class becomes an instrument. The contrary is true: the notion of progress is supposed to substantiate the aims of a real existing class, not the other way around (this is something Marx began to later understand). I cannot even fathom how "primitive communism" was better suited to this. The only thing a potential Communist society would have with primitive Communism is property being owned in common.

Which is why, like Adam's fall from paradise, the neolithic revolution and civilization as we know it is worth holding on to, as a legacy, without which there would be nothing. it doesn't simply represent the rise of exploitation and domination: It represents a step forward to self-consciousness. This is PRECISELY what differentiates our Communism from "primitive" Communism - for the young Marx, the same Marx who gave us "species being", history as such was merely the jerry rig by which humanity attains self-consciousness with regard to their surroundings. Communism represents the final development of self-consciousness (consciousness of consciousness itself) whereby there are no obstacles between "human inclination" and our relationship to production. History henceforth would be history willed by men and women - meaning that society would change exponentially but that it would be directed in a self-conscious manner, without the necessity of class antagonism.

So what is the problem with this? It is ideological - you cannot adopt the reference point of humanity. Humanity posesses no interest, it is an impossibility: This simply is not about any abstract notion of "progress", it is about recognizing the social predispositions to the abolition of capitalism. What many Marxists (or post-Marxists, for that matter) often forget is Communism IS NOT an idea by which we "use" the workers to fulfill - Communism as an ideology derives from the struggle of a specific class against another. Without this social basis, Communism is a worthless abstraction which cannot even dream of being an ounce superior to any other consumer-fetishist meta-"ideology" (i.e. Anarcho-capitalism, National Anarcho-primitivism or whatever you want). Humanity is incapable of "acting as humanity". If this were possible, we would already be living in a society free from class antagonism. Evidently we do not. The fact of the matter is that virtually almost every social upheaval by any class historically has "claimed" to be fighting on behalf of humanity - if Communism represents historic consciousness (that is, consciousness OF history) we MUST be able to not fall into this trap of acting on behalf of humanity - Communism, which embodies class consciousness, does not render the working people too stupid to grasp this - any claimant to "humanity" would simply be a demand for a social myth or otherwise a lack of sophistication of Communist ideology.

It is simply incontestable that self-consciousness is what separates our aims from abstractions like "primitive Communism" which have no context in our present conditions of life: Because the fall of hunter-gatherer societies was precisely because a lack of consciousness. No one simply said "hey, let's have class society!" - it was, almost naturally consequential of the discovery of agriculture. Any attempt to glorify primitive Communism or call to a spiritual return necessarily is playing a game of picking and choosing. I cannot even begin to grasp how anyone could believe that our present advances in medicine, food production, and so on could have been possible without civilization. The point is not to look at an eternal truth as a point of reference, like "humanity" or "civilization", but to recognize that these things were made possible by an entanglement of wills, i.e. something no one willed or desired. The point is recognizing that history is driven by class warfare - and that we do not live in a post-historical world wherein we can be beyond class antagonism.

[Tim Redd]

If a socialist revolution is successful, how exactly is a centralized state necessary to avoid a return to capitalism? What you essentially just said is that you need a state to prevent capitalist-roaders from taking control of the state.

Yes, a state, specifically the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp), is required to prevent capitalist-roaders from seizing power and returning state power to the capitalists.

The essence of the state per Lenin, and many of those he studied for his work "State and Revolution", is that it is an organism for promoting and enforcing the socio-politico-economic interests of one or more specific classes, while suppressing processes and activities favorable to classes that would subvert the interests of the class, or coalition classes, in power.


Aren't centralized state institutions if anything inherently far more vulnerable to hijacking by capitalist intellectuals than autonomous collectives or democratic workers' councils?

Why would people with pro capitalist restoration ideas be any less present in autonomous collectives or democratic workers' councils than anywhere else?


Who exactly would these deposed capitalists kill or replace in order to seize control of a leaderless movement in which he or she wouldn't be able to pass a vote, let alone unilaterally direct everyone back into capitalism.

Some deposed capitalists and newly generated capitalist elements attempt to attack and suppress (even kill) those in autonomous collectives or democratic workers' councils who espouse socialist/communist ideas that are contrary to their stance.

Of course most of the time they wouldn't immediately attempt to attack and suppress other member of the autonomous collectives or democratic workers' councils, but it may come to pass that there are circumstances urgent enough to them to commit such acts.

At times of heated struggle why wouldn't people with pro capitalist restoration ideas and agenda be able to kill people in autonomous collectives or democratic workers' councils who espouse and attempt to further the socialist revolution if there was no state - a dotp - as a coercive power that works to circumvent people with pro capitalist restoration ideas and agenda.


Who exactly would these deposed capitalists kill or replace in order to seize control of a leaderless movement in which he or she wouldn't be able to pass a vote, let alone unilaterally direct everyone back into capitalism.

Why wouldn't people with pro capitalist restoration ideas and agenda be able to promote their reactionary ideas via press, internet and speeches and then win other less revolutionary conscious people to their position and then win elections in autonomous collectives or democratic workers' councils on that basis?

{Apology didn't see your response until now.}

[Tim Redd]

bottom line, mind control, however you define it, is a tool to secure and protect power structures. no matter how you cut it this results in coercion. the ONLY education should be to teach ppl how to think critically. i dont care what you believe as long as youve thought about it critically. there is no coercion if youve made an informed decision. the masses are the "masses" because they dont know how to think critically, you must not only think critically about whats around you but also whats inside you, your own thoughts and feelings must continually be challenged and analyzed.

I care very much what constitutes a person's ideology and political stance even if they formed their view free (ostensibly or non-obstensibly) of coercion. It matters what people think because they often act on those ideas. And if they have capitalist roader/restoration views, they are liable to act in a way that harms the continued progress of the socialist/communist revolution.

[noble brown]

For me the most important revolution, the one that will ensure the peoples liberation, is the revolution of the mind. I don't want dogmatic revolutionaries. They are not mindful people and will fall for whatever ideology presents itself in the right manner at the right moment. I dislike revolutionaries who come to the movement because they are following whatever ass happens to be in front of them. People who are thoughtful, regardless of their current political affiliation, can participate in meaningful and progressive discourse. Thoughtful people with wrongheaded ideas can be enlightened. Dogmatic people are emotionally locked into their belief systems and will become a burden to a truly dynamic and progressive movement

[Tim Redd]

For me the most important revolution, the one that will ensure the peoples liberation, is the revolution of the mind. I don't want dogmatic revolutionaries. They are not mindful people and will fall for whatever ideology presents itself in the right manner at the right moment. I dislike revolutionaries who come to the movement because they are following whatever ass happens to be in front of them.

While personality worship and operating according to an employee mentality are characteristic of dogmatism, I think the essence of dogmatism is the failure to fully take into account actual concrete circumstances when formulating a course of action for those circumstances. Thus dogmatists blindly apply theory from the past without understanding how the underlying principles of the theory should be applied in those circumstances. This leads to them uncritically accepting the word of some persons (often leaders) and the line of promulgated by certain organizations.


People who are thoughtful, regardless of their current political affiliation, can participate in meaningful and progressive discourse. Thoughtful people with wrongheaded ideas can be enlightened. Dogmatic people are emotionally locked into their belief systems and will become a burden to a truly dynamic and progressive movement

Agreed.