Man Wants to be Governed

[MKS]

One of the biggest questions that I have is; why do men constantly accept bad government, why do they accept tyranny, oppression, and exploitation? If the real power lies with the people why have they not taken control of their lives, or their destinies? The problem extends beyond government, but to other aspects of life. Religion for example is clear evidence of man's willingness to accept something with no logical construct.

My theory is that man being an animal, more specifically a mammal, looks to create hierarchical societies or communities, not because of some weakness of will, but because of a naturally inherent condition. In most cases, mammals, especially apes, all abide by a certain hierarchy.

Religion was created at first in order to explain the unexplainable, but as scientific knowledge increases, religion still holds a grip on man. Why? Because man needs a reason to be good, they need a fear of something or a promise of something in order to behave ethically or morally. They need an "alpha male" and what is more powerful than a god or gods?

[black magick hustla]

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist ;)

[MKS]

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist
Quote from Marmot

What does that have to with anything?

[Correa]

Chomsky I've read, he is great and accurate. Clearly one of top intellectuals of our time! Can you enlighten me on Marmot? I'm not familiar with Marmot.

[anomaly]

Simply citing the fact that man wants to be governed is all fine and good, but what is of real interest is can man overcome this primitive want? Are we able to do away with our craving for leadership, and instead rely on the people as a whole? This question is central to whether communism is actually even possible. I answer yes, we can overcome it. Human history is a tale of man slowly and gradually overcoming our craving for leadership, as we have gone from the days of kings to the days of the republic. We have become 'more equal'. And it seems logical to believe this human trend will continue, and we will one day see inequality disappear as much as possible (as I like to say, official hierarchy, inequality, will disappear under communism).

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:29 PM
Chomsky I've read, he is great and accurate. Clearly one of top intellectuals of our time! Can you enlighten me on Marmot? I'm not familiar with Marmot.
If you look up a little, you will see some writing of that intellectual of our age, Marmot!!

[MKS]

Are we able to do away with our craving for leadership, and instead rely on the people as a whole?
Quote from Anomaly

History has shown we are not able to do away with the need for leadership. Look at all the "communist" revolutions and socities. Russia=Stalin, China=Mao, Vietnam=Ho Chi Mhin, Cuba=Castro etc. People always look for an icon, for a leader.

Now that is not nessecarily a bad thing. Castro to me is a great man, a hero, and one of the greatest leaders in history.

Imagine if in the US a movement began to abolish the executive office, we obviously dont need a president, Congress can pass laws, and pretty much function without the executive branch. But the people would be outraged, they wouldnt understand the concept of no-president. They want to have one person to look to, to blame when things are bad and to praise when they are good. It is inherent human nature.

[anomaly]

Ah, the old 'human nature' argument. With you 'understanding' of our' nature' I'm surprised the cappies haven't gotten to you! We certainly can overcome this craving for leadership. The problem is not that the people want to have leaders, it is that leaders want to have power. After the French revolution, for example, the French people carried with them ideas of democracy and equality. However, the absence of the monarchy gave Napoleon all the chance he needed to seize power. The nation-state demands leadership. If we, however, create more localized communities (communes), leadership is simply not needed. We can have direct democracy in each commune. Decentralization will erase the so-called 'need' for leadership that you say is inherent in 'human nature'.

[MKS]

However, the absence of the monarchy gave Napoleon all the chance he needed to seize power. The nation-state demands leadership

The people allowed Napoleon to come to power, the people allow everything, becuase they really do have all the power. However they submit to thier need for guidance and leadership. Dont misunderstand me, the people dont want tyrants and oppression, but sometimes their willingess to accept leadership allows for the fostering of tyranny.


Ah, the old 'human nature' argument. With you 'understanding' of our' nature' I'm surprised the cappies haven't gotten to you!

You cannot deny that people, like all animals, behave according to certain inherent natural traits. Although these traits can be adapted and sometimes all together disappear, some traits remain embedded in our genectic and natural behaviorl patterns.

[anomaly]

Leadership evolved because people feel some people are 'better' than others. With economic equality in communism will come political equality. If not, well, we just have the same bullshit we saw in the pseudo-socialist regimes of the USSR and China.

Yes, some traits remain with us. But that does not mean we must listen to or obey these traits (instincts). First of all, I don't think the craving for leadership is such a trait. But even if it was, we can simply not obey it. It is 'natural' form human males to want to procreate and thus continue continue having sex with many women throughout his lifetime. But today, we have marriage.

Most importantly, you are anti-communist, correct? Since you say the state is neccesary?

[MKS]

Leadership evolved because people feel some people are 'better' than others. With economic equality in communism will come political equality. If not, well, we just have the same bullshit we saw in the pseudo-socialist regimes of the USSR and China

True to an extent, but you have to ask yourself why the people allowed for leadership. You must recgonize the power of the masses, just take the French Revolution for example, or any popular uprising. For some reason the people always allow the creation of a government.


Most importantly, you are anti-communist, correct? Since you say the state is neccesary?

Im not anti-communist, I am just very skeptical that man would ever create and sustain a truly communist society. All of the past attempts have failed in horrific fashion. I think communism is a pipe dream, and the people should work for a more realistic goal of a democratic socialism or anarchism. However I do support Marxists and Communists as they are struggling for the same ends.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:34 AM
One of the biggest questions that I have is; why do men constantly accept bad government, why do they accept tyranny, oppression, and exploitation? If the real power lies with the people why have they not taken control of their lives, or their destinies? The problem extends beyond government, but to other aspects of life. Religion for example is clear evidence of man's willingness to accept something with no logical construct.

My theory is that man being an animal, more specifically a mammal, looks to create hierarchical societies or communities, not because of some weakness of will, but because of a naturally inherent condition. In most cases, mammals, especially apes, all abide by a certain hierarchy.

Religion was created at first in order to explain the unexplainable, but as scientific knowledge increases, religion still holds a grip on man. Why? Because man needs a reason to be good, they need a fear of something or a promise of something in order to behave ethically or morally. They need an "alpha male" and what is more powerful than a god or gods?
Using that same argument, couldn't you also say that man inherently wants to be deputy rather than chief?

That way we can control others while still not admitting the responsibility. :lol:

Seriously though, I think your getting a little carried away with your mammal comparrison.

You need to be asking: why is it that sometimes we don't except tyranny, opression etc?

When there is a changing of the guard so to speak in group of animals(silver backs, alpha wolves), is there usually an uprising? Or does it generally stay between individuals?

I think you'll find the latter to be true. Ofcourse there is the odd example of genrations of younger lions taking out the old. But there is clearly is no consiouss effort on behalf of the lions. Humans have always had mass uprisings, thoughout many many cultures this is found to be true. I don't think that's something you can say for the vast majority of mammal species.

[JKP]

Take "good" and "bad" personality cults for instance. Both are obviously bad.

Now take "good" and "bad" governments. All government is illegitimate, yet many people believe that government is something good. Not the monstrous bureaucracy that it really is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:34 AM
why do men constantly accept bad government, why do they accept tyranny, oppression, and exploitation?
Well, they don't. It may seem like that, but it isn't the case.

If you go and speak to the people you're referring to, you will find that they don't willingly accept they simply don't believe that an alternative is possible. The vast majority of these exploited and oppressed people are completely disempowered. They believe that what they have is what they have, and that there is nothing they can do to change it.


If the real power lies with the people why have they not taken control of their lives, or their destinies?

Because people don't understand that they have the power to effect those who control them to the point that their lives could be different.


The problem extends beyond government, but to other aspects of life. Religion for example is clear evidence of man's willingness to accept something with no logical construct.

Saying that people accepted something implies that they made a conscious choice to believe in something they know doesn't exist. They didn't reject logical, they simply didn't think about it very much. What the religious leaders said "made sense" to them; Why wouldn't it?


My theory is that man being an animal, more specifically a mammal, looks to create hierarchical societies or communities, not because of some weakness of will, but because of a naturally inherent condition.

What would this condition be made of? What I mean is, how would it be inherent? Is it a gene? A chemical imbalance? What makes this inherent condition inherent?


In most cases, mammals, especially apes, all abide by a certain hierarchy.

Do you think that's inherent?


Religion was created at first in order to explain the unexplainable, but as scientific knowledge increases, religion still holds a grip on man. Why? Because man needs a reason to be good, they need a fear of something or a promise of something in order to behave ethically or morally. They need an "alpha male" and what is more powerful than a god or gods?

What is the alternative for people? I'm not convinced that religion exists because we are inherently in need of some form of hierarchy or someone "alpha male."

People believe in God or something spiritual because if they didn't death would seem so much more horrible and bleak. We need the promise of heaven or the direction of god because without those things our lives start to break down. We realise how meaningless our lives are and that death is the inevitable that will take us away from our families and lives.

Heaven makes life more bearable. God gives us purpose, which without it we have to think and thinking can be a very scary thought.

[eyedrop]

MKS
Imagine if in the US a movement began to abolish the executive office, we obviously dont need a president, Congress can pass laws, and pretty much function without the executive branch. But the people would be outraged, they wouldnt understand the concept of no-president. They want to have one person to look to, to blame when things are bad and to praise when they are good. It is inherent human nature.


Question 1: Would you be able to understand the concept of no president?

Question 2: If yes on question 1, why wouldn't the rest of the people be able to?


Do they lack the intelligence? To ignorant? Haven't they thought enough about it? Or are they just to uneducated.


All of those reasons could easily be changed except the first one. IF you think it's the first one that rather shows your contempt for the rest of the "ordinary" inhabitants. You are a part of the smarter intelligentsia.

[MKS]

Do they lack the intelligence? To ignorant? Haven't they thought enough about it? Or are they just to uneducated.

They (the people) only know the American way of government; executive, legislative and judicial, if one were to dissovle than they would ask why. They would think something bad was happening. They wouldnt understand why.
Correction on your grammar illustrates my point' it should be "or are they just too undereducated" Spelling and correct word usage.

It sounds bad, but yes I do think the majority of Americans are undereducated, especially when it comes to their government. If you look at the stats, most of the people that voted for bush and the republicans are middle or working class white people. A class of people the Republicans "shit on" the most.

People in general get complacent with things, whether it be government, gas prices, etc, they or we do not take radical change well.

[eyedrop]

Correction on your grammar illustrates my point' it should be "or are they just too undereducated" Spelling and correct word usage.


What do you mean by that?

Besides as far as I can see the word I used fitted quite nicely with what I meant.

Definition

uneducated
[Show phonetics]
adjective
having received little education


source (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=uneducated*1+0&dict=A)


Since you started critising my grammer I should maybe say that undereducated isn't a word as far as I can find.

Results
undereducated was not found in the Cambridge Dictionary of American English

Did you spell it correctly? Here are some alternatives:

source (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=undereducated)




Since you agree with me in that they are to uneducated you defeat your own argument.



They want to have one person to look to, to blame when things are bad and to praise when they are good. It is inherent human nature.

It can't be a part of the human nature if it can easily be "educated" away. It's more of an indoctrination in little children.

[Social Greenman]

Capitalism pretty much depends on the "Leadership Principle" from what I understand as being the "chain of command." We see it everyday in school, work, during free time activities, religious activities, the military,within the home, and in primative cultures we see tribal chiefs.

Is this behavior ingrained in all of nature rather than being just a human construct? For all intent and purposes the capitalist class has exploited this sucessfully as did the Third Reich. I believe Lenin understood this and created Democratic Centralism as a form of hierarchical society. However, this form will not work in the U.S or any other advanced capitalist nation. From what I read, most people on this board reject that form of government.

[TheReadMenace]

I agree with The Anarchist Tension. Leadership isn't accepted because we need it, but it's there because too many people don't think there is a better way.

For instance, I was talking to one of my friends last night about the government, and he believes in just about everything I believe in, except the solution. I've tried talking to him about it, but he feels that it 'just won't work.' And that's the problem: it isn't that we want these things, it's that too many accept defeat before even fighting.

And as far as human nature goes, you can't say anything is 'inherent,' because our nature is a product of our surroundings; and even then, we can consciously choose otherwise. Greed is not human nature; but because of our environment, because capitalism exists and breeds us for commodification, we become greedy. It isn't that it is some inherent trait in our 'souls' (be careful with that word), but because the society we live in says that unless we're greedy, we'll spend our lives starving on the streets.

So the human nature argument isn't valid, because 'nature' is easily explained by our surroundings.

If you like Chomsky, read some of his books on linguistics. Even something so basic as language shouts out that we desire freedom, not servitude.

Andrew

[Le People]

You know, society it's self is a state. Society protects it's people, inbetters it's people, while the people protect it and inbetter it. With beaucracy, the people imbetter the becurcracy and protect it, then the beucracy throws it a small table scrap back to keep it from revolting. Of course, under socailism, it's much better. Under Communism, it's best. I may say, I am going by what I call the Rousseu litmus test.

[Jesus Christ!]

I think the reason people give in to being governed is because a lot of people just don't care enough. As long as they can go along in life and be relativley happy why do they care who t heir leader is bombing this week as long as it isn't them. I'm not saying I agree with that at al and we need to help people get away from that. I'm just saying that's why people would give in to being governed.

[MKS]

Since you agree with me in that they are to uneducated you defeat your own argument
Quote from Eyedrop

The grammar misuse was in the word "to" it should have been "too"; i.e too uneducated.

Under-Educated ; it should have been hyphened.

Anyways. Socitey wants to be goverend so they do not have to worry about the "small" details of international relations, economics, social programs etc. The truth is that the people allow government because they themselves are either too weak or too lazy to take up the task themselves. Just like garbage collection, not everyone does it or wants to do it, but somebody does it. Government is accepted by the people; good or bad; because people are inherently looking for authority. Just my opinion.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:13 AM
Government is accepted by the people; good or bad; because people are inherently looking for authority. Just my opinion.

But is this inherent or learnt? If people are told that they are too stupid to make their own decisions they will end up believing it.

[viva le revolution]

It's not that people are too lazy or weak to make their own decisions, a simple example of this is the survival of the communist ideal in the hearts and minds around the globe and the constant revolts against imperialism. The main problem here is that there is a problem with the educational system and the attitude ingrained in each pupil that economics and politics are something outside the realm of normal human intelligence and that they should depend on others to interpret their world for them.
Religious education and government literacy is what's responsible, they teachj pupils to accept authority unquestioningly and are made to succumb to mob mentality, and a biased education in history does not hurt either.

[eyedrop]

Ohh noticed that that word was wrong but I thought that both to and uneducated was wrong, since you said that it was both a grammar error and a spelling error.

Snyway I always mix to and too as I find it stupid to have words with equal sounds have different spelling. (It's not my motherlanguage so it's even easier to mix them) I also feel that such different spellings makes the language harder to write, it should come out of the context which word it is.

Luckily no more english test on me ever!

But enough off-topic.


Just like garbage collection, not everyone does it or wants to do it, but somebody does it.

Poor analogy, high government posisions(?) are wanted by almost everyone, while garbage collection is not. Just look at how many are trying to make a political caarer. The last part of it can be applied to almost everything humans does.


Socitey wants to be goverend so they do not have to worry about the "small" details of international relations, economics, social programs etc.

During most of the class dicussions I have found myself in about such things I have usually found that at a minimum half a class is heavily engaged in such discussions. I only got a sample of 4 classes with different people, but I've yet to see any serious scientific work on such things. (which can be trusted) This is under circumstances where the students got 0 power to decide over those things, imagine how much more they would care if they could.



The truth is that the people allow government because they themselves are either too weak or too lazy to take up the task themselves.

The reason is more that people are disempowered.(?) When they find out you don't get governed, by those morons, (almost wrote bastards before I thought over what the word really meant :P ) how do they plan to get rid of them? Most don't know and give it up. They will also see that they have it much better under those morons, than other people have it under other morons. (The third world)

Doesn't most people also hate it when people put constraints on them. Most workers are content when they see the cops put some narcobaron in chains, but furious if the cops give them a ticket. Usually they aren't furious at themself for driving to fast or whatever they get the ticket for, but rather furious at the cops for meddling with their driving. Most people hate to be told to do something on authority. (I know it's an assumptation, but thats how it appers to be in my sorroundings. It isn't like that in militaries to example.)