Mammalian behavior and communism? - Stolen from Theories sec

[kelvin]

*********************************
"Social dominance and hierarchal social structure is universal among mammals...As long as we are mammals there will be classes, hierarchal society, and social pecking order.

-Obviously, kelvin, you have never lived with a cat.

-Actually, our closest relatives, the bonobo chimps, have no discernable "pecking order" or "hierarchy"...at least no field studies have ever demonstrated such a thing.

-Anything said about the social patters of Australopithecus anamensis must be totally speculative, of course.

It is a safe bet to say the homo sapiens will not establish a true classless society.

-Since it is rather unlikely that you or I will live to see the outcome, the "safety" of your bet resides solely in the fact that you won't be around to have to pay off your loss.

-And even if you were, since there'd be no money, you wouldn't have to pay up anyway.

-But people would point at you and laugh. "
*********************************
Sorry I beg to differ. House cats do have a social pecking order. They have the same social order as in a pride of lions. You will never see social stratification if you live with one cat. Without a doubt house cats have rank:

"Cats do not use their dominant or subordinate rank to control each other. A dominant cat will allow a subordinate cat to pass first on the pathway. A dominant cat will not take food away from a subordinate cat. Cats seem to prefer non-confrontation. If a confrontation does occur, it is usually a noisy ritual of aggressive displays, rather than actual tooth and nail combat."

http://www.perfectpaws.com/help2.html

Bonobos have rank too.

"The "dominance hierarchy" in bonobo society is generally the core group of females"

http://www.darc.org/connelly/social2.html



(Edited by kelvin at 4:34 am on June 28, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

I'm not sure who said it as your post is a bit scrambled Kelvin...I'm fairly certain it was not you...

-Actually, our closest relatives, the bonobo chimps, have no
discernable "pecking order" or "hierarchy"...at least no field studies have ever demonstrated such a thing.

A Bonobo Ape is not a chimp.

A chimp is a chimp
A bonobo is a bonobo

Both are species of apes.

They just look very similar

EDIT:

Here's a good site to learn about Bonobos

http://www.bonobo.org/whatisthebinitiative.html

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 5:26 am on June 28, 2003)

[Som]

and many early tribal societies have no official ruler, or leader.

Some people may naturally come out as 'leaders' with some natural aptitude for such a thing, but thats trivial so long as we can tell them to fuck off without being shot, its not really much of a hierarchy.

Heres a link to a book you probably won't even bother to skim through, 'Mutual Aid' by Peter Kropotkin, an entire book argueing communism as natural, among animals, among savages, among the barbarians, in the mediaeval city, and amongst ourselves.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...idcontents.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)

[sc4r]

It makes almost no difference whether chimps or bonobos have a social pecking order. This has no relevance to the practicality of either socialism or communism for two reasons :

1. No-one is really suggesting that a 'pecking order' will not exist in a marxist society. What is being said is that such an order will not be exploited for material gain.

2. Despite the fact that we have much in common with other mammals and especially apes we are fairly self evidently rather considerably diffferent when it comes to our ability to use mind to control our behaviour. WE have transcended whatever mamalian limitations we might have inheriited.

Man is to a much much greater extent than other creatures an animal which learns its behaviour rather than relying on 'natural instinct'. We can both communicate and forecast the future with far more facility than even our closest relatives and this allows us to deliberately decide to behave in ways which no chimp could do.

Elimination of a dominance hierararchy as far as material gain is concerned can be, in us, a deliberate decision communicated and enforced by a group after consideration for the benefits it is likely to confer. The idea of a group of chimps weighing up a cost / benefit equation; realising that expliclitly that actions today will have consequences next year and agreeing to co-operate so as to maximise that future gain is laughable. For man its a commonplace experience.

Chimps dont enforce property laws beyond physical possession either. Does this make Capaitalism impossible ? In fact this whole rather tired notion depands upon the idea that capitalism 'is natural' and requires no artifical laws to constrain behaviour. Nothing could be further from the truth; capitalism is dependent upon a whole series of decidely unnatural laws, in fact it is based on one - The idea that a 'right' to own things which you are not only not in current possession of but which may not even exist as yet is meaningful.

Tell a chimp that the babana growing on the tree is yours even though you live 5000 miles away and see what happens. It will eat it and not give a stuff about your 'natural' right to it.


(Edited by sc4r at 8:01 am on June 28, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Kelvin, your selective quoting was an attempt to make me look "ignorant" and I do not appreciate that...even a little bit.

Here's what you left out of the cat discussion...

Because the cat is not a pack animal, there is no inherent need or desire for the cat to comply with anyone's wishes but its own. We humans have a difficult time accepting this because we relate as pack animals. A social group has a set of hierarchies and each individual has its place. There is an inherent need to be loyal, to belong, to show subordination/compliance to a superior member of the group. Dogs respond to peer pressure. Cats do not.

Setting aside the hilarious assertion that humans are pack animals, this dickhead admits that cats decide for themselves. A social "rank" that has no manifestations in real world behavior exists solely in the imagination of the "observer".

Now, here is the whole bonobo quote...

What makes the bonobos different from "us" behaviorally is that they're relatively peaceable. When two bonobos are faced with a conflict situation, their most common response is to call time out and have sex with each other. Not for them the chest beating and foliage uprooting displays of the chimp! The bonobos seem to resort to sex as a way of saying, "We still like each other, even if we disagree, right?" They also are equal opportunity lovers in terms of having sex with the opposite or same sex, same age or younger or older, etc. The "dominance hierarchy" in bonobo society is generally the core group of females who have been with the group for a long while, another difference from chimps, and the politics practiced seem to be gentler and subtler versus the "claw your way to the top" mode of the chimps.

Even here, we have an "in the eye of the beholder" question: how does this core group of older females exercise its "dominance"? Oh, once in a while, a male bonobo tries to abuse a female and all the other females gang up on him and kick his ass. I have no problem with that as a useful addition to our concept of a classless society.

Remember your initial proposition, kelvin? That "because" all mammals--"including humans"--have social hierarchies, a classless society is "impossible."

Outside the fertile imaginations of socio-biologists, however, all mammals do not have social hierarchies...in any meaningful sense of that phrase. Your "argument" is fucked!

And it gets worse (for you!). Dogs and certain other mammals (conservatives love baboons) do have very clear social hierarchies. It does appear to be genetic; they have no choice in the matter.

How does this apply to humans, who have, on occasion, established functioning egalitarian societies? Granted that examples are rare and fleeting (at least for the last 5,000 years or so), by your logic they should never have existed at all. In fact, they should be literally unthinkable.

Seeking refuge in the junk science of evolutionary "biology" will not save you from confronting your real motivation in starting this thread: you like the idea of becoming "an alpha male" and any theory that suggests that alpha maledom is a transient phenomenon is anathema to you.

Communism is a nightmare to you for exactly that reason; and the mantra you repeat--"it's impossible"--is so obviously and brazenly self-serving that I'm surprised that even you can take it seriously.

Of course, you do take the latest management snake-oil stuff seriously...so maybe I shouldn't be surprised after all.

:cool:

[kelvin]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 5:24 am on June 28, 2003
I'm not sure who said it as your post is a bit scrambled Kelvin...I'm fairly certain it was not you...

-Actually, our closest relatives, the bonobo chimps, have no
discernable "pecking order" or "hierarchy"...at least no field studies have ever demonstrated such a thing.

A Bonobo Ape is not a chimp.

A chimp is a chimp
A bonobo is a bonobo

Both are species of apes.

They just look very similar

EDIT:

Here's a good site to learn about Bonobos

http://www.bonobo.org/whatisthebinitiative.html

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 5:26 am on June 28, 2003)


I agree 100%

[kelvin]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:00 pm on June 28, 2003
Kelvin, your selective quoting was an attempt to make me look "ignorant" and I do not appreciate that...even a little bit.

Here's what you left out of the cat discussion...

Because the cat is not a pack animal, there is no inherent need or desire for the cat to comply with anyone's wishes but its own. We humans have a difficult time accepting this because we relate as pack animals. A social group has a set of hierarchies and each individual has its place. There is an inherent need to be loyal, to belong, to show subordination/compliance to a superior member of the group. Dogs respond to peer pressure. Cats do not.

Setting aside the hilarious assertion that humans are pack animals, this dickhead admits that cats decide for themselves. A social "rank" that has no manifestations in real world behavior exists solely in the imagination of the "observer".

Now, here is the whole bonobo quote...

What makes the bonobos different from "us" behaviorally is that they're relatively peaceable. When two bonobos are faced with a conflict situation, their most common response is to call time out and have sex with each other. Not for them the chest beating and foliage uprooting displays of the chimp! The bonobos seem to resort to sex as a way of saying, "We still like each other, even if we disagree, right?" They also are equal opportunity lovers in terms of having sex with the opposite or same sex, same age or younger or older, etc. The "dominance hierarchy" in bonobo society is generally the core group of females who have been with the group for a long while, another difference from chimps, and the politics practiced seem to be gentler and subtler versus the "claw your way to the top" mode of the chimps.

Even here, we have an "in the eye of the beholder" question: how does this core group of older females exercise its "dominance"? Oh, once in a while, a male bonobo tries to abuse a female and all the other females gang up on him and kick his ass. I have no problem with that as a useful addition to our concept of a classless society.

Remember your initial proposition, kelvin? That "because" all mammals--"including humans"--have social hierarchies, a classless society is "impossible."

Outside the fertile imaginations of socio-biologists, however, all mammals do not have social hierarchies...in any meaningful sense of that phrase. Your "argument" is fucked!

And it gets worse (for you!). Dogs and certain other mammals (conservatives love baboons) do have very clear social hierarchies. It does appear to be genetic; they have no choice in the matter.

How does this apply to humans, who have, on occasion, established functioning egalitarian societies? Granted that examples are rare and fleeting (at least for the last 5,000 years or so), by your logic they should never have existed at all. In fact, they should be literally unthinkable.

Seeking refuge in the junk science of evolutionary "biology" will not save you from confronting your real motivation in starting this thread: you like the idea of becoming "an alpha male" and any theory that suggests that alpha maledom is a transient phenomenon is anathema to you.

Communism is a nightmare to you for exactly that reason; and the mantra you repeat--"it's impossible"--is so obviously and brazenly self-serving that I'm surprised that even you can take it seriously.

Of course, you do take the latest management snake-oil stuff seriously...so maybe I shouldn't be surprised after all.

:cool:



I did not selectively quote. I copied and pasted the whole entire last post from the thread after I was locked out.

I can see where it may seem selective because of of the previous missing posts. To other readers please follow this link to see two previous posts.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=895&start=10 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=895&start=10)

My appologies.

[kelvin]

Social dominace. It exists for cats and bonobos. The underlying unversal behavior for social animals in humans, cats, bonobos, whales, and hamsters is they all have ranked themselves. One animal is clearly the superior and another animal is clearly lower ranked.

Your right all mammals do not have social hierachies. Espcially the ones that are solitary: bears, mountain lions, etc. But even these animals when they meet in groups of 2 or more, they sort out who is dominat.
http://www.audubon.org/chapter/ak/ak/bearb...ook/Behave1.htm (http://www.audubon.org/chapter/ak/ak/bearbook/Behave1.htm)

Humans do it. They sort out who is dominat. A totally equal and classless society goes against human behavior. You do it too. You have clearly tried to assert your superiority over me. Your own attitidue has been agressive and hostile. Instead of working with me on an agreement, you are clearly displaying dominace behavior.

[redstar2000]

Social dominace. It exists for cats and bonobos. The underlying unversal behavior for social animals in humans, cats, bonobos, whales, and hamsters is they all have ranked themselves. One animal is clearly the superior and another animal is clearly lower ranked.

Horseshit! You can assert that nonsense all you wish; saying it does not make it so.

Humans do it. They sort out who is dominat. A totally equal and classless society goes against human behavior. You do it too. You have clearly tried to assert your superiority over me. Your own attitidue has been agressive and hostile. Instead of working with me on an agreement, you are clearly displaying dominace behavior.

A perfect example of my point. You argue horseshit and when I point out that it is horseshit, you then say that I am "displaying dominance behavior". What it really turns out is that "dominance behavior" exists in your eyes...a completely subjective phenomenon to be dragged into an argument whenever you find it useful.

If we humans truly are, as you assert repeatedly, incapable of an egalitarian society (for, presumably, genetic reasons), how is it possible that we could even think of such a thing? Wolves and dogs can't. Baboons can't. Pan troglodytes (the common chimpanzee) can't, though Pan paniscus (the bonobo chimpanzee) cannot be anything else but egalitarian.

You will recall, kelvin, that I did attempt to reply reasonably to the questions that you raised in your three Theory Forum posts. But when you bring up stupid arguments about "human nature", my obligation to be "reasonable" is at an end.

:cool:

[kelvin]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:01 am on June 29, 2003
Social dominace. It exists for cats and bonobos. The underlying unversal behavior for social animals in humans, cats, bonobos, whales, and hamsters is they all have ranked themselves. One animal is clearly the superior and another animal is clearly lower ranked.

Horseshit! You can assert that nonsense all you wish; saying it does not make it so.

Humans do it. They sort out who is dominat. A totally equal and classless society goes against human behavior. You do it too. You have clearly tried to assert your superiority over me. Your own attitidue has been agressive and hostile. Instead of working with me on an agreement, you are clearly displaying dominace behavior.

A perfect example of my point. You argue horseshit and when I point out that it is horseshit, you then say that I am "displaying dominance behavior". What it really turns out is that "dominance behavior" exists in your eyes...a completely subjective phenomenon to be dragged into an argument whenever you find it useful.

If we humans truly are, as you assert repeatedly, incapable of an egalitarian society (for, presumably, genetic reasons), how is it possible that we could even think of such a thing? Wolves and dogs can't. Baboons can't. Pan troglodytes (the common chimpanzee) can't, though Pan paniscus (the bonobo chimpanzee) cannot be anything else but egalitarian.

You will recall, kelvin, that I did attempt to reply reasonably to the questions that you raised in your three Theory Forum posts. But when you bring up stupid arguments about "human nature", my obligation to be "reasonable" is at an end.

:cool:

Bonobos have rank and Dr de Waal of Emory University says so:
"The author suggests the result is that a young adult male can reach a higher position provided his mother is of high rank. "

"Although the level of tension is low and bonobos don’t show elaborate status rituals, male-male dominance still seems to matter a great deal to them. Rank is usually expressed in aggressive chases but these encounters rarely get out of hand and often end in conciliatory contact in which two males mount each other or rub their scrotums together standing back-to-back."

http://www.tence.net/articles/bonobo-report.html

Cats have rank and Gwen Bohnenkamp of San Francisco State University says so:

"Cats do not use their dominant or subordinate rank to control each other. A dominant cat will allow a subordinate cat to pass first on the pathway. A dominant cat will not take food away from a subordinate cat. Cats seem to prefer non-confrontation. If a confrontation does occur, it is usually a noisy ritual of aggressive displays, rather than actual tooth and nail combat."

Ranking is typical behavior of mammals.

When you point out Waals and Bohnenkamp horseshit, did you have a "confront the challenger" mentality.

Or

Did you have a "work with the challenger and come to an agreement" mentality?

One is attitude is typicall mammalian display of dominance. The other is egalitarian.

Read your own verbage again. Are you challenging me or working with me?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Redstar you are correct.

However I do want to point out again that a bonobo is not a chimpanzee. You may be confused as they are also referred to as "Pygmy Chimpanzees". This does not have anything to do with what species the animal is. It's simply a "layman" term for bonobos due to the fact they resemble small chimps.

Yes Kelvin, bonobos do indeed have a social order. It however is ridiculous to say that this is proof that humans are genetically incapable of operating without social class restrictions. You sound absurd son.


(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 1:09 am on June 29, 2003)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Kelvin, you are comparing RS2000's disagreeing with you to him displaying dominance over you.

Rubbish.

Redstar has no desire to be a leader.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What exatly is a bonobo then, comrade RAF, apart from horny little sods? :biggrin:

[Vinny Rafarino]

A bonobo is a species of "great ape" and cousin to the chimpanzee.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I've had a fascination with bonobos for 25 years or so...I simply adore the little bastards. They constantly get with it. The males are also wankin' off every free minute they have. Sounds like me when I was eighteen.

[Anonymous]

If we humans truly are, as you assert repeatedly, incapable of an egalitarian society (for, presumably, genetic reasons), how is it possible that we could even think of such a thing? Wolves and dogs can't. Baboons can't. Pan troglodytes (the common chimpanzee) can't, though Pan paniscus (the bonobo chimpanzee) cannot be anything else but egalitarian.

We humans are capable of reason and abstract thought, something which seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Man has the ability to concieve, in his mind, social orders that differ from what nature originally gave him. The reason bonobas, pigs, baboons, and whatever the fuck other animal can't think of any other social order but their own is exactly because of that; they can't think, at least not in the way we do.

(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 1:22 am on June 29, 2003)

[redstar2000]

When you point out Waals and Bohnenkamp horseshit, did you have a "confront the challenger" mentality.

Or

Did you have a "work with the challenger and come to an agreement" mentality?

One is attitude is typicall mammalian display of dominance. The other is egalitarian.

Read your own verbage again. Are you challenging me or working with me?

Well, I thought I was challenging your crappy argument. But now I don't understand what you're really saying at all.

Those guys you quote insist that cats and bonobos have "social ranking" which is not actually displayed in terms that would be relevant in considering whether or not communism is possible.

They could, with equal authority, assert that cats and bonobos have "souls"...how the hell would we know, one way or the other?

You are, consciously or unconsciously, conflating two different ideas in support of your contention that "communism is impossible."

First idea: mammals have "social ranking".

Second idea: "Social ranking" in practice translates into dominance and/or subordination.

Even if the first idea was true, the guys you cite admit that the second idea doesn't always follow.

What does it mean to talk about a "superior cat" and an "inferior cat", when the cats themselves ignore the "distinction". Where is the ranking outside of the eye of the "observer"? If cats and bonobos behave as if they were equals, what is the meaning of "ranking"?

I see no reason why there would not be prestige or status in communist society and even said so in "What is Communism?"--but the idea that this would inevitably translate into order-givers and order-takers in practice is completely unsupported by verfiable evidence.

Only the discredited "social darwinists" -- a.k.a. "socio-biologists", a.k.a. "evolutionary biologists" -- maintain such views and their evidence is horseshit.

And yes, I question your motives for holding the views that you've asserted in this thread: why is it important for you to assert the "truth" of "dominance/submission", if not for the assumption that you plan a place among the "top dogs" for yourself?

I mean, come on. The robes of "disinterested scholar in search of objective truth" fit you like a tutu on an elephant. So why else would you bring this crap up?

We humans are capable of reason and abstract thought, something which seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Man has the ability to concieve, in his mind, social orders that differ from what nature originally gave him. The reason bonobas, pigs, baboons, and whatever the fuck other animal can't think of any other social order but their own is exactly because of that; they can't think, at least not in the way we do.

A reasonable objection, DC...and therefore I must withdraw the question as it is meaningless. We all have brain-farts now and then, and that was one of mine.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:34 am on June 29, 2003)

[sc4r]

I would dispute the accuracy even that amongst most mamalian groups there is any such thing as a true dominance hirarchy in general terms and in the way it is being used here.

Even among pack animals the 'leader' does not issue orders which are followed; all that happens is that others defer to certain individuals in certain SPECIFIC situations, most commonly on questions of who gets to eat first and who gets mating preference.

In other words even the usual human concept of 'dominance' when it applies to us is 'unnatural'. Giving and Taking orders with the idea of realising some plan or other is just not a feature of the 'natural' world. At most a 'dominant' animal may head out in a direction and the others follow, thats the extent of it usually.

In fact animals usually rely on leadership rather than authority for everything except simple squabbling over immediate consumption. This of course is much much closer to the socialist and communinst notion of behaviour than the capitalist or fascist one.

When one looks at non pack animals the situation is even less one of well defined 'dominance'. My cats each 'dominate' in diffferent situations. For example when it comes to getting fuss its a different cat that will tend to take the lead than when it comes to crowding the food bowl. When it comes to seeing off dogs its not the same cat that would win the (fairly rare) fights that they have amongst themselves, that is most aggressive.

Even less true is it the case that animals will accept delegated authority which in fact all Fascist and all actual capitalist systems rely on. The idea of Sandy the Cat agreeing to let Fluff tell her how to hunt because Tom happens to prefer Fluff generally is frankly laughable (and in the wild would be suicidal).

In fact they dont have any overall dominance hierarchy at all; all they do is recognise that in some situations one is better or keener than the others and not bother to argue about this. They are not especially social, but even so they manage to behave perfectly sociably simply because there is never a tension between a cat demanding that excellence in one area should mean reward in another.

We as humans can go beyond this and agree amonst ourselves that our gifts should be used to benefit all somewhat. Ironically though the Capitalist 'natural' scheme goes further beyond it than the Socialist scheme. Capitalists demand that excellence in a few areas should auromaticaly mean vastly greater rewards in all areas.


(Edited by sc4r at 5:10 pm on June 29, 2003)

[kelvin]

Quote: from NoXion on 1:04 am on June 29, 2003
Kelvin, you are comparing RS2000's disagreeing with you to him displaying dominance over you.

Rubbish.

Redstar has no desire to be a leader.


Read his post. Is it friendly or agressive? It is not about leadership over me, it is about agressive behavior against a challenger. Typical mammal response. The response was not in the spirit of cooperation or building understanding, it was an agressive challenge.

[kelvin]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:30 am on June 29, 2003
When you point out Waals and Bohnenkamp horseshit, did you have a "confront the challenger" mentality.

Or

Did you have a "work with the challenger and come to an agreement" mentality?

One is attitude is typicall mammalian display of dominance. The other is egalitarian.

Read your own verbage again. Are you challenging me or working with me?

Well, I thought I was challenging your crappy argument. But now I don't understand what you're really saying at all.

Those guys you quote insist that cats and bonobos have "social ranking" which is not actually displayed in terms that would be relevant in considering whether or not communism is possible.

They could, with equal authority, assert that cats and bonobos have "souls"...how the hell would we know, one way or the other?

You are, consciously or unconsciously, conflating two different ideas in support of your contention that "communism is impossible."

First idea: mammals have "social ranking".

Second idea: "Social ranking" in practice translates into dominance and/or subordination.

Even if the first idea was true, the guys you cite admit that the second idea doesn't always follow.

What does it mean to talk about a "superior cat" and an "inferior cat", when the cats themselves ignore the "distinction". Where is the ranking outside of the eye of the "observer"? If cats and bonobos behave as if they were equals, what is the meaning of "ranking"?

I see no reason why there would not be prestige or status in communist society and even said so in "What is Communism?"--but the idea that this would inevitably translate into order-givers and order-takers in practice is completely unsupported by verfiable evidence.

Only the discredited "social darwinists" -- a.k.a. "socio-biologists", a.k.a. "evolutionary biologists" -- maintain such views and their evidence is horseshit.

And yes, I question your motives for holding the views that you've asserted in this thread: why is it important for you to assert the "truth" of "dominance/submission", if not for the assumption that you plan a place among the "top dogs" for yourself?

I mean, come on. The robes of "disinterested scholar in search of objective truth" fit you like a tutu on an elephant. So why else would you bring this crap up?

We humans are capable of reason and abstract thought, something which seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Man has the ability to concieve, in his mind, social orders that differ from what nature originally gave him. The reason bonobas, pigs, baboons, and whatever the fuck other animal can't think of any other social order but their own is exactly because of that; they can't think, at least not in the way we do.

A reasonable objection, DC...and therefore I must withdraw the question as it is meaningless. We all have brain-farts now and then, and that was one of mine.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:34 am on June 29, 2003)


First, none of my sources are politically motivated.

I assert that sorting of social rank is universal and typical mammal behavior. I do not make that leap on my own. Waals and Bohnenkamp clearly refer to "rank" in bonobos and house cats.

All I assert is that humans will also do universal mammal behavior, which is rank each other.

Either define humans as not mammals or that humans do not display universal mammal behavior.

Then if human rank each other, then what? What about social classes and stratification? You can break down classes and stratification, you can not stop the mammalian nature of humans to rank each other. The classless society will be artificial and working against mammal behavior.

[kelvin]

Quote: from sc4r on 3:00 pm on June 29, 2003
I would dispute the accuracy even that amongst most mamalian groups there is any such thing as a true dominance hirarchy in general terms and in the way it is being used here.

Even among pack animals the 'leader' does not issue orders which are followed; all that happens is that others defer to certain individuals in certain SPECIFIC situations, most commonly on questions of who gets to eat first and who gets mating preference.

In other words even the usual human concept of 'dominance' when it applies to us is 'unnatural'. Giving and Taking orders with the idea of realising some plan or other is just not a feature of the 'natural' world. At most a 'dominant' animal may head out in a direction and the others follow, thats the extent of it usually.

In fact animals usually rely on leadership rather than authority for everything except simple squabbling over immediate consumption. This of course is much much closer to the socialist and communinst notion of behaviour than the capitalist or fascist one.

When one looks at non pack animals the situation is even less one of well defined 'dominance'. My cats each 'dominate' in diffferent situations. For example when it comes to getting fuss its a different cat that will tend to take the lead than when it comes to crowding the food bowl. When it comes to seeing off dogs its not the same cat that would win the (fairly rare) fights that they have amongst themselves, that is most aggressive.

Even less true is it the case that animals will accept delegated authority which in fact all Fascist and all actual capitalist systems rely on. The idea of Sandy the Cat agreeing to let Fluff tell her how to hunt because Tom happens to prefer Fluff generally is frankly laughable (and in the wild would be suicidal).

In fact they dont have any overall dominance hierarchy at all; all they do is recognise that in some situations one is better or keener than the others and not bother to argue about this. They are not especially social, but even so they manage to behave perfectly sociably simply because there is never a tension between a cat demanding that excellence in one area should mean reward in another.

We as humans can go beyond this and agree amonst ourselves that our gifts should be used to benefit all somewhat. Ironically though the Capitalist 'natural' scheme goes further beyond it than the Socialist scheme. Capitalists demand that excellence in a few areas should auromaticaly mean vastly greater rewards in all areas.


(Edited by sc4r at 5:10 pm on June 29, 2003)


All I assert is mammals have rank. It is univerasal mammal behavior to rank each other. All I assert is house cats do it too. You are confusing leadership with rank. I do not attempt to tackle the complexity of leadership.

Sorry, I will believe the research and expertise of Bohnenkamp before I trust yours.

http://www.perfectpaws.com/help2.html

[Vinny Rafarino]

Now I don't know if I woulf go that far mate. This woman is a mere animal trainer. She carries no graduate degrees (or even ungraduate degrees for that matter) in any animal sociology related field. I read through this site and found no opinions of any credible Ph.D's.

Her books say things like "Before we start training our cats to do something or to stop doing something, we need to look at how cats learn. They don't understand English, they can't read books or attend lectures. They learn by experience. If the experience is good, they will try to repeat it. If the experience is unpleasant, they will try to avoid it in the future. They enjoy raking the furniture with their claws, so they continue to do it. But it's quite a shock when they stick their nose in a candle flame, so they won't do that again."

Uh-huh. I got a better idea. Tell me why I paid money for your book.

All she does is shamlessly promote her own books that state the obvious. Like in the "how to house train your dog" section...Her renowned expertise advise you (between pluggings) to keep taking your dog to the designated "toilet" area until a habit develops.

Once again, thanks Captain Obvious.

I would have to say I do not find her opinions of animal sociology any more credible than RS's and I don't even like him. I wound even venture so far as to say I actually think his statements "hold more water" than her entire book.

[sc4r]

All I assert is mammals have rank. It is univerasal mammal behavior to rank each other. All I assert is house cats do it too. You are confusing leadership with rank. I do not attempt to tackle the complexity of leadership.


Well now i'm rather confused about what you mean by the term rank in the context of this discission. To me it implies authority which which is carried over into areas beyond the one in which superiority has been established.

If all you and whatsherface are saying is that cats are capable of discerning that some of them are better than others at certain things, and that particularly when it comes to activities in which they may directly dispute they are capable of remembering that one is a better fighter and then not fighting i'd have to agree with RAF that 'captain obvious' is a phrase that more than aptly sums the situation up.

This hardly equates to any notion that it is more or less inescapable that humans must exploit each other and submit to a generic ranking. In other words I agree that leadership and authority is a much more complex subject than ranking of expertise in an individual area. I rather thought, however, that it was this rather more complex thing that was relevant here.




(Edited by sc4r at 8:16 am on July 2, 2003)

[Moskitto]

Cat's have a variable pecking order, that is, where a pecking order is present, at the food bowl it is not the same as in the sunbeam or going butterfly hunting.

[kelvin]

Quote: from sc4r on 8:12 am on July 2, 2003


All I assert is mammals have rank. It is univerasal mammal behavior to rank each other. All I assert is house cats do it too. You are confusing leadership with rank. I do not attempt to tackle the complexity of leadership.


Well now i'm rather confused about what you mean by the term rank in the context of this discission. To me it implies authority which which is carried over into areas beyond the one in which superiority has been established.

If all you and whatsherface are saying is that cats are capable of discerning that some of them are better than others at certain things, and that particularly when it comes to activities in which they may directly dispute they are capable of remembering that one is a better fighter and then not fighting i'd have to agree with RAF that 'captain obvious' is a phrase that more than aptly sums the situation up.

This hardly equates to any notion that it is more or less inescapable that humans must exploit each other and submit to a generic ranking. In other words I agree that leadership and authority is a much more complex subject than ranking of expertise in an individual area. I rather thought, however, that it was this rather more complex thing that was relevant here.




(Edited by sc4r at 8:16 am on July 2, 2003)


Simply put for cats and chimps rank is determined simply by which animal backs down from a conflict first. From then on the dominate animal is going to be the first to feed, the first to drink, the first to mate. The less dominate animal is going to get the left overs. Rank is much more complex for humans, but humans rank each other too. The simple fact that mammals rank each other, communism will be working against mammalian nature.

Communism is possible, but within a very specifc set of conditions. See colective farms. This is just one example:

http://www.thefarm.org/general/hightime.ht...wrenceburgs.com (http://www.thefarm.org/general/hightime.html?Lawrenceburgs.com)

(Edited by kelvin at 1:16 am on July 3, 2003)

[sc4r]

Oh I see.

You think that communism implies that everyone thinks everyone else is equal in every respect.

I dont know where you got that from, maybe from 'Jack and JIll explore socio-economics'?

the problem is you constently use the term ranking to imply some overall notion of superiority, extend it to say it implies preference ; but then defend it merely by saying that animals put into a situation of competition for an immediate benefit sort it out by either fighting or rembering who won the last fight.

But human relationships have many more dimensions than this.

Most mammals have a natural instinct to take for themselves whatever they find, they certainly have no instinct towards accepting an abstract notion of absentee ownership. In fact they have no real notion of ownership as opposed to possession at all. Would you contend this makes is impossible for capitalism to operate ?

I dont think there is any point in labouring the fact that cats dont actually behave quite as you specifically say they do anyway.

There prolly isn't much point trying to explain the manifest flaw in your logic even if your facts were correct either, but here ya go -

All other animals rank individuals
Humans are an animal
Therefore Humans rank individuals.

Is not valid logic even just as it stands let alone when extended to make 'rank' equate to overall acceptance of dominance and inevitable privilege.

(Edited by sc4r at 5:56 pm on July 3, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 6:02 pm on July 3, 2003)

[kelvin]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 6:54 am on July 2, 2003
Now I don't know if I woulf go that far mate. This woman is a mere animal trainer. She carries no graduate degrees (or even ungraduate degrees for that matter) in any animal sociology related field. I read through this site and found no opinions of any credible Ph.D's.

Her books say things like "Before we start training our cats to do something or to stop doing something, we need to look at how cats learn. They don't understand English, they can't read books or attend lectures. They learn by experience. If the experience is good, they will try to repeat it. If the experience is unpleasant, they will try to avoid it in the future. They enjoy raking the furniture with their claws, so they continue to do it. But it's quite a shock when they stick their nose in a candle flame, so they won't do that again."

Uh-huh. I got a better idea. Tell me why I paid money for your book.

All she does is shamlessly promote her own books that state the obvious. Like in the "how to house train your dog" section...Her renowned expertise advise you (between pluggings) to keep taking your dog to the designated "toilet" area until a habit develops.

Once again, thanks Captain Obvious.

I would have to say I do not find her opinions of animal sociology any more credible than RS's and I don't even like him. I wound even venture so far as to say I actually think his statements "hold more water" than her entire book.



I would take the expertise of a mere animal trainer over yours any day regarding house cat behavior. I would quickly change my mind if you show me that you have more experience than Bohnenkamp in cat and dog behavior. Have you ever trained a dog? How many dogs? Have you refiend your training methods to a point that you can comfortably claim your training methods are superior. If not, then I will trust Bohnenkamp over your opinions.

[kelvin]

Quote: from sc4r on 12:06 pm on July 3, 2003


I dont think there is any point in labouring the fact that cats dont actually behave quite as you specifically say they do anyway.




All I am saying is that it is universal behavior for mammals to do certain things. One of them sort out rank. Whales do it, hamsters do it, chimps do it, and humans do it. By no means do I make any claim that whales, hamsters, and chimps will rank each other with the same mental process. There is an underlying behavior common to all mammals. This underlying behavior does not go away even when humans act abstractly and rationally.

[redstar2000]

All I am saying is that it is universal behavior for mammals to do certain things. One of them sort out rank. Whales do it, hamsters do it, chimps do it, and humans do it...There is an underlying behavior common to all mammals. This underlying behavior does not go away even when humans act abstractly and rationally.

As far as I can tell, kelvin, you can make the same claim for the "existence" of the "soul"...it's "common to all humans", it "exists even when we act as if it didn't", etc.

If you really think this kind of metaphysical nonsense "proves" that communism is "impossible"...well, go ahead and believe it.

When capitalism was revolutionary and progressive--say 1750 to 1850 or thereabouts--it celebrated the power of reason. Things are different now...metaphysical "biologies" must be invented to "justify" a social order that outrages reason altogether.

Good luck with that one, kelvin. :cheesy:

:cool:

[sc4r]

This underlying behavior does not go away even when humans act abstractly and rationally.


I see So the behaviour does not go away even when it does.

Yeah mate, as Redstar said, good luck with that.

What you are doing is asserting that something you would like to be true IS true and ignoring all the multiple points that other people have made that kinda demonstrate :

1) It isnt actually true in a meaningful way even for mammals.
2) Even it were true it would have no relevance to the real point you are trying to make.
3) There are other similar points (which are actually considerably less contentious) that would prove capitalism unworkable on the same sort of 'logical' basis.

I Guess this post of mine is merely argumentative. But since it follows about 3 consecutive ones of yours which do nothing but restate your orginal idea argumentatively I feel somewhat justified in just arguing.

(Edited by sc4r at 6:30 pm on July 4, 2003)