ANARKY! In the G.Net (An Anarchist Discussion Thread)

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Cicero

This 'evolution' you speak of is one of the biggest questions in archaeology, and anyone pretending to know the perfect answer to it is full of shit.
Here's a basic run-down of current thought on it: when hunter-gatherers started intensive cultivation of plants - or any other form of food production, fishing was a common one - they created a food surplus (WHY this happened is still up for debate, but it seems pretty obvious that the logic behind it was probably along the lines of 'more food = a good thing'. Quite understandable).

First, you attack me for using a simple assumption as the basis for my argument, and then follow up by providing an equally simplistic model for a subject which you yourself said was too complex to be explained by a simple factor. "More food = good"

Second: Obvious? Really? "More food=good?" Before modern preservation technology, food generally only lasted for a very short time. Demand for food is inelastic, and stays the same provided that the population numbers also stay the same. People can only eat so much. Even if one takes into account primitive means of preservation, why would a hunter-gatherer society preserve more food than it would reasonably need to sustain itself?

It seems more likely that an increasing population placed strenuous demands on the existing food supplies, and made a hunter-gatherer lifestyle completely unsustainable, hence leading to the development of animal husbandry and sedentary agriculture.

Increasing population led to a food surplus, not vice-versa.

Control of that food surplus created the first instance of 'property', and a early inkling of social hierarchy. The extra food also allowed for population growth beyond anything a hunter-gatherer society could sustain and it snow-balled from there through the other 'stages' in 'socio-political evolution' into tribal societies, chiefdoms and eventually states. Or at least this is how they like to teach it in elementary school. The somewhat more complex reality is what people fill archaeology and anthropology journals with.

You're coloring pre-history with a Marxist crayon. You're saying that the idea of private property didn't exist until sedentary agriculture came about, making farming some sort of proto-capitalist bogeyman. By implication, you're also saying that no hunter-gatherer group, EVER, developed a hierarchical structure in which a chief or headman ruled underlings and was privy to a greater share of whatever the tribe possessed. I find that hard to believe.

I like how you tried to answer this 'biggest question in archaeology' with 'population got too large'.

How about "more food = good". That apparently works for you.

And assuming it was a 'natural' population increase just makes it even better - things stopped being 'natural' the moment we started creating our own food supply. If hunter-gatherer societies experienced natural population increases they'd be fucked.

Again, population growth, in this case, logically precedes an increase in food production, not the other way round. Why else would farming have been developed? Did someone just stand in a field and suddenly decide to try making a surplus to exceed the inelastic demand for food of a numerically stable population?

Also, what I said wasn't 'my logic', rather it was based on the well known explanation for the difference between hunter-gatherer societies and non-hunter-gatherer societies (immediate vs. delayed return. Look it up).

And I don't know where you got an argument for primitivism out of what I said.

You said, in an earlier post, that :

Originally Posted by Cicero

Pretty much all immediate-return hunter gatherers prove humans aren't inherently greedy. Their only codes of social conduct (you could call them 'laws', but the usual punishment is just being made fun of) require people to share everything they have.

If humans aren't inherently greedy, and only hunter-gatherers prove that by their actions, isn't it reasonable, then, to extrapolate that you're here touting primitivism, a way of life lacking in the evils of modern society which drive men to acts of greed, as being morally superior?

Conveniently for you, such a hunter-gatherer lifestyle can never really be recreated, and your statement therefore never tested.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

First, you attack me for using a simple assumption as the basis for my argument, and then follow up by providing an equally simplistic model for a subject which you yourself said was too complex to be explained by a simple factor. "More food = good"

Second: Obvious? Really? "More food=good?" Before modern preservation technology, food generally only lasted for a very short time. Demand for food is inelastic, and stays the same provided that the population numbers also stay the same. People can only eat so much. Even if one takes into account primitive means of preservation, why would a hunter-gatherer society preserve more food than it would reasonably need to sustain itself?

OF COURSE 'more food = good' is an obcene oversimplification, if you'd read the part preceeding it you may have noticed it's still up for debate, and all the statement applied to was the thought that might have driven what is often referred to as the 'neolithic revolution', not the perfect answer to why the entire process occurred.

As for your second question, preservation of many plant (and animal) foods was perfectly possible using their 'primitive' means (how else would the first farmers have stored their harvest? Food preservation isn't exactly a 'new thing'), and an extra food supply is never a bad idea for any group of people, especially when the environment they live in is undergoing the kinds of changes that may have taken place in the Near East about 10,000 years ago.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

It seems more likely that an increasing population placed strenuous demands on the existing food supplies, and made a hunter-gatherer lifestyle completely unsustainable, hence leading to the development of animal husbandry and sedentary agriculture.

Increasing population led to a food surplus, not vice-versa.

'It seems more likely' according to what? You're guessing something that goes against all current archaeological and ethnographic evidence. Population growth came after agriculture, and that's something that the archaeological record can tell us quite easily. It's also the reason why hunter-gatherer groups still exist today: they live in an environment where agriculture isn't necessary / possible and their population did not magically increase for no reason. Because if a supply of food remains constant the population usually will, too.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You're coloring pre-history with a Marxist crayon. You're saying that the idea of private property didn't exist until sedentary agriculture came about, making farming some sort of proto-capitalist bogeyman. By implication, you're also saying that no hunter-gatherer group, EVER, developed a hierarchical structure in which a chief or headman ruled underlings and was privy to a greater share of whatever the tribe possessed. I find that hard to believe.

I'm not saying that no hunter-gatherer group ever developed a hierarchical system because that's simply not true, but I can say that every single one that has is what's known as a complex hunter-gatherer society that doesn't necessarily farm but does partake in some kind of intensive exploitation of natural resources that creates a surplus. This is the category many native american tribes fall into. On the other hand, Australian aboriginal groups, African Pygmies and the Kalahari San, to name a few ethnographic examples, are entirely free of social hierarchy and probably always have been. It all boils down to their methods of food acquisition.

Also the crayon I'm using isn't Marxist, it's based on current anthropological ideas on the subject. If you don't like what I'm saying take it up with the world experts I learnt all this from.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

How about "more food = good". That apparently works for you..

So you're taking one tiny thing I said completely out of context and using it again and again to support your argument. Ah, classic internet tactic.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Again, population growth, in this case, logically precedes an increase in food production, not the other way round. Why else would farming have been developed? Did someone just stand in a field and suddenly decide to try making a surplus to exceed the inelastic demand for food of a numerically stable population?

Logically? How is it logical for people to go having babies they can't feed? If agriculture evolved over thousands of years (which, oh hey! It did) then it couldn't have happened to meet the demand of an overly-large population because that population would have collapsed about a hundred generations before the first harvest of fully domesticated wheat came around. Farming was developed for reasons that still aren't understood, but the idea that it came about because of some random increase in population is so unlikely I don't think a single archaeologist has ever suggested it.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You said, in an earlier post, that :

If humans aren't inherently greedy, and only hunter-gatherers prove that by their actions, isn't it reasonable, then, to extrapolate that you're here touting primitivism, a way of life lacking in the evils of modern society which drive men to acts of greed, as being morally superior?

Conveniently for you, such a hunter-gatherer lifestyle can never really be recreated, and your statement therefore never tested.

You're pulling all that emotive language out of the air and it's kind of ridiculous.

But anyway, hunter-gatherers represent the original kind of society humans evolved into, so of course they're a pretty good starting point for studying what kind of animals we really are. That doesn't mean we should all be exactly like them, but perhaps it does shed light on what kind of lifestyle makes humans truly happy (even Gordon Childe, after inventing the term 'neolithic revolution' and postulating that it was one of the greatest advances in human history, admitted that the resulting society was not nearly as content and healthy as the one preceeeding it).

For the record I'm not at all a primitivist, but I do believe hunter-gatherers deserve a lot more respect than our ethnocentric society grants them.

[Anarasha]

I read through a few pages. If I somehow missed an important point in this discussion, I am sorry.

I agree fully with JCC. Anarchy is a lovely and romantic thought, but it won't last. One violent individual could mess it all up, and violence is an instinct in humans.
If one person acts violently towards another, that other person will through instincts defend himself. Violence will spread, and the people who had no intentions to be violent will undoubtably stand together in order to be able to protect themselves from these violent individuals.
After a while, people will have organized into a group responsible for protecting others.
This group of people will gain significant power.
Sound familiar?
I believe that - no matter how you twist or turn it - Anarchy is a lovely thought of Utopia, but it cannot possibly happen as it will lead to destruction or a government.
Don't get me wrong, I love the thought of mutual respect and pacifist viewpoints, I just don't believe that it could happen.
Besides, the Anarchist community is at a serious disadvantage because they refuse to organize. Instead, half of them claim that Anarchy has to come as a result of revolution - an act that is not at all likely to happen peacefully.
So basically, I believe that a lot of Anarchists base their viewpoints and dreams on self-deceit and impossible ideas.
(I am sorry if this managed to offend anyone, I assure you that it was not my intention)

[DRM]

Originally Posted by Anarasha

I agree fully with JCC. Anarchy is a lovely and romantic thought, but it won't last. One violent individual could mess it all up, and violence is an instinct in humans.
If one person acts violently towards another, that other person will through instincts defend himself. Violence will spread, and the people who had no intentions to be violent will undoubtably stand together in order to be able to protect themselves from these violent individuals.
After a while, people will have organized into a group responsible for protecting others.
This group of people will gain significant power.

It's not so much people creating a chain of violence that makes me think anarchy wont work, as much as the fact that people will do stupid things just because they can or to prove just how free they are.

[JCC]

That's not what I meant. Anarchism isn't viable because it can only work in small communities: the larger a community becomes, naturally it becomes less democratic because it's impossible to fully co-ordinate a large community democratically, if you've got a society of even just a hundred thousand people you need some kind of representative agency. If you break into communities that are small enough then it can probably work, but who wants to regress that far? With unity comes progress, and I see a global community of representative democracies (and a global mixed market) as more sensible than scores of splinter groups. Violence and will to power aren't necessarily arguments against anarchism.

[Anarasha]

That was what I was trying to say as well. I just don't have my way with words the same way that you do =)

[Given_Flesh_by_Sophia]

Originally Posted by DepthsofSpace

T'was a joke.

I wouldn't use the term 'party', as anarchist are not part of the political system (though some do vote for canidates that espouse a more libertarian or minarchist platform).

Anarchism means, litterally, 'without State', and thus anarchist usually seek to 'Smash the State', or in gentler terms, dismatle any system of Government. Myself, as an anarchist, hold the view that most problems are not solved by government, rather they are caused by government. Since in my book the use of force to coerce an outcome from someone else is morally wrong, and the purpose and use of government is all about force, then the State is an inherently evil system. Since as a Christian, a rational human being, an individual and one concerned for the welfare of humanity, I can not justify such a system, nor believe that the supposed order it brings is better than an alternitive.

That's a very open-ended, and simplfied version of anarchist thought. It could go one for volumes of works, and often does.

Please... Anarchism means "without Lords" or "without the Ruling Class", not "without the State"...

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Given_Flesh_by_Sophia

Please... Anarchism means "without Lords" or "without the Ruling Class", not "without the State"...

Without rulers would imply without the state.

[Alan]

Arguing about the specific dictionary definition is stupid. It completely ignores the positive historical struggle and context of the anarchist movement.
You're not even splitting hairs; you're just sidestepping the issue with your own arbitrary definition of anarchism.
This goes to Sophia, of course. JCC already knows this.