tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post6677682312420033705..comments2023-10-07T02:16:16.507-07:00Comments on The Primate Diaries: A Natural History of Anarchy - Part IEric Michael Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01272418277524164040noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-66399768715349037822008-05-24T19:04:00.000-07:002008-05-24T19:04:00.000-07:00Interesting; another evolutionary anthropologist i...Interesting; another evolutionary anthropologist interested in the political philosophy of anarchism. I'll definitely pay attention to this blog in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-1199103240411958942008-04-05T12:41:00.000-07:002008-04-05T12:41:00.000-07:00Is there some evidence that humans didn't form sma...Is there some evidence that humans didn't form small troops with a social hierarchy?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-60105113821719754782008-04-05T11:00:00.000-07:002008-04-05T11:00:00.000-07:00Hmmmm... Well, I like the approach in that tigers,...Hmmmm... Well, I like the approach in that tigers, bees, humans statement. I've been known to take a similar approach, too. I like to start with bears and bees because of the B sound alliteration. :) <BR/><BR/>I sometimes say something like, "Bees know how to live like bees. Bears know how to live like bears. Isn't it strange that one species seems to have such difficulty figuring out how to live?"<BR/><BR/>As I dig into anthroprology and some other -ologies, the end of the tiger statement no longer rings entirely true for me.<BR/><BR/>"That's just how we socialize: tigers are solitary, bees form hives, and humans form hierarchies."<BR/><BR/>Except: For at least 95% of human history, most humans did no such thing.<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure there are some previous posts here that relate to that.<BR/><BR/>Cheersetbnchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03705201307328226917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-33263272966731671872008-04-04T15:56:00.000-07:002008-04-04T15:56:00.000-07:00Trust me, I really want to believe in Anarchy.Only...Trust me, I really want to believe in Anarchy.<BR/><BR/><I>Only the political philosophy of anarchism assumes that human nature is basically rational and compassionate, leading to a just society through the free association and participation of all citizens.</I><BR/><BR/>Human nature is only <I>partially</I> compassionate and rational. It has an obvious darker side that hampers all efforts to do away with states.<BR/><BR/>For example, behavioral economists have shown that the ideal of the rational consumer is an illusion. Human beings are driven by cognitive mechanisms that don't make rational sense in the context of a free market. Also, the famous Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Zimbardo provides an example that basically compassionate people can behave cruelly given the right situation. Relying on human compassion and rationality while ignoring our darker natures is a recipe for disaster.<BR/><BR/>Anarchists seem to assume that anarchy can be a stable state. It seems far more likely that we naturally form hierarchical power structures. That's just how we socialize: tigers are solitary, bees form hives, and humans form hierarchies. If the world were converted to a fully educated, fully committed anarchy tomorrow, I'm willing to bet that we would see the rise proto-feudalism within a generation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-48196046847817932172008-04-03T19:20:00.000-07:002008-04-03T19:20:00.000-07:00P.S. -- of course after re-reading my post I see a...P.S. -- of course after re-reading my post I see an error. I meant that the early documents (the voices of the fore parents) were arguing for a stronger central government (in repsonse to Shays). The farmers, themselves the oppressed revolutionares protesting unfair taxation and attacking the weak newborn US govt. -- were NOT advocating stronger state. Just wanted to clarify that cuz it was fuzzy in my post...<BR/><BR/>the point being: the real revolutionaries (the poor) got squashed by the ones we called the American Revolutionaries today (Adams, Washington, etc.) who were the ELITE... our concept of revolution has been skewed and we still teach this stuff in history class!Whitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369917783020587214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-26250960664981946452008-04-03T19:15:00.000-07:002008-04-03T19:15:00.000-07:00So happy to see Primate Diaries up and running, br...So happy to see Primate Diaries up and running, bringing us intellectual nourishment and, if I'm not mistaken, even a message of hope! … there is the possibility of hope…hurrah!<BR/><BR/>I like your Chomsky quote, Eric. Interestingly enough, tonight I asked my Social Studies Methods students to analyze primary source excerpts from Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton and Abigail Adams, Ben Benecker and George Mason (among others) in the context of a similar question – what is the purpose of government? I pushed them to investigate (from the perspective of these docs) whether or not human nature was inherently "good" or "evil" -- we also discussed the purpose of government, resistance and the nature of patriotism. The discussion centered on the emotions of the documents, most written around 1787 by these founding parents shortly after Shay's Rebellion (whom you mention in your blog). The farmers who rebelled against the newborn elitest government (where only a small percentage of rich, land-holding white men had access to political power) argued largely for a stronger federal govt (and constitution) to replace the weak Articles of Confederation. Why? The elites were nervous after Shay's rebellion. They feared the power of the common people who were demanding social justice and equity. Many founding parents feared monarchy and tyranny but they feared the mobs and (as Abby called them) the desperadoes, even more! Our nation was built with a large government to keep the CHAOS and the REVOLUTIONARIES in control... not to champion the cause of the oppressed. By fearing anarchy itself (in the truest definition of the word), our revolutionary fore-parents embraced a code and a constitution that embraced the tyranny of the elite (a new elite not unlike the old British tea-slurping aristocracy). How sad that Americans think our nation was built on revolutionary ideals... when indeed our nation sold out, quite early, terrified by the potential democratic power of those unwashed and ‘dangerous’ masses... What if those founding-parents had embraced a truly participatory, populist, collective and sustainable model of government – what would America look like today? One wonders…<BR/><BR/>Good work, Eric! Keep the blog alive!<BR/><BR/>PS – I’m going to hear CHOMSKY speak April 18th… very excited indeed!!! First time for me! yippeeeeeeeee!Whitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369917783020587214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-7117950446079591052008-04-02T11:00:00.000-07:002008-04-02T11:00:00.000-07:00Well, I don't know from Greek.I'm just pleased to ...Well, I don't know from Greek.<BR/><BR/>I'm just pleased to see you back with some new material.etbnchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03705201307328226917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-53192696445064825302008-04-01T11:59:00.000-07:002008-04-01T11:59:00.000-07:00Well, as a Greek I can safely tell you that Αναρχί...Well, as a Greek I can safely tell you that Αναρχία comes from An (Without) and Αρχή, meaning start. Αρχή makes Αρχές which can means Rules/Values and from which Άρχων (Arkhos) or Άρχοντας comes from which means The One with the Rules or The One from which the Rules come from.<BR/><BR/>The word by itself much older than the 16th century as it is a perfectly valid word for Ancient Greek.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-9320138632062620782008-04-01T05:09:00.000-07:002008-04-01T05:09:00.000-07:00According to the Oxford American Dictionary:ORIGIN...According to the Oxford American Dictionary:<BR/><BR/>ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek <I><B>anarkhia</I></B>, from <I><B>anarkhos</I></B>, from <I><B>an- ‘without’</I></B> + <I><B>arkhos ‘chief, ruler.’</I></B>Eric Michael Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01272418277524164040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5870077003894840138.post-24227780130622530472008-04-01T04:23:00.000-07:002008-04-01T04:23:00.000-07:00Well said.In my understanding it seems that Anarch...Well said.<BR/><BR/>In my understanding it seems that Anarchy and Communism as Marx envisioned it, are pretty much the same thing. Both will result in a pretty utopic result, and both need a very good education on the part of the population which will trigger a paradigm shift in values.<BR/><BR/>Just one correction<BR/>Anarchy comes from the greek Αν-αρχία which translates to "No-Rules" rather than "No-Rulers".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com