[BBC News] Man is charged after drugs raid

[gazza]

 

but our instinct IS to compete, for food, mates and teritory, its built in. the fact that the system we live in protects the weeker specimins is comendable, might is right is not how the system works. if you want to live in that system move to zimbabwe. we are pack animals with all the instincts of alfa male or female of those systems. you can get along with the majority, but there is always something or someone that comes along and needs dealing with.

 

 

I disagree. Our instincts are to cooperate to share food when it is scarce. Primate instincts regarding territory is extinct, humans simply do not form the groups and inhabit an environment in which territorial protection is to be fought for. As for mates I would maybe agree, there is some competition. My overall view is that human beings and animals spend more time cooperating and spend more time meeting their mutual needs than they do to compete. .

 

your haveing a laugh aint you, so what do you call all the wars then, shareing hmmmm,

so what u trying to say is a billion years of man natural way of liveing (i know its not that long but i dont know how long it is)

has just been removed in about 100 years!!!!

 

The weak are not necessarily left to die in most animal groups and certainly aren't with humans. And it is a reflection of our concern for the weak that produced such things as the welfare state which runs against the capitalist trend.

And in the system we live in it is might that appears to be accepted as right. The state is the might and people accept that and people accept the might of the rich and powerful as they have stolen so much of what is should be shared. Talk of humans as pack animals and consisting of players such as the alpha males and females makes sense in small groups and in specific circumstances, but it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in the larger make-up of society. Alpha males do not dominate in society; it is those with money.

 

so all the rich ppl in the world have stolen it, you talk utter crap,

and to be honest, i would say if check the rich list i can bet most are men, so that would mean the alpha males is still with us in this society,

And to be fair if we diden have alpha males in the world, be it thay be rich/poor we woulden have a lot of things that we take for granted 2day,

we would have all given up and prob died, its the alpha male in us that keeps pushing humans along in life,(including woman)

to be honest we prob be a bit like you, wine and complain cause u think the world is an unfair place just because you cant seam to do make anything of it,

 

i would say you have the the green monster, pure jealousy of others and what thay have made of themself, just because you cant

[thebees]

La Dolce Vita you sound like the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist my dear.

[Sebrof]

La Dolce Vita you sound like the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist my dear.

 

The Dolch has a big heart, and, to balance things out, a somewhat smaller brain.

 

There have been any number of attempts to recreate the life of the noble savage (itself a fantasy), and every one has failed. Why? You might say greed and ambition, but you might also say human (ie: animal) nature.

 

In recent history, the Israelis have got nearest to the ideal of a sharing society with the Kibbutz system. But where are Kibbutzes now? There's a handful left, shadows of their former selves, and living on hand-outs. They only survive because other people (Israeli tax-payers) subsidise them.

 

Capitalism isn't ideal, but at least it provides incentives. When it fails, as it has done recently, it is because those in charge have failed to recognise the need for oversight and regulation.

 

S

[Skeddan]

Instead of putting LDV down, I think some of the things are really interesting in calling into question basic assumptions which are normally never challenged and just taken for granted. It's easy to dismiss and poo-poo out of hand, but worthwhile trying to actually get to grips with what does and doesn't make sense. I agree with LDV about authoritarian systems, and agree it is unreasonable intrusion into personal freedoms to criminalise taking a substance that is no more harmful than a bar of chocolate. It's rigid, disciplinarian, and not responsive to any actual interests of the people governed by such laws.

 

It's also true that the idealistic utopian notion wouldn't work because of human nature, but that's also worth thinking about a bit further. Culture and values do exacerbate the problems we have. What kind of inhuman greed leads to the kinds of genocide we see in Africa over diamonds and so on - generally perpetrated by people who are already obscenely wealthy. Exploitation of others is becoming increasingly the norm - a kind of rip-off culture where 'social capital' has little liquidity. One way to consider what LDV is saying is in terms of an ideal where the system has almost ideal 'social capital' - under such a system capitalism might be very different - it might indeed evaporate. I think though as LDV has perhaps acknowledged, that is an 'aspirational' ideal to be reached towards, a bit like 'absolute zero'. We might never get there, but that's a direction to be heading in. What LDV is getting at there strikes me as more profound point than most one reads here. This from Wikipedia item on social capital:

An abundance of social capital is seen as being almost a necessary condition for modern liberal democracy. A low level of social capital leads to an excessively rigid and unresponsive political system and high levels of corruption, in the political system and in the region as a whole.

 

In terms of economics, capitalism and property may not be that bad - pretty neutral, but in terms of real world, we do see 'capitalist exploitation' of a kind (I'm not up with Marxism, but I think LDV may mean it in that sense). Just put it in terms of corruption and exploitation and huge injustices. So much is driven by material and financial gain that it is almost insane and certainly obscene. (Britain now throws away enough unused food to feed Burundi 40 times over). It's certainly not sustainable, and is essentially a system which is highly destructive and out of step with what will be for our good (otherwise would we have such horrendous problems as we do). God knows if you are running a corporation, your only duty is to increase shareholder financial value. Poison the entire planet if it will maximise returns and won't get you fined. 'Toxic capitalism' of the kind which operates without any regard for ethics, human values, isn't good.

 

Too often those who rise to power are the Saddams, Noriegas, and similar psychopathic personalities without conscience or scruple and their less notorious counterparts who have power and influence and have no scruples about profiteering from arms sales and genocide while maintaining a front of carefully polished PR. Not even these people are in control - everyone is helplessly being propelled along by a system that is like universal wolf whose appetite will consume all until it will at least eat up itself. If that kind of toxic capitalism is an extreme at one end of the spectrum, and perfect 'social capitalism' is at the other, then it does make sense to be thinking in terms of more than just the kind of capitalism as we know it.

 

Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance, a way of life that calls for another way of living.

 

Don't be too quick to dismiss some of the things LDV may be trying to say.

The Dolch has a big heart, and, to balance things out, a somewhat smaller brain.

My guess is that it would be more accurate to describe LDV as an INFP. Maybe not always able to articulate intellectually, but can sometimes be possessed of a kind of uncanny 'blind' intuitive understanding that can go far beyond what might occur to others, whether with big brains or not.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

but our instinct IS to compete, for food, mates and teritory, its built in. the fact that the system we live in protects the weeker specimins is comendable, might is right is not how the system works. if you want to live in that system move to zimbabwe. we are pack animals with all the instincts of alfa male or female of those systems. you can get along with the majority, but there is always something or someone that comes along and needs dealing with.

 

 

I disagree. Our instincts are to cooperate to share food when it is scarce. Primate instincts regarding territory is extinct, humans simply do not form the groups and inhabit an environment in which territorial protection is to be fought for. As for mates I would maybe agree, there is some competition. My overall view is that human beings and animals spend more time cooperating and spend more time meeting their mutual needs than they do to compete. .

 

your haveing a laugh aint you, so what do you call all the wars then, shareing hmmmm,

so what u trying to say is a billion years of man natural way of liveing (i know its not that long but i dont know how long it is)

has just been removed in about 100 years!!!

 

A billion years of man's natural living? What natural living? Competition? I am saying the drive to cooperate has always been far greater. And if anything the motivations to compete have been accentuated over the past 100 years and more because of capitalism.

 

I don't know what I would call ALL the wars. But wars are complex interactions, it involves competition but the competition is very often, especially in recent times, driven by the desire of elites to seek greater power and increase their control over more people. The desire of the elites to increase their power and control of resources runs counter to the animal instincts of the larger group where cooperation is of more importance.

 

You could maybe try and read Kropotkins book "Mutual Need: A Factor Of Evolution". It is a really interesting read.

 

The weak are not necessarily left to die in most animal groups and certainly aren't with humans. And it is a reflection of our concern for the weak that produced such things as the welfare state which runs against the capitalist trend.

And in the system we live in it is might that appears to be accepted as right. The state is the might and people accept that and people accept the might of the rich and powerful as they have stolen so much of what is should be shared. Talk of humans as pack animals and consisting of players such as the alpha males and females makes sense in small groups and in specific circumstances, but it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in the larger make-up of society. Alpha males do not dominate in society; it is those with money.

 

so all the rich ppl in the world have stolen it, you talk utter crap,

and to be honest, i would say if check the rich list i can bet most are men, so that would mean the alpha males is still with us in this society,

And to be fair if we diden have alpha males in the world, be it thay be rich/poor we woulden have a lot of things that we take for granted 2day,

we would have all given up and prob died, its the alpha male in us that keeps pushing humans along in life,(including woman)

to be honest we prob be a bit like you, wine and complain cause u think the world is an unfair place just because you cant seam to do make anything of it,

 

i would say you have the the green monster, pure jealousy of others and what thay have made of themself, just because you cant

 

Yes the rich have stolen it, they should no more hold private property than anyone else. The themselves have not done the extent of work necessary to render them rich, such fortune has to come from somewhere and it has to come from others, the workers whether they be employer by the rich person when he makes a profit out of giving them a wage or in fleecing others who purchase his products. And if it is such crap, please explain why you think it is, it isn't really enough to just say my argument is apparently not good.

 

Well please do explain who how these rich people are alpha males? And how their alpha male designation is reflected in the larger society and not just in smaller groupings where the designation is relevant. Bear in mind that alpha males and females in animal groups take their role almost wholly due to their strength and size, and not so much on how much wealth and control of capital they have.

 

I am not arguing that alpha males and females do not exist in some form in particular social relations in groups, but out society is very complex. And I really can't understand how being rich correlates with being alpha. I don't see the connection.

 

I think I can make something of my world. For starters, unlike so many, I have taken the time to look at the world and recognised a lot of what is wrong with it. And that has come from trying to understand history, politics, and economics. So many simply accept their lot, they do not even take time to look at why things exist and whether they are justified or not but simply limit themselves to a narrow concept of the world. These are the people who ironically object to radical political ideas. I can whine about the real world because there is so much that is wrong about it and so much that needs to change. But rather than voting, the way to make effective change or at least give effective opposition is through direct action, not by taking the pointless action of voting.

 

I wouldn't say it is jealousy per se. I say that because given my politics I don't think I can sit comfortably with the idea of being very wealthy. Knowing what I do, I would be making money or increasing my private property at the expense of others abilities to do so. But I position and the position of the vast majority can be significantly improved in so many respects by destroying capitalism.

 

In the current system, I recognise that throughout most of my life I am going to be a wage slave, I will be shafted by my employer who will wrongly take from me what is mine. My whole life will be constantly spent going through the daily process of having to sell my labour with absolutely no guarantee of security, the employer can make me redundant in a society where the need for work is essential. I will never have any meaningful control over my work because I am not the employer. I will never have any say in how I work nor any control in the workplace environment when my work actually get things done and produces where the employer does not. I am also subject to the unjustified authority of the state and subject to the laws it puts in place, yet have only the weakest influence over what the state does and what laws are produced. I see gross inequality in society and crime that can largely be eradicated were we not to live in a capitalist society. Now recognising these FACTS of my situation, yes it does seem somewhat depressing, but at least I am aware. So many are not, through no fault of their own because we are all brainwashed from when we begin to school to accept the way things are without complaint.

I can understand those who think anarchism is unachievable, maybe communism is the answer, but to deny the many serious problems with the current system is to be willfully blind to it. At least knowing what I do I can make efforts to subvert and attack the system, that is the good that can come out of my awareness.

 

La Dolce Vita you sound like the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist my dear. smile.gif

 

Haha, no I am definitely no philanthropist.

 

The Dolch has a big heart, and, to balance things out, a somewhat smaller brain.

 

There have been any number of attempts to recreate the life of the noble savage (itself a fantasy), and every one has failed. Why? You might say greed and ambition, but you might also say human (ie: animal) nature.

 

In recent history, the Israelis have got nearest to the ideal of a sharing society with the Kibbutz system. But where are Kibbutzes now? There's a handful left, shadows of their former selves, and living on hand-outs. They only survive because other people (Israeli tax-payers) subsidise them.

 

Capitalism isn't ideal, but at least it provides incentives. When it fails, as it has done recently, it is because those in charge have failed to recognise the need for oversight and regulation.

 

In terms of having a smaller brain, I could say the same about those whose baffle me in their belief that capitalism is the best system when it clearly create so many injustices and problems.

 

I do not know why you use the phrase of 'noble savage'. What do you mean by the term, as it could quite easily be said that the capitalist system has created a good deal of savagery.

 

I can only speculate in terms of the Kibbutz that such a small close-knit group based solely on agriculture cannot be self-sufficient if it wishes to interact with economic players outside of itself. It would be something I will read more into though.

 

Capitalism does provide incentives, quite right. But there is absolutely no reason why profitmaking should be seen to be the only method with which such incentives can come about. Going back to what I was saying, having workers working together democratically to produce social goods seems to me to offer very good incentives.

 

In terms of economics, capitalism and property may not be that bad - pretty neutral, but in terms of real world, we do see 'capitalist exploitation' of a kind (I'm not up with Marxism, but I think LDV may mean it in that sense).

 

What do you mean 'pretty neutral' in terms of property and capitalism? It would help to know before I make assumptions on your views and argue against them.

 

My guess is that it would be more accurate to describe LDV as an INFP. Maybe not always able to articulate intellectually, but can sometimes be possessed of a kind of uncanny 'blind' intuitive understanding that can go far beyond what might occur to others, whether with big brains or not.

 

I think I articulate myself very well, haha, don't I? I think it is different to explain one's position when it is so radically different from the conventional and uncritical perspective that the vast majority hold. It means having to explain my politics down to the basics. I don't think I have in any way a blind understanding, my interpretation of people's thinking on matters of authority, the working world, and society very often leads me to wonder whether others are being purposely blind to the realities, though appreciating that we are indoctrinated. I did do the personality test thing ages ago, and yes, I am an INFP apparently so you are bang on.

[manxy]

Anyway, back to the thread.

The guys a knob and he's looking at a long time (if found guilty of course)

 

ps, I've pm'd LDV before and find him ok, truth be told. He has differences to myself, as I would expect everyone to have certain differences. He sure writes a lot and if he was on the telephone, I'm sure that we'd be talking for hours (Couldn't resist it)

I'm not a big writer LDV and there's some points that I agree with and some that I don't. As mentioned before, sometimes it needs looking at from a different perspective and realising that I'm not always right.

 

pps Ignore the last statement, Women are always right and don't you forget it.

[Sebrof]

The Dolch has a big heart, and, to balance things out, a somewhat smaller brain.

 

There have been any number of attempts to recreate the life of the noble savage (itself a fantasy), and every one has failed. Why? You might say greed and ambition, but you might also say human (ie: animal) nature.

 

In recent history, the Israelis have got nearest to the ideal of a sharing society with the Kibbutz system. But where are Kibbutzes now? There's a handful left, shadows of their former selves, and living on hand-outs. They only survive because other people (Israeli tax-payers) subsidise them.

 

Capitalism isn't ideal, but at least it provides incentives. When it fails, as it has done recently, it is because those in charge have failed to recognise the need for oversight and regulation.

 

In terms of having a smaller brain, I could say the same about those whose baffle me in their belief that capitalism is the best system when it clearly create so many injustices and problems.

 

I do not know why you use the phrase of 'noble savage'. What do you mean by the term, as it could quite easily be said that the capitalist system has created a good deal of savagery.

 

 

There was an 18th C. conceit that man in fomer and simpler days was more "civilised" than modern man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

 

Incidentally, I agree with many of your views, and the smaller (not small!) brain bit was merely an allusion to what I consider to be a certain naivety on your part when it comes to human nature. Don't worry, age will bring the cure.

 

S

[Skeddan]

My guess is that it would be more accurate to describe LDV as an INFP. Maybe not always able to articulate intellectually, but can sometimes be possessed of a kind of uncanny 'blind' intuitive understanding that can go far beyond what might occur to others, whether with big brains or not.

 

I think I articulate myself very well, haha, don't I? I think it is different to explain one's position when it is so radically different from the conventional and uncritical perspective that the vast majority hold. It means having to explain my politics down to the basics. I don't think I have in any way a blind understanding, my interpretation of people's thinking on matters of authority, the working world, and society very often leads me to wonder whether others are being purposely blind to the realities, though appreciating that we are indoctrinated. I did do the personality test thing ages ago, and yes, I am an INFP apparently so you are bang on.

Yes you do. I was giving a kind of precis of INFP as per description in the link, not making a judgement about you in particular. The INFPs I've known often pick up on things by 'sensing' in an intuitive way. 'blind' as in 'blind seer' archetype. I don't have that kind of sixth sense and often have to make quite an effort to understand and not misunderstand or misinterpret their observations from a different perspective. It may be articulated very well, but not always in the way that is easily grasped by a non INFP (me INTP).

 

What do you mean 'pretty neutral' in terms of property and capitalism? It would help to know before I make assumptions on your views and argue against them.

 

I have pretty simplistic notion and as I said I'm really not up with Marxist theory etc - I just haven't delved into that. As I think of it (naive as it may be), capitalism is where goods and services (or generally property or things capable of being possessed by a person) can be traded and exchanged in a 'market economy'.

 

I haven't got any clear understanding of what 'the means of production' means. I also have great scepticism about economic systems that characterise people as profit seeking selfish economic units. (nurses and teachers can be highly able and capable of careers with much higher pay, people give to charities, give all their money away, drop out of the rat race, go and live by the sea and become semi-self sufficient and are perfectly sane and rational. IMO a multi-millionaire who works 18 hours a day trying to make even more money than he can spend, and which like Bill Gates he may end up giving away is a bit cracked.).

 

In terms of Capitalism as per Adam Smith and Marxism these have never really made sense to me, so I really haven't got much grasp of those economic theories. This is mainly down to the real basics - the distinction between 'use value' and 'exchange value' and the conception of 'exchange value' based on labour cost of production as per Adam Smith and followed by Marx . I just don't buy that.

 

Instead IMO John Law's scarcity theory of value makes much more sense. (the classic 'water/diamond' example; water has high use value, but no exchange value, whereas diamonds have high exchange value but no use value.) According to Adam Smith the difference in exchange value is because water and diamonds have different labour costs of production. So exchange value is determined by labour cost. (a notion which seems to be a cornerstone in Marxist theory). John Law however explained difference in exchange value between water and diamonds on grounds of relative scarcity. That to me seems a lot sounder, and also does not use 'labour cost' as a basis for economic theory as if what that meant were somehow a given. In the South Pacific red feathers were currency for a time, and had high exchange value. Not because of high labour cost - but rather they were prized and came to have exchange value because of scarcity and the supply of these was controlled.

 

So IMO capitalism in the Adam Smith sense and Marxism which follows Adam Smith thinking both have fundamental and deep flaws. Hence I don't really understand capitalism, Marxism, 'means of production' and so on, and just think of it in these rather simplistic naive terms.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There was an 18th C. conceit that man in fomer and simpler days was more "civilised" than modern man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

 

Incidentally, I agree with many of your views, and the smaller (not small!) brain bit was merely an allusion to what I consider to be a certain naivety on your part when it comes to human nature. Don't worry, age will bring the cure.

 

S

 

In terms of what you say about the noble savage, I do not believe that man today is any more civilised than in former days, but then I would be uncomfortable to state that we are more we are more civilised today. I would can't think why we are, but maybe I need to think harder. I see too many wrongs in the world caused by humans to feel comfortable with making a simple comparison

 

I would love to hear more about what you believe to be my naiveties but I would say that I am not someone who is sure that there is such a thing as human nature, if one takes it to be an innate quality. It would be better to explain what you mean without using the term human nature as it is a social construct.

 

So exchange value is determined by labour cost. (a notion which seems to be a cornerstone in Marxist theory)

 

Labour COST is not something I am aware of as being part of Marxist theory. My politics are anarchist and are influenced by Marxist ideas but as far as I am aware the idea of labour cost is something anathema to the very idea of communism. What you seem to be talking about is a specific facet of economic interation, that is the interaction based of exchanging goods.

 

I also have great scepticism about economic systems that characterise people as profit seeking selfish economic units.

 

But is that not what you see when you look at the large shareholders, the top bosses, the ones who control massive businesses. They aim to make more and more profits, it is what drives them. As for the rest of us, the system make it seem as if we are nothing more than tools to be used by these people in creating profit.

 

I haven't got any clear understanding of what 'the means of production

 

Basically and briefly it just means the tools and equipment required to produce goods or render services.