[LAF] Personal Responce to the Pendry Paper

[Joy Wood]

I can't see how the example I gave of the two adult male birds feeding the injured third adult male bird comes under anything but altruism.  The two were gaining nothing by it, only losing (time, food) and the third was gaining (protection, time to heal, nutrients).
 
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:16:41 +0000
> From: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
> Subject: RE: [LAF] Personal Responce to the Pendry Paper
> To: laf at lists.aktivix.org; joy_helbin at hotmail.com
> 
> 
> Thanks Joy. I'd reply by saying that Evolutionary Biology does indeed contain Mutualism (often wrongly termed Reciprocal Altruism), its driven by individual Natural Selection itself rather than in tandem (the individual benefits more through it) that's well established, but not Altruism as such, it sounds pedantically technical but there are serious consequences of the two views. The difference is explained here in this encyclopaedia extract:
> 
> "According to the standard definition, a social behaviour counts as altruistic if it reduces the fitness of the organism performing the behaviour, but boosts the fitness of others. This was the definition used by Hamilton (1964), and by many subsequent authors. However, there is less consensus on how to describe behaviours that boost the fitness of others but also boost the fitness of the organism performing the behaviour. As West et al. (2007) note, such behaviours are sometimes termed ‘co-operative’, but this usage is not universal; others use ‘co-operation’ to refer to behaviour that boosts the fitness of others irrespective of its effect on self; while still others use ‘cooperation’ as a synonym for altruism. (Indeed, in the simple Prisoner's dilemma game above, the two strategies are usually called ‘co-operate’ and ‘defect’.) To avoid this confusion, West et al. (2007) suggest the term ‘mutual benefit’ for behaviours that
> benefit both self and other, while Sachs et al. (2004) suggest ‘byproduct benefit’."
> 
> On Sadism, I tend to agree, but no one knows. But my gamble is to assume its innate, therefore if wrong thats a plus, while if we assume its a social product and we're wrong we arent well prepared.
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 20/6/09, Joy Wood <joy_helbin at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Joy Wood <joy_helbin at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: [LAF] Personal Responce to the Pendry Paper
> > To: "steve ash" <steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk>, "LAF EMAIL LIST" <laf at lists.aktivix.org>
> > Date: Saturday, 20 June, 2009, 12:44 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > #yiv25019051 .hmmessage P
> > {
> > margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> > #yiv25019051 {
> > font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > An Anarchist Response to An Anarchist Responce (to Tim
> > Pendry's Paper) Share
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I agree with the majority of what Steve says (eg
> > "political Samsara" - LOL) but would like to add
> > the following technical point of information:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > "It even cathartically channels our sadistic urges
> > towards those foolish enough to attempt to maintain
> > authority, let alone increase it. It is simply the politics
> > of popular empowerment, but as autonomous individuals not a
> > herd."
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Re:  sadistic urges.  I think the so-called
> > sadistic urges are reactions to being thwarted.  In
> > other words, it is a "healthy self-centred
> > [person's]" reflex when confronted with
> > authoritarians or control freaks to lash out in
> > self-defence.  Another variety of
> > so-called sadistic urge is the impulse to attack or
> > humiliate or torture something 'weaker' or to
> > destroy or despoil something 'unspoiled'. 
> > Again I do not think this human nature (in the sense of
> > being a primiary characteristic), I think it is a bitter
> > reaction (ie a secondary characteristic, a tool of
> > self-defence rather than core personality) to an
> > earlier insult made to the attacker, and is stored
> > resentment leaking or bursting out rather than any inherent
> > behaviour.  In other words such behaviour to my
> > mind corresponds to the phenomenon you comment
> > on below, which appears at the time unwanted
> > restraints are suddenly or unexpectedly removed.  It is
> > a reaction to an experienced
> > restraint/abuse/control-freakery - not a
> > non-provoked action initiated in the organism but
> > rather a reaction to outside authoritarianism (which, due to
> > fear or impotence couldn't be either repudiated at
> > the time or dispersed later).  In other words, I do not
> > think sadistic urges are core human traits, they are
> > survival tools in the first instance, the immediate
> > response, and reactionary behaviour in the sense of being
> > expressions of resentment when they appear as delayed
> > reactions (eg in torture, schadenfreude, etc) and I do not
> > agree that such a view of human nature is naive.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > One reason I believe it is a realistic view of human nature
> > is that although the mainstream view of "evolutionary
> > biology" may say "there isn't a single animal
> > species that shows any trace of altruism (outside of
> > eusocial insects, like wasps and ants, who are probably a
> > hive organism, rather than individual entities, in the
> > main)" the mutual aid half of evolutionary biology
> > shows the other side of the theory (not opposite side of the
> > theory, but additional side - the other mechanism working in
> > tandem with naturual selection).  The survival of the
> > fittest is the survival of those most fitted to survive, in
> > other words what we see on earth now has survived so they
> > are the fittest to survive or they wouldn't still be
> > here.  What we have has survived through a combination
> > of two main behaviours, taking enough for oneself to survive
> > and sharing enough to allow others to survive.  As to
> > the view of mainstream evolutionary biology that such
> > behaviour doesn't exist, of course it doesn't exist
> > if they label that behaviour "altruistic" and then
> > define altruism as "self-sacrifice."  When
> > they do that, they disappear the behaviour.  An example
> > of said animal behaviour which *is* altruism but is not
> > self-sacrifice appears in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid
> > where two adult male birds (crows or ravens or eagles I
> > think, well anyway they weren't Tweety-pie) were
> > fetching food and not eating it but taking it inside a
> > hollow tree.  For three days or more.  Further
> > investigation showed they were feeding another adult male
> > bird who had injured his wing and needed to eat, rest, hide
> > away and heal before he could venture out alone again to
> > fend for himself.  So, the two male adult birds were
> > not only not hogging food for themselves, not only not
> > attacking weaker birds and stealing their food but shielding
> > an injured so-called adult male rival and caring for
> > him.  Examples of this kind will not be featured in the
> > literature of those who have an ideological belief that
> > nature is red in tooth and claw and that altruism equates to
> > self-sacrifice.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Joy
> >  
> > > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:19:55 +0000
> > > From: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
> > > To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> > > Subject: [LAF] Personal Responce to the Pendry Paper
> > > 
> > > 
> > > An Anarchist Responce (to Tim Pendry's Paper)
> > Share
> > > 
> > > Tim's analysis of the failure of democratic and
> > authoritarian Socialism is telling I think. The common
> > denominator in both, as Tim correctly identifies, is a lust
> > for power and a 'self regarding opportunism', in
> > other words selfish egotism. Kerensky is likewise censured
> > for not seizing the moment, but how could he when faced with
> > the potentials of his own power? His own egotism would have
> > prevented a truly egalitarian move, and did. However, all
> > these have a strength in common we are told, a commitment to
> > hierarchical organisation. Yes, of course they do, they want
> > to be at the top of that hierarchy, like any sane individual
> > in such a set up, or if they are a bit more intelligent than
> > their colleagues, a powerful niche within the system, with
> > suitable scapegoats at the top. Only those crushed in spirit
> > will settle for sheep function, and will stay there forever
> > seeking a new leadership to herd and protect them. 
> > > 
> > > But as Tim himself admits, the hierarchical
> > institutions they create eventually fail and chaos ensues,
> > until some new institution replaces it a repeats the whole
> > miserable cycle, a political Samsara. This may be a good
> > gamble for those near the beginning of a cycle of course,
> > but its early initiators are in a very uncertain situation
> > while those later in the cycle soon face instability and the
> > unpredictability of an inevitable collapse. Not a good
> > situation for most in fact and certainly not good for
> > society.
> > > 
> > > Interestingly while identifying this trait in these
> > two political poles of Socialism, he misses another
> > important manifestation, Trade Unionism. For here, as long
> > as an elected leadership seeks to represent its members in
> > an authoritarian way the same negative 'socialist
> > trait' will emerge. Only when workers represent
> > themselves in genuine collective organisation will this
> > change.
> > > 
> > > Two factors identified by Tim as strengths of their
> > mode of organisation are solidarity and fixed ideology. The
> > latter is a doomed position in the face of reality, as Tim
> > acknowledges, though I would suggest that some form of
> > adaptive, minimal ideology and personal solidarity are
> > important for any political movement. The implication that
> > this was the reason for their success over anarchist rivals
> > is very wide of the mark however, as these are also features
> > of the most successful moments in the history of anarchism.
> > Solidarity in particular is traditionally a defining feature
> > of anarchists, as one would expect from non-hierarchical
> > groups. Though admittedly there have always been
> > pseudo-anarchist groups who mirror the 'socialist
> > trait' in more subtle ways, as well as a significant
> > degree of sectarianism within the anarchist movement that
> > sometimes counters any broad solidarity. A critique of
> > anarchism could be very well made on this point, and indeed
> > has,
> > > often from within the anarchist movement itself.
> > Today's diversity within the 'anarchist stance',
> > including those Green activists and libertarian Marxists who
> > have adopted anarchist organisation to a large extent,
> > though rarely its pure ideology, has emphasised this problem
> > even more, and is one reason I champion a return to a purer
> > anarchism, with a clear ideology of individual freedom,
> > within a social mutualist and economic egalitarian context.
> > The principle of 'from each according to means, and to
> > each according to needs' is a principle written in stone
> > for most authentic anarchists.
> > > 
> > > A very broad solidarity is a double edged sword
> > however. For the real reason of the success of Anarchy's
> > rivals is not their solidarity but duplicity and false
> > solidarity, which often co-opted trusting anarchists who had
> > naively applied a more authentic solidarity in broader
> > revolutionary movements they had initiated. This is not only
> > demonstrated by the cynical betrayal of anarchists, and the
> > people, by the Communist Party in the Spanish Civil War
> > (repeated in farce in the May 68 Events in Paris) and the
> > hijacking of the Russian Revolution by the Bolshevik Coup,
> > but also by the egotistic conspiratorial machinations of
> > Karl Marx within the First International. But again the lust
> > for power and control freakery lie at the heart of this.
> > > 
> > > Tim believes this reveals human nature to be far from
> > benign and has a point, but largely distorts the point in
> > the contextualisation he gives it. Evoking mythical entities
> > such as 'human nature', and even 'animal
> > nature', he deploys these biased abstractions in
> > relation to dubious scientific studies and
> > misinterpretations of well formulated experiments. A case in
> > point being the Milgram Experiment, in which while a
> > majority behaved in the sheepish ways expected of the
> > (de)socialised masses in response to conventional authority,
> > a significant minority refused to conform, with at least one
> > person seeing through the experimenters motives quite
> > insightfully. Are we to assume that such rebels are
> > geniuses, saints or freaks, or are we to realise what this
> > tells us about the potential of the human constitution.
> > > 
> > > Anarchists have a variety of different views on
> > 'human nature', as befits a free, individualistic
> > movement. I was glad Tim avoided the popular portrayal of
> > naïve anarchism, with its faith in the benign nature of
> > human beings, but I think his idea that anarchists follow a
> > Marxian model of the benignity of the liberated, while true
> > of some, is false of many of us. Its seems to be quite
> > obvious from all modern studies that 'human nature'
> > is a social construct, organising a chaos of biological and
> > psychic drives into a variety of habituated forms. Far from
> > benigning us sudden liberation may release a host of
> > destructive impulses suppressed by our current culture
> > (though this may also have its place, both cathartic and
> > practical, under certain conditions). What is required is an
> > awareness of this social constructivism from cradle to
> > grave, and its existance in child rearing, education, family
> > life, the workplace, economic and power relations and
> > lifestyles
> > > in general. But more importantly I would suggest in
> > the power of every partially liberated individual to
> > recreate themselves.
> > > 
> > > But what I think Tim is right about is this
> > 'animal nature', as he calls it, and its tendency
> > towards selfishness rather than altruism. However I would
> > not invoke such dualistic, abstract human notions as
> > 'animal' and 'human', but rather appeal to
> > what we know about our biological drives as set by our
> > genetic make-up. This may not be our only influence, or even
> > the most powerful, free will remains an essential human
> > characteristic, but it is a strong force in our being,
> > resistance to which can only cause internal conflict and
> > pathological states. Our constitution needs to be balanced
> > and integrated with self sensitivity not repression.
> > > 
> > > So what does evolutionary biology tell us about our
> > drives? Well sadly there isn't a single animal species
> > that shows any trace of altruism (outside of eusocial
> > insects, like wasps and ants, who are probably a hive
> > organism, rather than individual entities, in the main).
> > Most animals are capable of demonstrating such degrees of
> > selfishness they would make New Labour appear like Christian
> > saints in comparison. Natural Selection clearly operates on
> > an individual level and favours the self centred
> > survivalist. Moreover I would argue on Nietzschean lines
> > that survival is not the only factor here either, but the
> > expansion and betterment of individual existance,
> > conceptualised by humans as empowerment, or more rawly as
> > power, is also one of the basic self centred drives.
> > Socialisation can ameliorate this but can never overcome it.
> > More often it is pathologically inverted through the direct
> > dominance-submission patterns that trump power urges with
> > survival
> > > urges in the weakened (with accompanying repressed
> > resentment, the source of all eruptive fascisms). However
> > things are not as dark as they seem, for altruism as
> > understood by biologists simply means
> > 'self-sacrifice' (outside of special exceptions,
> > such as 'maternal instincts'). In fact as anyone who
> > studies nature will discover there is considerably
> > mutualism, and even symbiosis, present. But always to the
> > advantage and not the disadvantage of the cooperating
> > animal, that is it is acting purely from self-interest (in
> > humans even 'love' is a self-centred phenomena!).
> > The reason for this can be scientifically demonstrated
> > through Game Theory which demonstrates how win-win solutions
> > are far more optimal than the more common win-lose
> > situation. For animals this is usually an accidental
> > habituation, but we should not under estimate the weak
> > ability to reason in most humans.
> > > 
> > > Thus I conclude that the very history of socialism
> > demonstrates this unavoidable egoism within us. But it is
> > for this very reason that non hierarchical, consensual means
> > of organisation are really the only forms that can
> > functionally sublimate this selfishness into mutualist
> > egoism. An egoism perfectly compatible with such self
> > centred emotions as compassion, empathy and the removal of
> > an unpleasant environment of injustice and suffering. 
> > > 
> > > What does this mean in terms of practical politics? It
> > means that left libertarianism is the only social structure
> > that can actually deliver what healthy self-centred people
> > want, empowerment and the good life, both of which are only
> > realisable in any sustainable form within a mutualist
> > society (by which I mean mutual aid, not passe economic
> > mutualism, to avoid confusion). Yes, there are issues with
> > this, such as the over population which causes competition
> > for resources etc, but that is hardly an insurmountable
> > problem (poverty being the main reason for high birthrates
> > etc). All the necessary means for correcting existing
> > problems are achievable through a shared culture, or
> > ideology, within small, local communities (a culture
> > allowing for individual and ethnic diversity of course).
> > Here agreement could not be achieved by coercion, neither
> > its authoritarian or seductive forms, and certainly not
> > through the tyranny of the majority called
> > 'democracy', but
> > > only through genuine consensus (for those directly
> > effected and with pragmatic opt-outs for dissidents). By
> > coercion I would also include the so-called 'rule of
> > law', one of the most barbaric customs ever invented,
> > and one that cannot function without coercion. The only
> > functional rule of law can be that which we impose on
> > ourselves, contrary to 'pop anarchism', authentic
> > anarchism is founded on the personal responsibility and
> > strict discipline that makes freedom possible as well as
> > engendering even greater self esteem (the famed anarchic
> > rebellion only applies in the face of authority and
> > imposition, and so will necessarily be eternally present to
> > some extent). Coercion is not only bad in principle of
> > course its bad in practise, as anyone who has placed their
> > finger over a dripping tap and got soaked will tell you, it
> > actually gives you the opposite result to the one you want.
> > As Blake observed “Prisons are built with stones of Law,
> > Brothels with
> > > bricks of Religion.” Law creates crime. And this
> > hasn't even touched on the problems of generalisation,
> > to quote Blake again “One law for the Lion and the Ox is
> > oppression”. So for this reason I fundamentally disagree
> > with Tim, and like all anarchists hold the 'Rule of
> > Law' unacceptable and non-negotiable. I'm surprised
> > Tim falls for the bourgeois paranoia that the removal of law
> > leads to barbarity (or that 'primitive people' in a
> > natural environment are barbarous), this old chestnut has no
> > grounds whatsoever. Of course repressed people discharge
> > their repressions on liberation (or at will) but that is
> > hardly grounds for continuing the repression through
> > coercion and law (and intensifying the problem in the
> > inevitable moments of social disruption). And such eruptions
> > have their uses when faced with those who would intensify
> > rather than reduce coercion.
> > > 
> > > The form of society portrayed here may sound Utopic to
> > some, and it certainly is not an over night solution or an
> > easy project, the transition is a particular problem.
> > However it is better qualified as Eutopian, as it is the
> > only form of society that actually satisfies peoples needs
> > and drives, and one that is not undermined by those drives
> > as Tim has shown all other forms are. It even cathartically
> > channels our sadistic urges towards those foolish enough to
> > attempt to maintain authority, let alone increase it. It is
> > simply the politics of popular empowerment, but as
> > autonomous individuals not a herd. 
> > > 
> > > But what of the immediate 'crisis' and the
> > possibility of broad solidarity to tackle it. The
> > differences of ideology may make this difficult, however the
> > crisis itself is serious enough not to make it impossible.
> > But what crisis? The trivial one of political confidence
> > (and the rise of sociopathic authoritarians who will fail
> > far quicker and be crushed by far more ruthless force than
> > such cowardly weaklings can muster) or the real crisis of
> > the eco-system and the increasingly likely catastrophic
> > systemic collapse of Capitalism (don't believe the hype
> > about 'Recessions'). Anarchists far from being naval
> > gazers have been the historical catalysts of all revolutions
> > in modern history (or rather insurrections, have we have no
> > desire to invert power relations), socialist bureaucrats are
> > hardly able to inspire popular uprisings (despite the
> > revisionist accounts of Marxist academics). But hopefully
> > with a collapsing system (which we can always help push a
> > > little) such violent revolts will not be necessary and
> > instead we can self-organise along consensual lines,
> > ignoring the official, established powers and creating the
> > kind of autonomous alternatives that will make violence
> > unnecessary (beyond the means of their defence, which in
> > themselves could also be non-violent in principle). The key
> > issue is to empower people not to lead them to empowerment
> > and certainly not to represent them. Though a little
> > inspiration, social catalysis and power structure demolition
> > sometimes requires supportive specialists.
> > > 
> > > In this respect strategic alliances on the left are
> > indeed possible, we all want a libertarian future and so can
> > work together on projects that achieve elements of that or
> > that move us closer to a full realisation of it. Anarchists
> > may want to go the furtherest and will always push the
> > envelope. We may never achieve our full goal, but we will
> > never surrender our aspirations. The rest of you can stay
> > with Samsara if you will. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LAF mailing list
> > > LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> > > https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
> > 
> > Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do
> > with Windows Live. Find
> > out more. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Get the best of MSN on your mobile
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090627/8bc4b815/attachment.htm>