Do you believe political institutions are necessary for our survival?

[Pagey]

I'm curious as to what people's opinions on this are. I tend to agree with Hobbes on this subject, ie. that in the state of nature - where each individual is entirely free to do what he pleases - humans are incapable of controlling their urges and violence would be at the center of their lives, some kind of institutionalised society thus being necessary for our survival. He does also argue that the state created here would be nothing more than a police state, that is to say it wouldn't intrude in people's individual lives any further than to ensure their safety at the most basic level. There are a few small tribes around the world that live without leadership or hierarchy, but as far as I know, history seems to have taught us that as soon as communities become sizable enough, some kind of political format is necessary. Do you agree with this? If so, how far do you think the political institutions need to go to assure our survival?

 

[laugh]

you should re-read 'Lucifer and the Lord' by Sarte.

i dont understand why people cant get along, why we need something to follow, rules to play by when we should only really need a healthy conscience.

pack mentality particularly amongst men is disgusting and highlights how very little we have progressed or evolved.

i think i might be an anarchist at heart.

 

[What 23]

If we were all healthy/without deficiency, then anarchy would work wonderfully.

Any need for outside Government is born of failure.

 

[laugh]

makes sense as im also quite keen on equality

 

[Bardeaux]

At it's most basic root, the question is can society achieve order without a civic structure? Even in the tribes you mention (including the vast majority of the history of humanity) there has always been a group decision making process, an administration of resources, established social norms and an agreed upon allocation of labor, this is political practice. These processes don't necessarily require a hierarchy, a bureaucracy, a specialized organization of force, or a monolithic state to accomplish. These are relatively new (within the last couple thousand years) aspects of human social interaction.

However, I think the reason these hierarchies, bureaucracies, and states came into being is precisely because a large society is much more difficult to keep in order without standardizations and formal processes than a small society. So to answer your question, yes, I believe political application is vital to the survival of society as it is now. Again, this doesn't mean concentrated powers held by hierarchical systems, bureaucracies, private monoliths or states are necessary for a society to achieve sustainable civic performance. Once a way to address the needs and wants of society that do not involve these things becomes practical, these current institutions will no longer be necessary.

 

[ebola?]

I'm curious as to what people's opinions on this are. I tend to agree with Hobbes on this subject, ie. that in the state of nature - where each individual is entirely free to do what he pleases - humans are incapable of controlling their urges and violence would be at the center of their lives, some kind of institutionalised society thus being necessary for our survival.

Well, you might want to take into account the context in which Hobbes was writing. He authored the Leviathan during the English civil war, a period when many Protestant factions were at war, each struggling to establish an English theocracy. Of course he would have developed a dismal view of human nature and have been desperate to plot out a path to curtail its ills. Since Hobbes' argument is rooted in a particular, substantive conception of human nature, it's not too convincing if you don't share his view on the matter.

in the state of nature - where each individual is entirely free to do what he pleases - humans are incapable of controlling their urges and violence would be at the center of their lives, some kind of institutionalised society thus being necessary for our survival.

But this 'state of nature' is not a literal condition in which humans existed; rather, it is a hypothetical scenario based on Hobbes' idea of human nature that stands at odd with evidence describing the lives of paleolithic tribes (this is not to say that tribal warfare doesn't exist). The violence that follows 'state failure' (eg, Somalia) doesn't provide relevant evidence either, as such dynamics emerge from contexts of civil war and involve individuals who were shaped to rely on state administration now reckoning with its sudden absence (and combatants from a civil war channeling their violent tactics toward naked self-interest).

history seems to have taught us that as soon as communities become sizable enough, some kind of political format is necessary.

Empirically, history has just shown us that states (and state-like organizations) cooccur with large increases in size and density of population and intensity of interaction. It's a bit of a leap to argue that these states were (and are) necessary to maintain order. Causally, these state were not established to effect order but rather to consolidate the power of elites who held the greatest military might (vis-a-vis competing nobles).
...
I think that contemporary, complex and technological anarchic societies would be possible, but it would require a concerted effort by numerous individuals working toward that goal. I think that internalization of social norms does most of the work toward curtailing aggression and disorder. If the police disappeared instantly, would you embark on a career of robbery (yes, I know I'm running close to relying on a conception of human nature just as Hobbes does)? In a hypothetical anarchist society, enforcement of social norms would need to be implemented via radically decentralized processes, and use of violence would need be minimized and employed with extreme care and reluctance.

It is indeed possible for large, complex organizations to organize themselves without recourse to coercive hierarchy--the existence of cooperative economic firms attests to such. These hypothetical anarchists would face daunting challenges though: care would need be taken to set up appropriate tactics and organizations to resolve conflict non-violently. I imagine this taking a variety of shapes depending on the organizations and issues at hand, including a diverse set of democratic, consensus based, and rotating representative systems. Appropriate relations of federation would also need to be established, mitigating the incidence of irreconcilable differences. Now how do we get from here to there? Of that, I'm not sure...
...
You might want to check out the work of Norbert Elias. In The Civilizing Process, Elias argues that the development of modern cities and political centralization of the means of violence cooccurred with a transformation in the dispositions and manners of individuals, namely an internalization and suppression of aggressive urges. He thinks that this socio-structural change set individuals in far denser relationships of interdependence, in turn shaping the psyches of individual citizens set in these relations (at the level of unconscious dynamics) in a way that renders them congruent with life in the city. The fact that armed robberies that often lead to death are no longer routine attests to this. Whether or not you buy his argument, it's a whole lot more nuanced than Hobbes' writings on the matter.

ebola
(cool topic!)

 

[Pagey]

you should re-read 'Lucifer and the Lord' by Sarte.

i dont understand why people cant get along, why we need something to follow, rules to play by when we should only really need a healthy conscience.

pack mentality particularly amongst men is disgusting and highlights how very little we have progressed or evolved.

i think i might be an anarchist at heart.

That's the main issue though - not everyone has that.

If we were all healthy/without deficiency, then anarchy would work wonderfully.

Any need for outside Government is born of failure.

Tend to agree, but couldn't it be argued that these 'deficiencies' are an essential part of our human nature?

At it's most basic root, the question is can society achieve order without a civic structure? Even in the tribes you mention (including the vast majority of the history of humanity) there has always been a group decision making process, an administration of resources, established social norms and an agreed upon allocation of labor, this is political practice. These processes don't necessarily require a hierarchy, a bureaucracy, a specialized organization of force, or a monolithic state to accomplish. These are relatively new (within the last couple thousand years) aspects of human social interaction.

However, I think the reason these hierarchies, bureaucracies, and states came into being is precisely because a large society is much more difficult to keep in order without standardizations and formal processes than a small society. So to answer your question, yes, I believe political application is vital to the survival of society as it is now. Again, this doesn't mean concentrated powers held by hierarchical systems, bureaucracies, private monoliths or states are necessary for a society to achieve sustainable civic performance. Once a way to address the needs and wants of society that do not involve these things becomes practical, these current institutions will no longer be necessary.

That's a good point. I'm curious as to whether you're thinking of anything in particular in your last sentence? Ie. do you think there actually is another way to address the needs and wants of society?

Well, you might want to take into account the context in which Hobbes was writing. He authored the Leviathan during the English civil war, a period when many Protestant factions were at war, each struggling to establish an English theocracy. Of course he would have developed a dismal view of human nature and have been desperate to plot out a path to curtail its ills. Since Hobbes' argument is rooted in a particular, substantive conception of human nature, it's not too convincing if you don't share his view on the matter.

Oh yeah, I definitely agree with that. I don't really think this question can be answered completely objectively anyway, our views on society usually being intrinsically linked with the area we live in/the lives we've led (obviously).

But this 'state of nature' is not a literal condition in which humans existed; rather, it is a hypothetical scenario based on Hobbes' idea of human nature that stands at odd with evidence describing the lives of paleolithic tribes (this is not to say that tribal warfare doesn't exist). The violence that follows 'state failure' (eg, Somalia) doesn't provide relevant evidence either, as such dynamics emerge from contexts of civil war and involve individuals who were shaped to rely on state administration now reckoning with its sudden absence (and combatants from a civil war channeling their violent tactics toward naked self-interest).

Agreed, but when Hobbes talks about the state of nature as being a problematic and violent one, isn't he referring to already sizeable communities? (Genuine question, I can't remember although that's how I read it). In which case the situations paleolithic tribes found themselves in wouldn't really come into account.

Empirically, history has just shown us that states (and state-like organizations) cooccur with large increases in size and density of population and intensity of interaction. It's a bit of a leap to argue that these states were (and are) necessary to maintain order. Causally, these state were not established to effect order but rather to consolidate the power of elites who held the greatest military might (vis-a-vis competing nobles).

Right, but what would then be the argument when we consider states in contemporary times - or do you think the dynamics haven't really changed that much and they are still essentially there to promote the power of the elites?
(When it comes to more stable, democratic governments I mean)

I think that contemporary, complex and technological anarchic societies would be possible, but it would require a concerted effort by numerous individuals working toward that goal. I think that internalization of social norms does most of the work toward curtailing aggression and disorder. If the police disappeared instantly, would you embark on a career of robbery (yes, I know I'm running close to relying on a conception of human nature just as Hobbes does)? In a hypothetical anarchist society, enforcement of social norms would need to be implemented via radically decentralized processes, and use of violence would need be minimized and employed with extreme care and reluctance.

Indeed, I think for that to be possible it would be absolutely necessary for this internalisation of social norms to attain some kind of irreversible level where individuals aren't likely to simply step out of the path.

It is indeed possible for large, complex organizations to organize themselves without recourse to coercive hierarchy--the existence of cooperative economic firms attests to such. These hypothetical anarchists would face daunting challenges though: care would need be taken to set up appropriate tactics and organizations to resolve conflict non-violently. I imagine this taking a variety of shapes depending on the organizations and issues at hand, including a diverse set of democratic, consensus based, and rotating representative systems. Appropriate relations of federation would also need to be established, mitigating the incidence of irreconcilable differences. Now how do we get from here to there? Of that, I'm not sure...

That reminded me of Ancient Greek politics. That's the thing though - although that would clearly seem to be a freer and more egalitarian society, isn't it still, to a certain extent, state or government based?
...

You might want to check out the work of Norbert Elias. In The Civilizing Process, Elias argues that the development of modern cities and political centralization of the means of violence cooccurred with a transformation in the dispositions and manners of individuals, namely an internalization and suppression of aggressive urges. He thinks that this socio-structural change set individuals in far denser relationships of interdependence, in turn shaping the psyches of individual citizens set in these relations (at the level of unconscious dynamics) in a way that renders them congruent with life in the city. The fact that armed robberies that often lead to death are no longer routine attests to this. Whether or not you buy his argument, it's a whole lot more nuanced than Hobbes' writings on the matter.

ebola
(cool topic!)

Sounds very interesting, I'll definitely check it out thanks!

 

[desertshore]

At it's most basic root, the question is can society achieve order without a civic structure? Even in the tribes you mention (including the vast majority of the history of humanity) there has always been a group decision making process, an administration of resources, established social norms and an agreed upon allocation of labor, this is political practice. These processes don't necessarily require a hierarchy, a bureaucracy, a specialized organization of force, or a monolithic state to accomplish. These are relatively new (within the last couple thousand years) aspects of human social interaction.

Make it 5000 years at least But you're right. Even if there is no society but only groups of people living on a given area there are still decisions to be made inside each group. And natural sources of power: controlling the roads, natural resources, access to weapons, medical skills and supplies (!), fertile land... all those groups will eventually need to have diplomatic relationship and therefore form some sort of political structure.
If you also want nice things such as being sure that 1 meter of silk has the same length in every part of the word or that copper cables are made to the same specifications or a judicial system and so on and so you'll need more government, basically.

 

[Bardeaux]

That's a good point. I'm curious as to whether you're thinking of anything in particular in your last sentence? Ie. do you think there actually is another way to address the needs and wants of society?

The only thing preventing all humans from receiving everything they need and want is the minor issue of scarcity

Means and methods of creating and distributing resources has been progressing drastically from the first hunter-gatherers to modern mass industrial networks. Technological advancement and changes in methodology alter the productiveness of a society, changing the scarcity of most items or resources. For example, feeding 1 billion people today is much easier and requires much less human labor than feeding 1 billion people 500 years ago. Food isn't nearly as scarce (even though it's distribution is highly unequal). Our needs as humans have remained generally static, with a few exceptions. We all need water, clean air, food, clothing and shelter to survive. New needs might be educational attainment or a means to acquire other needs through labor or subsidy.

Wants are different, they are ever changing, vary between individuals and always will. But the same idea applies as with needs, technological innovation and methodology can alter the productiveness of a society and decrease the scarcity of these wants and the resources required to produce them.

Once society reaches a point where technology and methodology are capable of minimizing scarcity as much as possible, needs and wants can be freely available to everyone for the most part.

 

[Pagey]

^Yeah true, I suppose the fact that we seemingly need such instutionalised rigidity atm is largely due to material constraints which create competition/envy between individuals etc etc. But then the question would rather be whether envy might be something intrinsic to human nature, no matter their material situation...but that's a whole other topic :D

 

[ebola?]

Right, but what would then be the argument when we consider states in contemporary times - or do you think the dynamics haven't really changed that much and they are still essentially there to promote the power of the elites?

Yes, I think they primarily serve elite interests, but often in terms of elites' collective long-term interests. Individual capitalists will act to serve their personal, short-term interests (sometimes so myopically as to place less than a decade in their purview), often working against the aims of other capitalists. State policy is needed to ensure capitalist accumulation spanning beyond the individual capitalist's lifetime. Sometimes, these regulations take the shape of concessions to dominated and exploited classes, because vigorous enough resistance from below can threaten politico-economic systemic stability.

Indeed, I think for that to be possible it would be absolutely necessary for this internalisation of social norms to attain some kind of irreversible level where individuals aren't likely to simply step out of the path.

But I think that most of these norms are already present. People tend to help each other reciprocally, and will even make the first generous move, expecting even strangers to do so too (this is what game-theoretic research shows). People help peers and gain satisfaction from it. They would just have to adjust to fully voluntarist frameworks.

That reminded me of Ancient Greek politics. That's the thing though - although that would clearly seem to be a freer and more egalitarian society, isn't it still, to a certain extent, state or government based?

What is the essence of the state for you? For me, it is centralized coercive hierarchy (you could say an institution monopolizing the means for legitimate violence (Weber's definition)). Anarchism would still involve politics in the sense of people deliberating over how they should be organized.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Wants are different, they are ever changing, vary between individuals and always will. But the same idea applies as with needs, technological innovation and methodology can alter the productiveness of a society and decrease the scarcity of these wants and the resources required to produce them.

So the question is, how do we deal with scarcity? Is there an equitable solution that doesn't involve coercive hierarchy? I think the market has proven itself a failure after these past few hundred years.

Yeah true, I suppose the fact that we seemingly need such instutionalised rigidity atm is largely due to material constraints which create competition/envy between individuals etc etc.

Is it though? Did the populace at large have much of a say in the establishment of current nation-states beyond toppling prior regimes? I think institutional rigidity abounds because current institutional arrangements benefit current elites, but also because bureaucracy codifies and routinizes all procedures it administers (Weber).

ebola

 

[Bardeaux]

So the question is, how do we deal with scarcity?

I suppose there is no single answer to this. Technology will continue to slowly (or maybe rapidly) replace human labor and increase productive capabilities. Scarcity is to some degree, I think anyway, withering away all the time. A change from the use of non-renewable resources to renewable resources in production will reduce resource and commodity scarcity even further.

Is there an equitable solution that doesn't involve coercive hierarchy?

Depends. Coercion to some degree will have to be present so long as people are trading scare items for personal gain. Hierarchy in the decision making process is unnecessary, although enforcement of the decisions made (no matter how egalitarian or democratic) will require coercion. Otherwise, what's the point of making decisions to start with?

I think the market has proven itself a failure after these past few hundred years.

Yes and no. I think it's safe to say that we can agree that private capital accumulation isn't desirable or even necessary even at this point in time. But I can admit that the market has made quite a bit of technological and methodological advances in the last 150 years.

 

[Pagey]

Yes, I think they primarily serve elite interests, but often in terms of elites' collective long-term interests. Individual capitalists will act to serve their personal, short-term interests (sometimes so myopically as to place less than a decade in their purview), often working against the aims of other capitalists. State policy is needed to ensure capitalist accumulation spanning beyond the individual capitalist's lifetime. Sometimes, these regulations take the shape of concessions to dominated and exploited classes, because vigorous enough resistance from below can threaten politico-economic systemic stability.

Can't argue with that!

But I think that most of these norms are already present. People tend to help each other reciprocally, and will even make the first generous move, expecting even strangers to do so too (this is what game-theoretic research shows). People help peers and gain satisfaction from it. They would just have to adjust to fully voluntarist frameworks.

That's true, but I think the problem is more that there wouldn't be any particular incentive for people who haven't internalised these norms, to stick by them. I think we can agree that most people would probably manage to live peacefully amongst each other, but it's when it comes to dangerous individuals that it becomes a problem (just going back to Weber's definition of the point of the state). Institutionalised restrictions can sometimes be the vehicles of crime, but would the general population really be better off without them?

What is the essence of the state for you? For me, it is centralized coercive hierarchy (you could say an institution monopolizing the means for legitimate violence (Weber's definition)). Anarchism would still involve politics in the sense of people deliberating over how they should be organized.

ebola

Yeah sorry, I didn't choose my words right - I do agree with Weber's definition of the state, I meant to talk about political (for lack of a better word) organisations as a whole, without there necessarily needing to be a centralised government. Point being it would seem that even in relative anarchy, some kind of institutionalisation would probably be necessary?

Is it though? Did the populace at large have much of a say in the establishment of current nation-states beyond toppling prior regimes? I think institutional rigidity abounds because current institutional arrangements benefit current elites, but also because bureaucracy codifies and routinizes all procedures it administers (Weber).

ebola

In the end I don't really think the matter of how people would act without material constraints is one that can really be answered by any of us since it remains entirely hypothetical - what I said does tend to fit with the way I view human nature as a whole and I do believe envy and competition would be present with or without a state, those two factors being more prone to creating 'easy' violence in anarchy. But that's really just my subjective opinion so I could see why others would disagree.

P.S. I like the new spelling :D

 

[Mariposa]

Pagey - nice question. I don't pop in here much, but I'm glad I did today.

I clarify the majority opinion in this thread: that the specifics of centralized organization need a lot of work in order to be/become effective. If a centralized organization is to be effective, people must agree upon a set of rules. That requires the participation of everyone.

Envy and competition will exist with either the presence or absence of a state. Dissent often leads to violence, because many people are adverse to open discussion. Open discussion is difficult, and arguably, decentralized. In today's society, often open discussion is discouraged by the most fervent proponents in its favor. Open minds have historically been criticized unfavorably.

 

[ebola?]

I suppose there is no single answer to this. Technology will continue to slowly (or maybe rapidly) replace human labor and increase productive capabilities. Scarcity is to some degree, I think anyway, withering away all the time. A change from the use of non-renewable resources to renewable resources in production will reduce resource and commodity scarcity even further.

I see scarcity of needs potentially nearly withering away, but with complex commodity chains, there can be unexpected scarcity at various points. Eg, China possesses a near monopoly on 'rare' earth metal ore (these metals aren't actually rare but just hard to extract) (neodymium is key) used in strong magnets and other devices. But I see scarcity of wants persisting indefinitely, even in a post-singularity society (eg, bandwidth, particularly transmitting beyond Earth, matter needed for construction of computational devices).

Coercion to some degree will have to be present so long as people are trading scare items for personal gain.

Ideally, I would want a post-capitalist society not rooted in trading relations (the capitalist world-system is actually the first to (seemingly) root itself in trade).

enforcement of the decisions made (no matter how egalitarian or democratic) will require coercion. Otherwise, what's the point of making decisions to start with?

True; I imagine that most anarchists will concede that people will be people, and they attempt to coerce each other from time to time. However, an anarchist society with frequent and severe interpersonal coercion would dissolve nearly entirely, resembling civil war quite closely. So for an anarchic society to work, proclivity toward coercion would need be mitigated by:
1. equitable, opulent distribution of goods. Most violence under present conditions stems from poverty, fear of future economic ruin, and envy of the rich. Socialist projects obviously seek to eliminate these conditions.
2. on a situation and domain specific basis, effective techniques of deliberation and decision making will need be established, and this will likely require a lot of experimentation to find what works in which contexts.
3. Some system of federalism will be necessary to coordinate larger economic units (and I guess other political conflicts, though radical libertarian helps mitigate these).

But I can admit that the market has made quite a bit of technological and methodological advances in the last 150 years.

True. maybe it's just that it overstayed its welcome.

ebola

 

[Bardeaux]

I see scarcity of needs potentially nearly withering away, but with complex commodity chains, there can be unexpected scarcity at various points. Eg, China possesses a near monopoly on 'rare' earth metal ore (these metals aren't actually rare but just hard to extract) (neodymium is key) used in strong magnets and other devices. But I see scarcity of wants persisting indefinitely, even in a post-singularity society (eg, bandwidth, particularly transmitting beyond Earth, matter needed for construction of computational devices).

Oh, definitely. One thing I left out of my post was the actual distribution of such resources. Like an example I used, actual food isn't scarce anymore. The technology and methodology available now allows us to produce more food than everyone on Earth could consume. However, people still go hungry, even in the US, which currently pays farmers to NOT farm. Distribution of resources, even in a post-scarcity society will still need to be worked out.

Ideally, I would want a post-capitalist society not rooted in trading relations (the capitalist world-system is actually the first to (seemingly) root itself in trade).

Likewise. However, there must be some kind of process here to transform a capitalist society into a non-capitalist society. Does a revolution occur at the state level (either from below or from above), appropriating all productive and economic tools, distributing resources and commodities according to need? Or is there another model for the actual process of transforming society? Will society eventually "even out", with capitalism outgrowing itself globally into something more equitable?

True; I imagine that most anarchists will concede that people will be people, and they attempt to coerce each other from time to time. However, an anarchist society with frequent and severe interpersonal coercion would dissolve nearly entirely, resembling civil war quite closely. So for an anarchic society to work, proclivity toward coercion would need be mitigated by:
1. equitable, opulent distribution of goods. Most violence under present conditions stems from poverty, fear of future economic ruin, and envy of the rich. Socialist projects obviously seek to eliminate these conditions.
2. on a situation and domain specific basis, effective techniques of deliberation and decision making will need be established, and this will likely require a lot of experimentation to find what works in which contexts.
3. Some system of federalism will be necessary to coordinate larger economic units (and I guess other political conflicts, though radical libertarian helps mitigate these).

I can agree with this

True. maybe it's just that it overstayed its welcome.

ebola

Badly

 

[Foreigner]

Since the exact wording of the question pertains to institutionalism, then my answer is no. We do not need monolithic organizations controlling society. The way things are structured right now creates so many complex levels of self-reinforcing power that it is difficult to reconfigure them or dismantle them if they become defunct, as we are seeing with the U.S. government right now.

I can't help but envision our distant human past where societies were relatively smaller, and leadership had a practical basis. When governments become large enough they become self-defeating, and only a means to an end for those who crave and revel in power. At this point it seems that government is working against the general well-being of its people in most of the western nations.

 

[pmoseman]

I guess I am confused about the term "institutionalize" in regard to what Hobbes is saying or what you are saying about the tribes. To me institution means simply an establishment of rules or guidelines, not a particular class that conducts itself with maintaining the rules. The rules are self-maintained or they are not particularly good rules. Do you mean by "institution" a body that prevents the fragmentation of society? Then that to me is a type of institution which would be deemed necessary in some societies of a certain size.
I could not comment on the universality of this, but I would never look at societies as anything but a tenuous association of complex individuals.

 

[jpgrdnr]

At the very least you need a certain number of people to survive as a species. Procreation would have to be organized in such a way to allow for survival. It would have to be organized regardless, as leaving it up to chance or randomness would be risky.

In terms of the real world, objectively no you don't need a governing body to ensure survivability. Enough people will exist to have a continuation of the species.

Its more a statement on what government does, really. It ensures the survival of its people up to a certain point. Government is more interested I would say in protecting itself and the people succeeding is merely a byproduct. I don't think its anything malacious, maybe paranoid in the sense that government fears its own failure or replacement. Beyond that I don't know. I don't think a government's purpose is to ensure a person survives or anything. I think real world government has a vested interested in keeping the majority employed. If the majority of people stopped working a government would collapse.

Or better yet if a person were rich, government becomes to that person simply as a barrier. The government's sole purpose in this instance is to take as much money off of you as its allowed. It doesn't give anything in return really. Especially in a global market.