Do you believe political institutions are necessary for our survival?

[ebola?]

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?

I am pretty agnostic about the shape which revolution will take (I might be described as an anarcho-pessimist). I envision successful revolution involving multi-pronged efforts that will occur along distinct timelines. There will need to be direct resistance at points of production, where physical capital is literally taken over, and then the fruits of production retained by according workers. We will also likely see interstitial experiments, eg communes involving experimental collectivized production and distribution.

The question of the state is a lot more vexing. Increased provision of welfare actually strengthens capital's resilience, stabilizing accumulation of capital in the long-term and quelling resistance. Physically existent state organizations will need be seized by the populace working in cooperation, controlling and directing these organizations via participatory democracy and equitable provision of useful services. I'm not sure what is to be done with the financial apparatus. Perhaps it can just be dismantled entirely, people establishing some participatorally democratic means of reallocating unused capital toward venues in need of further development. But for an intermediate period, financial capital might simply be ignored. All of these novel organizations will need be tied together by some sort of federalism, and units of economic cooperation will cover smaller regions (the incentive to produce via cheap labor and transport products overseas will have disappeared).

This process will likely involve a lot of direct confrontation with present owners of the means of production and the legislated violence that guarantees such ownership. I don't see this process happening without quite significant dissent by the military and paramilitary policing organizations--a pistol or two isn't that much good when facing cluster-bombs and missiles. And anarchism will need be built by anarchists, so there must be dramatic transformations in the ideology of much of the world populace.

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?

Well, of course when all needs and the vast majority of 'wants' are trivially and automatedly produced, capitalism will whither away, as there would be no incentives to either work or seek profit (see Star Trek TNG). I don't want to wait that long though. It will be interesting to see what happens when the entire globe is fully proletarianized. Exploitative core-periphery relations depend on differences between quasi-agrarian and semi-proletarianized groups and fully industrialized zones anchored on proletarian (and symbolic analytical) labor. Will capitalist accumulation continue as we know it when there are no longer novel sources of ever cheaper labor and resources?

ebola

 

[ebola?]

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.

Sociologically, an institution is a group of organizations tied together in some fashion (said fashion varying per one's theoretical perspective):

1. An institution is a set of organizations in a particular domain (or 'sphere'), guided by a partially unified set of rules, forging particular types of individuals (in bureaucracies, officials), oriented toward the execution of these rules (Weber)

2. Some would argue that institutions perform a particular common function that in some way facilitates social cohesion (Durkheim)

3. And others argue that organizations within a given institution function similarly in a given domain to facilitate domination of subordinate classes (Marx)

In a way, Hobbes' institution(s) fits number 2, functioning to preclude the state of war that he believes to stem from undesirable aspects of human nature.

ebola

 

[Pagey]

^Thanks for clarifying that ebola
And yeah, I was thinking predominantly of Durkheim's definition.

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.

Yeah, I think most of us can agree that governments today live primarily to ensure their own success. I was thinking in a more general, stripped-down way though, thinking of political institutions at their core, all corruption or whatever aside - do you still believe that previous sentence holds true? In the end, politics *should* be founded on a system where the citizens give equivalently to what they receive in return, so for instance they would give obedience in return for physical defense (again, Hobbes - sorry, hope I'm not getting too redundant here haha). There is of course a large gap between what they should be doing and what they are doing, but what I was wondering was more if what they should be doing would in fact be beneficial to us, and would avoid our eventually going extinct through self-imposed violence, if Hobbes' theory holds true.

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.

Agreed, but if some form of leadership was still essential to those smaller societies, could it not be argued that political institutions were present then as well, albeit in a different form?

 

[jpgrdnr]

There is of course a large gap between what they should be doing and what they are doing, but what I was wondering was more if what they should be doing would in fact be beneficial to us, and would avoid our eventually going extinct through self-imposed violence, if Hobbes' theory holds true.

I don't think deviance is a priority of concern really. Or War really. Its sort of already boiling down to a war of resources - who will be left, holding the most cards and their friends.

Where we should be is a system of less governance, and more of individual agency. I don't think there is a definitive line between "us" and "them" which is part of an attitude problem of the public itself. Its sort of tied into the idea of why people don't vote, you aren't being paid for it, there is no real interest there, priorities, etc. Its to the point really where I don't think the govt is at fault but the people - tied into a lazy cultural view of working a McJob, getting your KFC, and fighting off the psychosis with television. Lulled into a sense of comfort by the lie we've told ourselves. If anything its like vast numbers of people have simply surrendered, its not so much humanity's tendency for self-destruction but its glaring apathy. I suppose you could say that our laziness is itself a type of violence. A violence of self. But its self-serving. Really, the atypical person in North America, the slob is a positive - not a negative. Getting out of that dynamic in my view is more than likely impossible. Breaking the chains if you will.

That's not to say that people aren't doing beneficial things - but the baseline is very minimal. And what is important is incredibly skewed. And the medicine to counteract it is basically looked at as insane. We've come to that point where a beneficial cultural shift is beyond radical. Its important to note that solutions are at best, scratching one's head and going "uhhhh...." That fact that there is no answer, or even suggestions is poignant. To go back to the atypical who haven't even begun to understand the question or even to move in that direction....

-----------------

As an aside, I've thought fairly long and hard on this question. Its probably one of the greatest questions of our time. It seems worth noting as well that to say that "This is a great period of time! A great period of human development! Exciting change!" Is completely absurdist as well. Not just irony but absurd.

 

[ebola?]

thinking of political institutions at their core, all corruption or whatever aside - do you still believe that previous sentence holds true?

Okay. But what makes a political institution political rather than another type of institution? In the end, I think that the definition anchors itself on centralization of domination. We needn't view this pejoratively. This just entails that political institutions are those that organize others' behaviors in a way leading them to deviate from how they would otherwise. Now, this force of domination has always rested ultimately on centralization of the means to exert legitimate violence, but almost never solely on such, as without ideological consent, regimes tend to dissolve into civil or tribal war.

In the end, politics *should* be founded on a system where the citizens give equivalently to what they receive in return, so for instance they would give obedience in return for physical defense (again, Hobbes - sorry, hope I'm not getting too redundant here haha). There is of course a large gap between what they should be doing and what they are doing, but what I was wondering was more if what they should be doing would in fact be beneficial to us, and would avoid our eventually going extinct through self-imposed violence, if Hobbes' theory holds true.

But is this aim, that political institutions work fairly and equally to the benefit of the populace at large, compatible with the essence of political institutions as defined above? It seems to me that with such centralization, legislators and/or administrators will be subject to some corruption of this aim if only by the power they afford in their professional capacities. Depending on the capacities, aims, etc. of other holders of means of domination within any given society, this corruption will take varying shapes. For example, in capitalist societies with centralized democracies, domination tends to be rooted in economic class, and capitalist elites influence legislators through varied means. With other types of states, you might for example see direct bribery of administrative officials more often. However, regardless of social context, political institutions as defined will fail to meet the above aims desired of the state.

Agreed, but if some form of leadership was still essential to those smaller societies, could it not be argued that political institutions were present then as well, albeit in a different form?

Well, what do we mean by 'leadership'? There will always be natural leaders, in terms of people coming up with ideals that others take as promising avenues to follow voluntarily. However, this needn't be bound with coercive domination, the ability to issue obligatory commands. In an anarchic society, the means for domination (along the means to exercise of legitimate violence) would be completely decentralized, distributed among the populace in its entirety. Institutions of various types would be necessary to coordinate cooperation and resolve conflict centered upon such (and elsewhere). Domination would persist, but since the means of coercion would be decentralized, it would take on an (initially) more purely ideological character or present as isolated individual acts of violence. To the extent that anarchism devolves into militant factions or constant individual attacks, its viability would be disproven empirically.

Is this political? Well, it still involves social organization and allocation of means of domination. However, without centralized means of domination, there could not exist an organizationally bound group directing domination disproportionately in a given direction.

ebola

 

[pmoseman]

...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, Do you agree with this?

Dying of exposure does not please me. Nature does not let an individual do as they please.
Violence seems inherent in every organisation of living thing.
How you define violence. Is a mother laying her child down in a crib violent. Is the child screaming until it sleeps violent. Is being shook awake violent. Is stubbing your toe. Getting cold feet. Smoking. A splinter in your foot. Opening the door and hitting someone's foot. Yelling at another. Hitting them back. Breaking the door. Breaking their foot. Losing an eye. Killing a fly. A cow. Another human, violence? Are there any animals free from violence. Not producing violence. Not receiving violence. If there an opportunity to gain more while doing less work, is that an opportunity of violence? This is able to help an individual system but counterproductive in a system of multiple parties.
Is increasing overall work done, and forcing people to be non-violent the goal of the legal institution? Then to enforce that law society uses violent acts, prison, execution. We get more for less work, overall, as an extension of the fact that violence works and is a result of nature. The goal is not to decrease violent behavior, but decrease waste.
Do we need this? It is the model we have adapted to survive, so it is inevitable. Even if we do not need it now, we must maintain it to remain competitive against nature, but is it getting out of hand? Do you see nature changing?We must maintain the safety of the group, there is no choice in doing so, it may harm a few of us but overall failing to do so would spell disaster.

 

[Foreigner]

^ An animal killing another animal to survive, with nothing wasted, is not something I see as violence. Predators are in perfect balance with nature. What humans are doing to this planet has nothing to do with balance or survival needs, but luxuries. The United States consumes way more resources than any other country on this planet, all to maintain a certain standard of luxurious living. It's well beyond survivalism. It's greed.

All we do right now is waste. Our excess is pouring over into the entire eco-system, and other countries. We export our garbage FFS.

Humans invented violence to oppress other humans. We're the only species that will wipe out entire populations because we have a grudge. THAT is violence.

 

[ebola?]

I forgot to clarify something about domination: it is typically obedience to command in the absence of direct physical threat. It is this obedience that applies most directly to politics. If I put a gun to your head and rob you, it could be a political act, but it would need somehow be connected with political institutions (or political cultural forms).

ebola

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

Political parties allow illogical things to be treated with (at least) the same respect as logical things. It's clearly just a measure for keeping the wealthy wealthy, the stupid stupid, and the divided divided.

 

[EliCash]

Political parties allow illogical things to be treated with (at least) the same respect as logical things. It's clearly just a measure for keeping the wealthy wealthy, the stupid stupid, and the divided divided.

The discussion is on political institutions, as in governments themselves, not ideological groups within a state.

 

[pmoseman]

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_strogatz_on_sync.html
I am not certain if this will bring anything to the discussion, although it will not be a total waste either way.

 

[jpgrdnr]

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_strogatz_on_sync.html
I am not certain if this will bring anything to the discussion, although it will not be a total waste either way.

Its a good counter argument to what I can tell is Hobbes' cynical view that humanity is basically a pile and needs to be fenced in and whipped every so often.

Its general group dynamics. Although sync has a negative where if large groups of people are rioting you too will riot (or increase the likelihood at least).

David Hume offers in A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) that human beings are naturally social: "’Tis utterly impossible for men to remain any considerable time in that savage condition, which precedes society; but that his very first state and situation may justly be esteem’d social. This, however, hinders not, but that philosophers may, if they please, extend their reasoning to the suppos’d state of nature; provided they allow it to be a mere philosophical fiction, which never had, and never cou’d have any reality." (Book III, Part II, Section II: "Of the Origin of Justice and Property."

And I guess further, which is probably where my politics lie is Nozick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

 

[ebola?]

wouldn't that quote support left-anarchism rather than anarcho-capitalism?

ebola

 

[jpgrdnr]

I'm not sure. I haven't really read too much Hume. I was drawing out the point that people are naturally social beings and that the so called state of nature doesn't exist.

(?) I don't know if Hume says this explicitly, but I say it: "That the people are a just people." If the people are just, then there is no need for a body to govern them. People are free to make choices and the choices are free to be made.

Which I guess leads into Nosick where, for myself, going back to my previous post, is a minimal state. Sure I'd argue for a pure free market. I'll admit that it too is basically an idea. Again, I'm not really too familiar with the distinction between the two. Libertarian socialism/left anarchy seems like too much government.

 

[ebola?]

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.

Er...I don't think that any "majority opinion" coalesced.
...
Anyway, this incites a key question (and possible point of criticism). Is it possible to successfully impose such stipulations on institutions as they function in the medium to long-term? Can we even generate such institutions let alone reproduce them socially? It seems to me that only extremely rarely have centralized organizations been established via popular mandate. The closest commonly achieved have been elite-cultivated (or modified) centralized bodies forced to provide popular concessions due to threat of social unrest. Even more troublesome, though, are they dynamics of participation in centralized hierarchies. Insofar as a given organization involves specialists (eg, legislators, bureaucratic administrators, legal professionals, etc.) charged with administration of others' affairs, particularly when endowed with the social tools necessary to impose compulsion, the centralized body will fail to answer to its 'constituency'. First, centralized groups of professionals tend to 'mutate' into closed, self-interested status-groups, as such professionals are socially distanced from those over whom they administer and afford means capable of domination (and possibly exploitation) for their personal benefit. But perhaps more basically, as centralized organizations generate progressively more elaborate bodies of administrative rules, practical participation moves outside simple logistical feasibility and broad-based intelligibility. (beware the ghost of Weber)

But we're talking specifically about politics, right? Outside of anarchist hypothesizing, political institutions administer with the guarantee of (legitimated) physically forceable penalty. Legitimized violence tends to cultivate a 'power-knowledgeable' regime where political problems are recast in terms of how the state is to most efficiently administer penalties to shape the populace in the image of its regulations. Application of such techniques shapes the administered individual in the technique's own image, comprehensible in terms of complicity and deviance (penetrating to the very individual psyche). Such systems self-reinforce, as shortcomings are framed in terms of the question of how to more effectively penalize those deviant. (blah blah blah....just paraphrasing Foucault here )

Could mass-democracy via representatives provide a prophylactic to the above pathologies? I believe not, as para-state organizations, especially political parties, are too subject to institutional dynamics that condition domination wielded by elites. In particular, bureaucratized political parties tend overwhelmingly to produce candidates who act as demagogues before the electorate, manipulating them in terms of elites' interests. Because of such parties' effectiveness in political competition, non-elite alternatives remain fatally debilitated. (see Michels)

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.

How so? What has conditioned such reluctance? In which venues is hesitancy to discuss openly most marked? How might this trend be curtailed?

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Libertarian socialism/left anarchy seems like too much government.

What do you mean by "government" here?
...
In essence, anarchy means "without (coercive) hierarchy". Nearly all anarchists consider the worker-capitalist relation one of domination.

ebola