They evolved for security – to organise the defence of a group of people. And later to ensure the co-operation of those people.
That is also debatable. Some will have done but some without any real neighbours would have evolved for different reasons.
A major factor in some regions would have been the need to cooperate for agricultural purposes especially under irrigation. There is a school of thought claiming that those societies growing rice have traditionally had a tighter knit structure due to the cooperation needed for the rice fields.
some without any real neighbours would have evolved for different reasons.
Right - so not having neighbours is the key point. Who doesn't have neighbours now?
Fukuyama's book is worth a read. It's a bit dry but extremely interesting.
There is a school of thought claiming that those societies growing rice have traditionally had a tighter knit structure due to the cooperation needed for the rice fields.
Stuff like this is just nonsense. What about societies that had to cooperate because they needed to maintain dykes to prevent flooding, or societies that had to cooperate to build fortifications to protect themselves from outsiders. Every society has myths about their uniqueness, these mostly serve to maintain the existing power structure.
As someone who spent a year studying the history of political philosophy at uni I am always impressed about how people think its ok to interpret stuff how they like.
"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
I strongly recommend the following book if you’re interested
Even the very sympathetic review in the Guardian that you quote is pretty sceptical about the claims of an anarchist anthropologist who seems to have discovered that you don’t need a state.
Ooh, the review is so full of straw men it makes me cringe.
Whatevs. 🤷♂️
You can persist with the simplistic interpretation that how we organise society now is the only way it is possible, or you can open your mind to the fact that the evolution and organsiation of human society is much more diverse, complex and nuanced than we currently experience. Given the shitshow that represents our current 'civilisation' I for one am open to alternatives.
The only surviving socialist countries are highly authoritarian. Communism was socialism taken to the extreme, and it failed terribly
So you're saying "Socialism" IS Communism?
I'll accept I'm not a political scientist but I see "Socialism" or "socialist concepts" as being focussed more on the duty of care a given state owes the individuals living within it, rather than necessarily dictating the mode of government they adopt to deliver that.
Communists might use the terms "Socialist"/"Socialism" but that doesn't necessarily mean Socialists ARE Communists, unless of course you're trying to construct a bit of a narrative to whip up simpletons.
Hence myself and others have referred to "Social Democracy" several times already in this thread...
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.
Up to a point Lord Cooper.
But the history of political philosophy is the history of ideas & how they underpinned the way societies have been arranged. You don’t have to go far to ascertain the facts, because by definition they are contained in the books by the people who came up with these ideas. The ideas themselves may have been based on an agreed set of lies, but that’s another matter.
Even the very sympathetic review in the Guardian that you quote is pretty sceptical about the claims of an anarchist anthropologist who seems to have discovered that you don’t need a state.
Go and read it then come back and comment, otherwise don't bother. Do you also comment on films that you haven't watched or music that you haven't listened to?
I have noticed, especially lately on here, that there are quite a large number of people who cheerfully admit to paying no attention at all to history at school, who nonetheless seem to be perfectly happy to pontificate on the subject.
School isn' the only place to learn things. I didn't learn anything about computers at school or university yet I know a fair bit about them.
Go and read it then come back and comment, otherwise don’t bother.
I wasn't commenting on the book, I was commenting on the review. It really doesn't make me want to read it though, nor do you. It looks biased as hell which might be why you liked it. The fact that the author was a 'leading anarchist' reeeally doesn't fill me with confidence that it's worth £30.
Have you read any books that pose a narrative counter to that one?
I wasn’t commenting on the book, I was commenting on the review. It really doesn’t make me want to read it though, nor do you. It looks biased as hell which might be why you liked it. The fact that the author was a ‘leading anarchist’ reeeally doesn’t fill me with confidence that it’s worth £30.
+ 1. In any case, even if it has any merit in its arguments, what possible relevance would it have to modern political society? The social environment of the time is just too far away from our era. It’s a fantasy which can’t be applied to the situation we now find ourselves in.
You can persist with the simplistic interpretation that how we organise society now is the only way it is possible
How the hell did you come up with that? I'm absolutely 100% against the status quo at least here in the UK, it's shit. My point is that anarchy is not the solution and would in fact be very much worse.
I'm saying that a state of some kind is necessary to ensure the mutual cooperation of people. I reject the idea that the concept of a state is the result of an evil elite wishing to enrich themselves. However an evil elite wishing to enrich itself can use the state to do it.
Please please please don't put up these horrible straw men to take shots at. It really ruins what would otherwise be an interesting debate and gets people annoyed.
Have you read any books that pose a narrative counter to that one?
Yup, I read the Sapiens book long before this one, have also read Jared Diamond's book on collapsing civilisations. The author is/was primarily an anthropologist, one universally acclaimed in his field. The fact that he's an anarchist is neither here nor there (although the story of how he came to be one is quite interesting) and it's mainly the media (and his critics) that mention this rather than himself. Also you'll note his co-author isn't an anarchist (to my knowledge anyway), he's just an archeologist who has uncovered some new evidence that the established narrative of human societal evolution isn't as safe as is often portrayed.
Funny how no one ever questions the political leanings of authors/academics who write stuff which agrees with the established consensus?
Please please please don’t put up these horrible straw men to take shots at.
Suggesting that we don't need nation states, or questioning their impacts isn't a straw man. In fact the ideas, writings and theorists of this train of thought long pre-date any modern concepts of socialism, communism or capitalism. Funny isn't it that - as this thread proves - both socialism and capitalism have in the past century both proven themselves to be sub-optimal forms of political and economic organisation and yet we still cling on to the concept that they are the only things possible?
"argee
I’m being as specific as the original argument and the evidence provided on how these places were socialist democracies, if you want specifics, google is good for that, wikipedia has info, they even have citations if you want to click through."
Which places? Specifics on what? How are we supposed to use Google to work out what you were talking about when it's not even clear you know....?
Also you’ll note his co-author isn’t an anarchist (to my knowledge anyway), he’s just an archeologist
He may not be an anarchist but a brief look at his published work shows that he has quite a few weird and wonderful ideas. I am all for academic freedom of thought & it is good to challenge orthodoxy & prevailing schools of thought. However don’t ignore the tendentious reasoning this bloke is displaying. He’s an outlier with an agenda.
"(Where has the block-quote menu gone?)"
It's been collectivised. You can use it every second Thursday.
@molgrips: if you don't feel like spending £30 on Graeber's book, maybe you can head along to your local den of social democratic statist indoctrination ie the library.
"it’s probably true to say that before administrative states became a thing, more people were living in harmony than they are now"
What does that statement look like when you look at it through a feminist lens? Were things that idyllic?
Suggesting that we don’t need nation states, or questioning their impacts isn’t a straw man
Nono. You saying that I endorse the status quo was a straw man.
socialism and capitalism have in the past century both proven themselves to be sub-optimal forms of political and economic organisation
That's an extremely simplistic assertion. Socialism is a pure ideology, it's an ingredient in a state along with a whole load of other ingredients. There isn't one single set of instructions that makes a socialist country. Just like Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy were both fascist, but they were different. Most countries do some socialist things, and some capitalist things, and the outcomes vary wildly based on how its implemented.
Any state is a blend of ideology, power distribution, natural resources and competence. Some of these are interdependent, and some states will succeed or fail in certain criteria or struggle based on these various attributes.
And of course, the success criteria are quite subjective. Is a state where everyone is poor but equal, and has enough to eat and are close to their families a good state? What if the people have no money to buy labour saving devices or to travel to see the world? I think a lot of people don't seem to realise that people want different things. For some, a peaceful agrarian life where you just do simple work on your land is desirable - but I'd find that horribly limiting. For some, a society where you don't need to work would be heaven, others might find it purposeless, futile and boring. IF we can't even agree on what 'good' means or see that we each have different versions of 'good' we won't really progress.
maybe you can head along to your local den of social democratic statist indoctrination ie the library.
I haven't got a local one.. **** Tories.
Re the Graeber/Wengrow book - it's still £12 on Kindle. I get really upset when people try to push their ideas on me in a book, it makes me cringe, so I'm worried that's what this will be about. I looked very carefully for bias in Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order and I didn't see any.
And of course, the success criteria are quite subjective.
Yes, but when you are dealing with billions of people, you can look at patterns of migration and see where people prefer to live. East Germans risked their lives to get to West Germany, but West Germans didn't rush to move to the East. Russian and Chinese elites send their kids to school in Western Europe and the U.S., but Western elites don't send their kids to school in Russia or China. The general pattern is that liberal capitalist democracies attract a lot of migrants so it's pretty reasonable to conclude that they are the most attractive places to live.
As I've been saying, there's more to that than the government's economic alignment. A liberal democracy can have a lot of socialist policies, or few. So you need to decide which one you like.
The general pattern is that liberal capitalist democracies attract a lot of migrants so it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that they are the most attractive places to live.
Hmm - the USA is one of the most popular countries for migrants, but most of us would agree it's a bit shitty when all aspects of the country are considered. It markets itself well.
the USA is one of the most popular countries for migrants, but most of us would agree it’s a bit shitty when all aspects of the country are considered. It markets itself well.
Being poor in America is much better than being poor in poor countries. It's fun to poke fun at America, but it's a pretty good place to live if you have a middle-class income. Wealthy Russians and Chinese don't send their kids there for no reason. Brazil has a similar population and vast natural resources, but I can't think of any Brazilian companies that have the stature of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Boeing, Ford, General Motors, etc.
Venezuela.
It’s fun to poke fun at America, but it’s a pretty good place to live if you have a middle-class income.
I have a cousin who with her husband was arrested and tortured by the Argentine military dictatorship. They weren't guilty of any crimes other being hippies seeking an alternative lifestyle and choosing to live in a commune. They were eventually released and they fled to the United States where they were granted political asylum.
The military junta would not have been successful in seizing and maintaining power had it not been for the explicit approval of the United States government. So the United States not only provided them with sanctuary but was also the reason why they had to flee persecution.
As a side note I had a couple of cousins who had to temporarily flee to Brazil after being declared wanted by the military authorities.
The issue though is that the US is a very bad place to be poor, and because of the way society is organised, especially around healthcare, it is very easy to end up poor, and very difficult to stop being poor. If you don't have company subsidised healthcare, a perk that is becoming rarer, and lower inquality, you are one accident/family illness away from poverty.
I live in a socialist country that's also a liberal democracy, and like it quite a lot thanks
Wealthy Russians and Chinese don’t send their kids there for no reason
"Wealthy" is the key word there. As I said, wealthy people can have a good life in the USA, if you're not sensitive to certain things; but I don't rate the USA as a good place to be poor or even on lower middle income for all sorts of reasons. I do have a bit of insight here since I'm married to an American. Even the ones that do ok have to work a lot harder to stay there than we do here.
If you don’t have company subsidised healthcare, a perk that is becoming rarer, and lower inquality, you are one accident/family illness away from poverty.
You can still be that even if you have insurance. Your insurance cover will be limited, and it won't cover lots of things. If you get accidentally pregnant you will be on the hook for ten or fifteen grand, you will only get 2 weeks' maternity leave (unpaid). Then you have to work out how to fund childcare or give up your job whilst having incurred these costs. The system is very rotten.
I live in a socialist country that’s also a liberal democracy, and like it quite a lot thanks
If it has a capitalist economy, it's not a socialist country, it's a liberal capitalist country. Just like where I live, which I like and I think is a nicer place to live than the US. But millions upon millions of migrants think the US offers something better than their home country. That's not because they are stupid, it's because the US is actually a pretty decent place to live for most people who live there.
it’s because the US is actually a pretty decent place to live for most people who live there.
I'm not sure about most. But in any case, we know it's dreadful for a pretty large chunk of the poorest. And in my mind that makes it a badly governed country.
If it has a capitalist economy, it’s not a socialist country, it’s a liberal capitalist country
Nearly every country is a blend of socialist and capitalist policies. There's no point in trying to categories countries like this and attempting to use it to denigrate socialist policies.
Nearly every country is a blend of socialist and capitalist policies.
No, they aren't. Socialist policies are that the means of production should be publicly owned. Most countries have abandoned nationalization of industry. Regulating capitalism isn't socialism, that's why socialist despise liberals. Liberals believe that capitalism can be tamed and used to benefit society, socialists see capitalism as the root of all evil. If you endorse any form of capitalism, you aren't a socialist.
The US is a terrible place to live for the majority. My sister in law had a kid by accident at 25 while working at a fast food restaurant and her partner was studying. That's a one way ticket to absolute poverty that you're extremely unlikely to get out of in the US. She got 2 weeks of maternity leave and now has to fund nursery on that income. They get by because her parents are well off but for the vast majority of Americans, incomes are incredibly low, state support is almost non-existent, worker rights don't exist so you can't do things like having a kid if you're not well off without crippling your finances. Food and just about everything except gas is more expensive than it is here to make things worse.
The poverty at the bottom end is absolute. It sells a good dream, and looks good because it's not what you see as an outsider, but most people struggle to live any kind of comfortable life there.
EDIT - and, because it's a pace that doesn't have many policies that most people would associate with socialism, it's not even that good to be middle income there. You don't get anywhere near as many of the worker's rights you get here that make life bearable. Holiday is minimal (I'd be on two weeks a year). Your protections are minimal. You have to get health insurance, which is more costly per head than a nationalised system. It's not a good place to live unless you live there already and are completely blinkered to any other way of life, or are very rich.
No, they aren’t. Socialist policies are that the means of production should be publicly owned.
There are still state owned industries in countries that have free markets as well.
If you endorse any form of capitalism, you aren’t a socialist.
I honestly think that narrow of a definition is not especially helpful to the debate.
I also don't think that 'liberal democracy' means a mix of state and privately owned businesses. Liberal democracy refers to the rights of the individual, and that can still be applied even if many of the industries are state owned
I think that liberalism is the opposite of authoritarianism and is a political philosophy; socialism is the opposite of capitalism and is an economic philosophy, and the two things are on orthogonal axes. So you can be socialist and authoritarian (Soviet Russia), quite socialist and liberal (Sweden), quite capitalist and liberal (USA) etc. As I said, every country is a blend of ideas and exist somewhere in the space defined by these axes.
Consider this: we in the UK could be considered a liberal democracy since we have laws protecting individual rights. But what if we nationalised all our utilities? Would that be a socialist policy? It would certainly be an anti-capitalist one since it would remove the ability for people to make money in a chunk of the economy. So what would you call it?
Nearly every country is a blend of socialist and capitalist policies. There’s no point in trying to categories countries like this and attempting to use it to denigrate socialist policies.
I would give up. They have gone full root of evil and I suspect a no true Scotsman is waiting round the corner.
Yes, but when you are dealing with billions of people, you can look at patterns of migration and see where people prefer to live. East Germans risked their lives to get to West Germany, but West Germans didn’t rush to move to the East. Russian and Chinese elites send their kids to school in Western Europe and the U.S., but Western elites don’t send their kids to school in Russia or China. The general pattern is that liberal capitalist democracies attract a lot of migrants so it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that they are the most attractive places to live.
And all criminals played Grand Theft Auto.
The trouble with that is it's likely that so did most CEO's, Drs, Engineers and Heads of State.
The "Liberal Democracy" Vs "Communist Dictatorship" comparison is far more down to the Democracy Vs Dictatorship as shown by your own example, Russia isn't communist anymore, I've no idea how socialist it is but given the inequality shown on the news I'm going top suggest it's somewhat less Socialist than our Conservative government.
For me I think the OP goes wrong in assuming that Communism is an extreme form of Socialism. To me any nationalized industry is a weak dose of "Communism", it's the state ownership of the means of production. Whereas Socialism is a financial instrument, it's private industry being free to do what it likes and then it's profits taxed to pay for government spending. And within those models there's benefits and weaknesses and questions to be asked. If you have an industry in state ownership should it be either run for maximum profit in order to fund other services, or should it be run to break even and deliver the best value service? How do you drive for that value if there is no profit motive?
As for the redistribution of wealth. Whilst the right will portray it as the government coming along and taxing you out of house and home to give them to someone on benefits. The reality is it means taxing you out of Caviar and S-Works Turbo Kenevo's to fund universal education and health care. Everyone has the same needs, that probably cost about £70k*/household annually, and that includes health, education, transport infrastructure, etc. For a lot of people (i.e. half the country) their wage isn't enough to fund that on their own. That's redistribution of wealth. It's someone earning £40k and having ~£5k to spend on luxuries paying slightly more tax so that someone on £30k is a net beneficiary of health/roads/schools/police/etc. At the extreme end it does include 'handouts' to subsidize low incomes and prevent poverty. Towards the center of the bell curve it's less about those direct benefits and simply that peoples tax paid wouldn't actually correspond to the services they use/have access to.
Don't even get me started on inheritance tax though, I've got some very unpopular opinions on that.
*i.e. 2x GDP/capita
My sister in law had a kid by accident at 25 while working at a fast food restaurant and her partner was studying.
That's quite a remarkable way to get pregnant. I'm trying to figure out the gymnastics involved. Would probably make a great Peepshow episode.
I get really upset when people try to push their ideas on me in a book, it makes me cringe, so I’m worried that’s what this will be about.
Most books I read are written with the sole intention of pushing ideas 🙂 I'm not sure this is one of them though. Yes there is discussion of politics but only from the angle that there are different ways of organising society compared to today. In fact a lot of this book talks about pre-historic or indigenous societies which are/were plutocratic or autocratic. The main idea in this book is that the established narrative as presented by books like Sapiens is too simplistic and not supported by archeological evidence. Yes we live in a statist world, where one form of government dominates all others, but limiting ourselves to considering different flavours of that statist model rather than real alternatives seems a bit odd to me.
No, they aren’t.
Thols you seem rather desperate to deny that anything in our society might represent socialist or collectivist values. I presume you don't use any public services and pay for everything privately? I'm guessing if your house catches fire you won't be calling the fire brigade on a point of principal? You need to get over it, it's really no big deal.
thols, I think it might be best if you decided the discussion is about social democracy, rather than the economic definition of socialism.
As an aside, have you ever visited a post-communist country? I've been to quite a few and while being part of the USSR clearly wasn't good for them on a macro-scale, a lot of the individuals who lived through it miss it. They miss the fact that their job was secure. They miss that their pensions were guaranteed. They miss the general security of society. While the way the USSR was run was obviously horrific, these individuals were better off under it. Once the USSR fell, they were almost immediately much worse off as their rights were eroded, their job security was gone as market forces came into play, the cost of their food (even though it was now much more readily available) and other living costs shot up and things were generally harder.
I think that liberalism is the opposite of authoritarianism and is a political philosophy; socialism is the opposite of capitalism and is an economic philosophy, and the two things are on orthogonal axes
All ideologies are on orthogonal axes. They are all unidimensional and try to describe political and economic organization by a single dimension. For socialists, it's the ownership of capital. For liberals, it's freedom. For conservatives, it's the role of tradition. For feminists, it's sex/gender. Those are all orthogonal and they intersect in strange ways - for example, one strand of feminism points to myths about matriarchal societies to basically argue for feminism from a conservative viewpoint (i.e. it's a traditional way of organizing societies.)
thols, I think it might be best if you decided the discussion is about social democracy,
Then call it that. If it's a thread on a socialist utopia but nobody actually likes socialism, then just agree that socialism sucks and liberalism is a much better way of doing things. I'm all for social democracy, I just think the lessons of history are pretty vivid that socialism was a terrible mistake.
quite capitalist and liberal (USA) etc.
Capitalist democracies (especially the US) are not liberal. What happens if you don't want to work? What if you want to live as a nomad and not own property? What if you want to go and live in another country where you weren't born? What if you want to be self-sustaining and completely separate from the state? Capitalist democracies are no different to authoritarian socialist states. They still force you to work, limit your free time and what you do with it, and force you to accept a way of living which you might not want. The only difference is in the mechanisms they adopt to curtail your freedom.
then just agree that socialism sucks and liberalism is a much better way of doing things
Aside from it isnt as all the victims of lassiez-faire liberalism found out.
A mixed economy is the right approach but getting the balance is crucial. Announcing that anything other than the purist version of one is actually the other undermines this.
Nearly every country is a blend of socialist and capitalist policies.
No, they aren’t. Socialist policies are that the means of production should be publicly owned. Most countries have abandoned nationalization of industry.
They still force you to work
Nobody is forcing anyone to work, its just if you choose not to work you have to pay the consequences of your choice.
What if you want to be self-sustaining and completely separate from the state
Because your actions will have an effect on everyone else around you. it's called society & its the inevitable consequence of living on a plqnet with 7 billion other people. You have to learn to share. If you don't like it, other planets are available.
For anyone interested in this stuff in a British context, there are some good shows on BBC Sounds about the history of socialism and liberalism (and conservatism, but that's not relevant here).
BBC.CO.UK 
The liberalism the UK experienced doesn't have much at all to do with socialism.
Which places? Specifics on what? How are we supposed to use Google to work out what you were talking about when it’s not even clear you know….?
Yes
