: I'm definitely not a utilitarian, in any sense. However, any theory that does not acknowledge the nature of the rational utility maximizing individual falls on the rocks when trying to modify behavior and mould society. Tribal groups were group utility maximizers (i.e. group utilitarianism). As relationships became abstract this propensity began evolving into individual utilitarianism.Wow- you are turning into a Marxist. ;)
: Is this why the Liberty caucus (libertarians) of the Republicans is attempting to devolve authority to local control and seeking to keep State influence from encroaching upon the decisions of community leaders?
Because tehre will always be such groups, fringes, etc. minority opinions waiting in the wings- you have to look to the actions of political hegemony (which is both the state, and also teh most powerful private indivudals' actions...) to see teh direction things are moving- cut back welfare, increase state input directly into capitalist hands...
: Well, I'm dubious. I'm not sure you answered my question as it pertained to comparitive snapshots of countries during the same time periods. I think many people look at huge historical outcomes and fail to see the numerous smaller causalities that form a cohesive, yet unplanned, structure.
If teh structure is co-hesive, i.e. patterned, it may be safe to assume an underlying cause....
: Okay, good. I wouldn't want the capitalists in charge. In fact, no one, not even a democratic super-majority, can ever be in charge during the existance of a society based upon abstract relationships. Outside the small tribe "in charge" is a myth.
I agree, the state is not in charge, the market is. I would rather see economy and people co-incide, rather than alienated from one anotehr as they are now...
: Amen. I wholeheartedly agree. Where I think you go wrong, though, is the prophetical nature of your analysis. You claim to see a particular objective of this struggle and assume that any other vision is "against the struggle". Quite frankly I'd be an anarchist if there wasn't that nasty little phenomena of groups naturally assembling to create power structures based on rent-seeking and other collectivist behaviors. That as well as my suspicion that it would encourage disassociation of behavior from consequence.
1:If I see someone, headed toward teh door, or rolling their fist up at me, I can make fairly rough predictions, reasonably based on historical experience, upon those facotrs. Marx did talk about histoircal inevitabilites, however, they are the logical extrapolation of teh direction of capitalism, we are facing socialism or barbarism- and barbarism is winning atm.
2:Many fine anarchists are collectivists. Its precisely for this reason we see the revolution ass requiring:
a)The complete and whole-hearted support of the vast majority.,
b)a world wide revolution, with an integrated world market, and thus world consciousness.
: But right there. Words like humpty dumpty were once completely orginiated out of someone's mouth. Words are conventions taht spontaneously evolve without any foreplanning; but they orginiate first out of one individual's mouth in order to grasp a new concept or differentiate between two that had, at one time, seemed alike, such as 'build' and 'construct'.
1:I was referring to Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrols 'through the Looking glass'- for him words mean whatever he wants them to mean.
2:It takes two to create meaning, one to anunciate the word, the other to understand it. Language is inherently dialogical/co-operative.
3:Most new words arise from metonymical shoifts in old words (Check out R.Williams: 'Keywords')- the words I am using now, were once someone elses words, I am merely borrowing them.
4:But you are right, it is the lived experience of individuals- in society- that is the motor force of language.- however, language sets up our perception of the world, is mapped over all our objects, everything we experience we experience through language, and thus through the co-operative framework of language...
: Yes. Short of time and space I condensed.
Sounds painful- I hope you recover... ;)
: But each individual act also has a potential cascading effect upon the rest of the populace and upon subsequent generations. As in the US, seventy percent of African-American children are born illegitimate by individuals who see no difference between propagating and abstaining. I grew up in such a neighborhood. The white Democratic do-gooders have destroyed Black America more surely than any neo-Nazi could have ever dreamed. Just one person acting anti-social means almost nothing to a 'great' society. However, a deluge destroys it.
But those people are themselves the products that are situations/circumstances within a wider social framework- we have similar events here, and the common factor is poverty, lack of social being and identity, of worth to society, crippling atomised individualism. Yes, people are not things, yes they have responsibility, and you're right, society is built from the roots up- individual actions up, but it also works down again.
: This effect of human decisions is not addressed by either historicism or empiricism. A critical, as opposed to naive, rationalism is the key.
Like Naom Chomsky's?
: I'm a firm proponent of causality. Often, though, it's mistaken with pure correlation; just be careful. And now you're separating the individual and society when in reality they are indelibly intertwined. My main issue is with those who think taht their throughts are individualist and can be controlled by the thinker. Our actions are creators of 'society' but in turn remain massively affected by society.
Correct, though the processes that you think, the structures, the ideology of your thought, is itself the result of having lived in a particular society. I would not be the person I am today, if I had been born a hundred years ago. Necessarianism is bad, but likewise denying any social construction of identity is equal bad and idealist.
None.
