Social Pathology

[Alkarin]

My friend sent this to me in my e-mail today, thought i'd share it.


http://vimeo.com/10707453


the more interesting part in it for me was when he was talking about pre-neolithic people and their scientifically proven classless societies.

[Phier]

Its hard to have classes when everyone is todays equivalent of dirt poor.

[Mr. Crow]

classles they may be, but they had herarchy, they could not have proper sotial clases, because of their few numbers, every one having a fundamental role. still there was an alfa individual.

[Ardruire Iacób]

It's a bit difficult to have social classes when you have neither the social organisation (divison of labour comes to mind) or economic development to sustain them...

[Jingles]

So who actually watched the video - because I didn't find that part very interesting at all compared to the rest.

[Alkarin]

So who actually watched the video - because I didn't find that part very interesting at all compared to the rest.

only because it debunks a common argument that is filled with flaws. the entire thing is quite interesting.

The lecture got some good moments, some not so good moments and some real bad moments^, but all in all it addresses a most serious issue. Which is good...

like what? I dont recall. Its a long lecture

[Thorn777]

like what? I dont recall. Its a long lecture

The problem of accumulated wealth increasing and increasing beyond any rational, while resources are decreasing. Also how this "undemocratic situation" relates to todays society-psyche, explaining the mindset of lots of rightwing TWC-members as well.

He stresses that problem well.

Then he goes on looking for utopian solutions.

[Alkarin]

The problem of accumulated wealth increasing and increasing beyond any rational, while resources are decreasing. Also how this "undemocratic situation" relates to todays society-psyche, explaining the mindset of lots of rightwing TWC-members as well.

He stresses that problem well.

Then he goes on looking for utopian solutions.

well he does express why he chooses Utopian solutions over less extreme ones. And Utopian isn't so impossible according to societal scientists

[Thorn777]

well he does express why he chooses Utopian solutions over less extreme ones. And Utopian isn't so impossible according to societal scientists

Well yeah, and thats the "bad part" about his lecture IMO.

Nonetheless he has a strong point in saying the achievable solutions are being blocked by this "undemocratic situation" and the simple uncontrolled drive of capitalism itself. Therefore nothing other than a complete overhaul (or utopia) can actually prevent "a terminal-stage".

sad

[Jingles]

The problem of accumulated wealth increasing and increasing beyond any rational, while resources are decreasing. Also how this "undemocratic situation" relates to todays society-psyche, explaining the mindset of lots of rightwing TWC-members as well.

He stresses that problem well.

Then he goes on looking for utopian solutions.

That's pretty much what I took from it as well. I loved the stuff he talked about with the "invisible prison", and his use of the example with that Hungarian doctor was brilliant. However, those graphs he threw up about greater equality = healthier people were somewhat exaggerated - in one or two you couldn't even see the trend properly, and on the whole they disregarded too many outside factors.

All in all though, not a bad lecture at all.

[Thorn777]

^I guess because of the eureka moment of "a new human being possible as he already existed prehistorically". "The dudes in the Amazon rain-forest among others prove this theory"....

The lecture got some good moments, some not so good moments and some real bad moments^, but all in all it addresses a most serious issue. Which is good...

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

http://www.wicknet.org/history/jjpen...out_Chiefs.pdf

[Ardruire Iacób]

It's far too teleological for my liking...

Also, the whole invisible prison concept reeks of someone trying too hard to be alternative and revolutionary while just sounding like a polysyllabic angsty teenager. He says nothing new in it, everyone with any sense knows that concepts are internalised social norms and personal objectivity is impossible* (sociology 101), but how he says it appears to suggest that he thinks that everyone is wrong but him.

He's trying to be relativist while at the same time trying to ignore relativism.

*Though he doesn't say specifically it, he appears to reject collective objectivity which I find more complex than to be rejected out of hand.

EDIT: Also, he doesn't seem to have any understanding of social organisation or historical context. Of course the dark age thinkers embraced certain political structures, they were the established conventions which could and did work!

EDIT II: His claim that the preference for health over sickness is inherently universal is misleading. He appears to aim it towards a personal level, wheras it varies from society to society. Western society can value personal health at the expense at societal health, and yet there have been totalitarian regimes which valued perceived state health over both societal and personal.

EDIT III: His claims that prehistoric societies were not hierarchical and opposed to personal domination is , there is now evidence for it, how could there be any evidence for something immaterial? It's all conjecture. He's right about the argicultural revolution though, state and class both originate in it, but that's the earliest our concrete evidence for social organisation goes.

[Alkarin]

EDIT III: His claims that prehistoric societies were not hierarchical and opposed to personal domination is , there is now evidence for it, how could there be any evidence for something immaterial? It's all conjecture. He's right about the argicultural revolution though, state and class both originate in it, but that's the earliest our concrete evidence for social organisation goes.

Well its the current scientific consensus, based on facts and data. I'd say that the scientific community is a fairly relevant source..over say any data that says otherwise....known as nothing.

[Ardruire Iacób]

Well its the current scientific consensus, based on facts and data. I'd say that the scientific community is a fairly relevant source..over say any data that says otherwise....known as nothing.

What facts, what data? What do we know about the social organisation of hunter-gatherers? People not exactly known for leaving behind archaeological evidence. The hunter-gatherers we have in our modern world still aren't anything like the ones he describes, and the whole idea of Rousseau's Golden Age is long known to be false.

[Alkarin]

What facts, what data? What do we know about the social organisation of hunter-gatherers? People not exactly known for leaving behind archaeological evidence. The hunter-gatherers we have in our modern world still aren't anything like the ones he describes, and the whole idea of Rousseau's Golden Age is long known to be false.

actually most hunter gatherer societies ARE still classless and communistic. And I personally don't have the evidence but I doubt the scientific community would come to a conclusion with baseless evidence. especially with all the archeologists and societal scientists studying the issue. All coming with similar conclusions

[Ardruire Iacób]

actually most hunter gatherer societies ARE still classless and communistic. And I personally don't have the evidence but I doubt the scientific community would come to a conclusion with baseless evidence. especially with all the archeologists and societal scientists studying the issue. All coming with similar conclusions

I never said they weren't or aren't classless (how can you have class with only a handful of people?) or communistic, I said that the ones we have now are hierarchical and most certainly not opposed to individual domination. As for the prehistoric ones, we can only guess; I've yet to see any hard evidence. In fact, evidence actual points to prehistoric societies having a surprising level of social organisation, that specifically in terms of warfare. Social organisation and hierarchy going hand-in-hand, of course.

[Jingles]

I'm pretty sure he was describing exactly those that are still in existence. He used the Brazilian ones that I can't remember the name of as an example, but the aborigines of Australia that still survive are another one.

[BNS]

the more interesting part in it for me was when he was talking about pre-neolithic people and their scientifically proven classless societies.

There is not much room for "classes" in such a poor and unsophisticated society.

[Alkarin]

There is not much room for "classes" in such a poor and unsophisticated society.

classes=hierarchical structure, you can have 2 people, aslong as there is 1 leader, you have a class.