Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:43:39 -0500 (EST)
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: re: baby food




On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Jonathan Kratter wrote:

> There's no such thing as tribal capitalism, because capitalism is an
> inherently hierarchical system and tribes are inherently un-hierarchical.

Heh-heh.

Heh-heh-heh.

Heh-heh.

BuuuuuuuuWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA.

> No, actually, I don't see how survival of the fittest is less anarchistic
> than mutual aid.

Survival of the fittest +requires+ the elimination of those who are of
lesser ability, ubermensch.

 
> I would not be complicit in the support of a tribe that believed children
> should be beaten daily in that I would not trade with nor assist that tribe
> in any endeavour.  However, unless that tribe was attacking or otherwise
> interfering with my own tribe, I would not interfere in the affairs of that
> tribe.  However, a tribe which beat its children daily would most likely
> have severe problems because children who are beaten daily are probably not
> going to survive very long.

Oh, I don't know.  The tribe that follows the judeo-xtian path has a long
and illustrious hystery of beating their children, and they seem quite
well entrenched globally.

> >Otherwise, how will "Nature" judge.  Survival of the fittest?  Not in my 
> >anarchy, thank you very much.
>  
> Then you're not really an anarchist, now are you, because you're seeking to
> impose rules upon others. 

The competitive nature of the "survival" you espouse establishes the most
basic hierarchy of all--that of deciding who lives, and who doesn't.

> Survival of the fittest kept our planet running
> just fine for 4 billion years until a few humans thought they could do a
> better job back around the start of the agricultural revolution.  Compare
> the state of the planet then with the state of the planet now, and tell me
> which system is more effective: survival of the fittest, or the
> conflicting, unclear, ephemeral "moral" value systems that we feel must be
> imposed on everyone around us.

Heh-heh.  Peoples engaging in agriculture indeed did foster the rise of
hierarchy.  But peoples who don't practice agriculture are destroyed when
they come into contact with people that do by those organized societies.  
Isn't that in itself "survival of the fittest?"

> Before I'm accused of cruelty, though, I would ask you to find me evidence
> of a true "primitive" tribe that actually beat its children on a daily
> basis.  I don't think one exists, because the personality type that beats
> children doesn't occur in a tribe where every member is concerned for the
> welfare of every other member.  While certainly "cruel" practices exist in
> "primitive" tribes, I think that one will find that our society is far
> crueller to its members on a far more regular basis than any tribe ever was.

What's a "primitive" tribe?  If you're talking about unevolved crude
social organizations that perpetuate such things as war, theft of the
common resources for a few and imposes involuntary servitude on others,
yes, I'd say that is "primitive."

I'd also say that brings us right back to the judeo-xtian tribe that
currently rules the wirld through capitalism; those are some mighty crude
fuckers if you ask me.

And if I may be so erudite, basically I think what you are saying is
stupid.


carp