[anarchistforliberty]

patriotism is a menace to liberty! it forces men and women to abandon their self-worth and declare their own irrelevance and complaicency to a system that bends to the interests of white elite buisness men in the name of pride and adherence to the history we are told to be proud of that is nothing more than a compilation of lies assembled to keep us silent. A true patriot would burn this flag and declare allegiance to no country. Flags are rags! REVOLUTION! NOW!

[NAVA1974]

The Flag of the United States stands for your right to say what you just did. Welcome to the forum, and thank you for proving what patriotism stands for.

[Peter Ansoff]

My favorite comment on this subject was written, oddly enough, by a German named Kurt Tucholsky in 1929. Tucholsky was strongly opposed to mindless patriotism and eventually fled to exile in Sweden to escape the Nazi regime. In an essay called "Heimat" he wrote:

"Wir haben das recht, Deutschland zu hassen -- weil wir es leben."

Which translates:

"We have the right to hate Germany -- because we love it."

Substitute "America" for "Germany" in that statement, and I think it says it all. It is a strange paradox that freedom includes the right to despise freedom, and that respect for the flag includes toleration of those who refuse to respect it.

Peter Ansoff

[CultureGeek]

I think that our anarchist friend is mistaking nationalism for patriotism, as do too many on the other end of the spectrum. Just as a refresher, I'll refer you to Mark Twain's definition of patriotism/loyalty from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court:

You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its office holders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags — that is loyalty to unreason, it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy, was invented by monarchy; let

monarchy keep it.

I'm sure quite a few of you are familiar with it but it's nice to revisit.

I would also caution against mistaking the anarchist's disagreement on how best to preserve liberty for a hatred of it. One who thinks freedom is best preserved by a stateless society does not "despise freedom."

As for the thoughts on America, anarchism, and anthropology that this brought to mind, there isn't room here for the post I wrote, let alone the accompanying reading list, so I’m leaving it out for now.

[Peter Ansoff]

You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its office holders.

I am an unabashed admirer of Mark Twain, but I think that he was a little off base here. My loyalty is to the principles on which the nation was founded, as expressed through its institutions. If the USA were to be come a dictatorship, I would no longer be loyal to it.

I would also caution against mistaking the anarchist's disagreement on how best to preserve liberty for a hatred of it. One who thinks freedom is best preserved by a stateless society does not "despise freedom."

Point well taken. I guess I have a hard time taking anarchism seriously. It seems to have the same inherent flaw as Marxism, in that it's based on some fundamentally wrong assumptions about human social behavior. However, I'm the first to admit that I have not studied either one in much detail.

Peter Ansoff

[CultureGeek]

The institutions on which America was founded were designed to be changed. My attitude isn't a rejection of the work the Framers have done towards preserving liberty, it's a sense that we should continue to build on it. I mean, I don't think we're done, do you? Do you know what I mean? Have we, as a species, stopped learning about better ways to live? I hope not.

I have studied human social behavior, and I continue to do so. I am, in fact, devoting my life to the study of human social behavior (anthropology). I've also studied what anarchists are actually talking about and it makes much more sense than you might think.

The previous version is really long, even worse than this one. I should just post a miniature annnotated bibliography before we can even start. How does that sound?

But I will tell you this about assumptions: Ethnographic evidence actually shows pretty conclusively that Hobbes (which is where you probably get your ideas about "human nature;" it's where most of our culture does) was completely wrong about human social behavior.

As for Communism, it is based on wrong assumptions but not the ones you're thinking of. The other smartalecky thing I have to add is that "recht" is a noun and should be capitalized. Couldn't help myself.

So how long of a post is possible?

[Peter Ansoff]

The institutions on which America was founded were designed to be changed.

America was not founded on institutions, but on a set of principles which are expressed through its institutions. Of course the institutions can and should change -- I don't think that I implied otherwise. My point was that I disagreed with Twain's emphasis loyalty to the country, as opposed to the principles that it embodies.

what anarchists are actually talking about and it makes much more sense than you might think. . . I should just post a miniature annnotated bibliography before we can even start.

I guess my view is that our current system, although it has serious flaws, works reasonably well on the whole. If anarchists, or communists, or whoever want to propose practical alternatives, I'm more than willing to listen, but I'm not all that interested in the philosophical minutia.

Hobbes (which is where you probably get your ideas about "human nature;"

You give me too much credit. My views about human nature come just from my real-life observations, plus a smattering of general history.

"recht" is a noun and should be capitalized.

Sie haben Recht. (-;

So how long of a post is possible?

Good question. I have made some fairly long ones (see the answers that I gave to the German student's questions on patriotism), but I don't know what the limit is. Unfortunately, none of the forum administrators seem to be answering emails or taking any interest in the forum. This is odd, because someone is still evidently paying the bills . . .

Peter Ansoff

[CultureGeek]

What Twain was talking about, I think, is the people of the country and what serves them best. That is, admittedly, subjective but, knowing what I know of Twain, I do not think that he meant that we should abandon those democratic principles. I think it more likely that he was attempting to articulate them.

I agree that our current flawed system is a step in the right direction. I just think it's not the endpoint and we should keep building on that foundation. I think the only way there'll be an endpoint is if we manage to wipe ourselves out (that possibility being a part of why I left physics).

Now, speaking of cultural evolution Marx's mistakes along those lines were assuming that there is an endpoint, and that there is only one path along which cultures can progress.

You should really let me give you a reading list because a lot of this has to do with Feuerbach in the context of the development of anthropological theory. His mistakes were typical of 19th century unilineal evolutionists, most of whom (including Lewis Henry Morgan, who had a heavy influence on Marx & Engels) believed that all cultures were at different stages in a predictable progression to more and more advanced forms, culminating in Victorian England (guess where most of them lived). So that was a fundamental assumption about culture that was really wrong.

His other mistake was assuming that putting economic power in the same hands that wield governmental power would somehow defuse it. However, read De Toqueville on the danger of governmental power ending up in the hands that wield the economic power, then look at the state of campaign finance and the effects thereof. So I see that state Communism is just a faster way to arrive at the problem that you eventually get with state Capitalism. That was a mistake about human nature, but really it was another mistake about the nature of culture.

Community doesn't come from the barrel of a gun and a truly viable anarchist society must start with community. The only way to build a society on completely different assumptions is to bring about a fundamental shift that must include the rejection of the idea of might making right. The anthropological definition of a state is that it monopolizes the use of force. If you get power by force, you are going to have to become a state to keep it. So we have to come to that point democratically. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Now, your observations of human nature are made in the context of a particular culture. Culture goes really deep and I could recommend something on that subject that'd really blow your mind. You'd be amazed of how much that seems "only natural" to us seems completely unnatural to someone in another culture.

Yes, there are valuable things about our system of government, but that definitely does not mean we should not work to improve on it. Just because a flawed system is good doesn't mean we shouldn't try to address the flaws. I know, that's not what you're suggesting but it's very good to bear in mind. I do think that we are capable of making a major cultural change because I know they happen. We have to do so carefully and there are protections built in to assure that we don't do so lightly. (Actually, the value of said protection can be seen in the failure of the periodic attempts to ban certain types of political speech).

GAH! I can't help myself. I hate to give you homework so early but this is the only way. Sorry about the formatting. These are copied and pasted from bibliographies of several papers. The earlier ones are even from before I got the hang of the AAA citation format.

Read:
On anarchism:
The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guinn (a very user-friendly picture of an anarchist society. It isn't utopian either LeGuinn never pretends that a perfect society has ever been conceived and I don't think it has either. I just have an opinion on a good direction in which to progress)

Fra Contadini by Errico Malatesta
and/or
Anarchy by Errico Malatesta
(in English or, if you speak it, Italian)


Culture:
Well, I suppose you should read something on/by Hobbes, at least look him up in Wikipedia. Then you can see what he says about "man in the state of nature" and contrast it with Lee. His best-known work is called Leviathan

I can't find my copy of the Richard Lee ethnography to give you a publication date but it's called The Dobe !Kung. I think I lent it to my father (who is an anthropologist) --and I haven't even finished it yet.

I've read this article and you really should too:
Lee R.
1968: What hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on scarce resources. In R. Lee and I. Devore (eds.), Man the Hunter, pp. 30-48. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

As for how Hobbes influences the layperson's perception of human nature, you really should read:
Sahlins, M.
[1976]: Folk Dialectics of Nature and Culture
And his whole bibliography if you want to see the key sources of capitalist philosophy.

As for how deep culture goes, here's a great example:
Conklin, H.
1986: Hanunoo Color Categories Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, Approaches to Culture and Society (Autumn, 1986), pp. 441-446 Albuquerque, NM : University of New Mexico



I agree that Marx and Engels made mistakes but I have some recommendations for you that'll help you see which mistakes and why they made them. Actually, it was a German who changed my mind about Communism.

It's not that property is human nature because it isn't. If something isn't universal, that means it isn't human nature but a feature of a particular culture. Their mistakes are about the nature of cultural evolution and the nature of power.

Wikipedia misses some stuff on 19th century anthropology and it's really hard to explain but anyway, see the above summary. I could recommend some Tylor or *shudder* Spencer or something I guess. Maybe you should read the Spencer for context of where Feuerbach (and Communism) fits in to that.

For context:
Spencer, H.
[1860]: The Social Organism
and/or
Tylor, E.B.
[1871]: The Science of Culture

For where Marx & Engels fit into that:
Morgan, L.H.
[1877] Ethnical Periods

Then read:
Marx, K. and Engels, F.
[1845-1846] Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook

As for why I still talk about cultural evolution, you'd have to read about multilineal evolutionism, which is very dry and not relevent so we'll leave that one be for now.

--------------------
As for languages, I speak fluent Spanish, passable French, and laughable German, actually. Also smatterings of various non-Indo-European languages. Ich habe ein halbes Semester Deutsch. (& I think my spelling of that last word may be wrong) but I'm a pedantic little... aaaaanyway, we used to have a guy in my class whose last name was Haberecht. And he always did--- it drove me nuts! Mostly 'coz it was the first time I wasn't the best student in the class. I thought "It's Indo-European. It'll be easy." Nope.

[CultureGeek]

Sorry that the body of the post wasn't really organized but in any case, I hope you'll enjoy the recommendations.