Response to someone's claim that "we're all slaves"

It looks here as if "we're all slaves" has been turned into a political statement. But that's not how I read the OP. I never exactly looked at it as "we're all slaves", I always looked at it like "we're all in a war". I mean, we aim to live, we want to live. One of our most basic prsmptions is life=good, death=bad. We believe that life is natural, that death is an unnatural external force which we shouldn't count on - it's something we don't comprehend, and we do so much to avoid it. But yet, it happens to anyone, but no-one is "doing" it (obviously some people are killed by others but you get my point, other people didn't make them mortal in the same sense). So it's a defining part of our nature that we die, but yet we've externalised it, turned it into an enemy, something which happens to us rather than something we do. So, psychologically it's like a war, an enemy in the hills swooping down and taking our wives, children, parents, friends, and eventually us. Like a war, it's dreaded influence permeates everything, and yet lke an onoing war, it's been normalised, we try to get on with life ignoring it. We associate war with death and poor health, this is why we hate war, so surely when this happens to people without a war, the effect is the same as a war? A war just steps up the intensity.

But again, "slave" and "war" these are just words which invite comparisons for something all encompassing for us) with something specific - like comparing being a car to being a Mini. We aren't salves or in a war, slavery is just one manifestation of unfreedom, war is just one manifestation of death. What we are is human. Slave is just a definiton for one kind of human. Applying it to all humans devalues the word. This doesn't mean all or any humans are "free".

Ordinary Boys - Maybe Someday

Why should, you leave your home,
Oh, when the TV's on,
Oh, when I was half joking,
But I know that you'll be fine,
Who needs love when you got two eyes and you got the time?

Waiting for some inspiration,
but lack the human interaction.

Cursing, your computer,
Because it will not do,
A single thing that you're sure it ought to,
With your so called friends you love,
As an a.k.a of a pseudonym that you wish you were.

Waiting for some inspiration,
but lack the human interaction,

Peasants or workers? - Forum post responding to point on Italy

This interests me, because I am from a country without a peasant class but it's this conservative class of people which binds societies as different as Mediterranean societies, American culture (the "rednecks" would be the peasants), the Middle East and Latin America.

In Britain the working class is fundamentally tied to the British state and to the wider national consciousness; self-sufficiency has never been part of the culture. On the one hand this pleases left-wing people because it allows for "solidarity", "progress", a lack of individualism, and the breaking down of barriers. On the other hand it confounds the left, because it also leaves the working classes prone to "imperialism", aggressive foreign policy, supporting "internal colonialism", etc.

Also, the divisions in Italy are interesting, I've read quite a lot about it. The urbanised north and the rural south are two different countries. You've got the Liga Nord pushing for separation from the south. Many northerners deny that the south is even Italy, they refer to it as Africa, and the people as Arabs. This is similar to the way that economic hierarchies are expressed in racial terms in Latin America. So in Argentina, a poor person is a "negro", in Chile he's an "indio" etc. And these groups are both considered superior to Bolivians and Paraguayans etc. And within Bolivia you have the divisions between the Europeanised lowlands and the indigenous highlands. And within those highlands a hierarchy where the towns despise the villages, the villages despise the hamlets, and each one sees his inferior as darker, less European, and more of a peasant than him. It's the whole colonial process being repeated again and again.

So anyway, that division between the working class and the peasant class is crucial, and it's one which is replayed within the working classes and peasant classes themselves. The richer peasants adopt the "civilised" attitudes of the city people, and the richer working class people come to adopt some of the self-sufficiency and conservatism of the peasant.

It's interesting to see how the people who want to represent these people - the left - relate to this.

On the one hand the working class is richer, whiter, more keen on nationalism and less willing to resist the state, and they can be seen as part of an internal colonialism where they unite with the "elite" of the big cities against the peasants, but on the other hand he peasants are more keen on private owership, more keen on religion, less keen on "solidarity" with other communites, less cosmopolitan, less hungry for a better situation (they will be more moved only to resist when their status is threatened rather than push for change), etc. So Should left-wing people unite with the more "progressive" working class, but at the same time one which is wealthier and whiter and possibly discriminates against the peasantry; or should they take the side of the more conservative, but potentially more anti capitalist expansion, less prone to European or middle class values, peasantry. When they do, it is often quite a volatile union, because these groups, as you say, do not really seek ties with a wider coalition for "change" that the activists envisage - they just want their lands protected. because of the isolated and relatively self-sufficient nature o these small, quite static, communities, this is natural to them in a way it is not to the urbanised working classes.

I get the feeling that these left-wing activists really want the working classes on their side. That is the golden prize. But wen these working classes can be won over to siding with their "social betters" against the periphery, the peasantry, the satellite, the underdeveloped region at home or the "third world" abroad, whatever you want to call it, then the activists will often switch sides to the peasantry as a plan b. But it's not something they are ever really comfortable with. At best they are acting out of pity for these people without sharing their long-term motivations or beliefs; at worst they are acting out of resentment to the classes which shunned them.

Ok that was a huge tangent. But why not? You mentioned the difference between "peasants" and "workers", and it's one I'm interested in myself. The "peasant" attitude you described is something which is fascinating for a Brit, because like you say it's quite alien. We don't know how to react to it. Which side are they on? How do they see themselves? From an urbanised point of view, their motivations seem alien, yet there is something in their anti-government self-sufficiency and aversion to "progressive" ideology which I admire. Call me a "redneck lover" if you must.

being interesting/thoughts on "characters"

"interesting" is like "funny"; it depends on your audience. To an alien who had never seen a human, any one of us would be interesting. To a movie star, I bet none of us would be interesting.

Maybe no-one really exists in the sense that we think we do; perhaps and we are just a mirror. Perhaps the idea of "personality" is fundamentally flawed. When it comes down to it, the more people I meet the more I realise that no human being is very interesting, in fact it's only distance and perception which makes them interesting. Sure, they can say interesting things sometimes, but really it's just because they happen to have a brain that works pretty well and can assimilate and regurgitate information in an effective or distinct way, but the actual process taking place is no different in any human being - the difference is only one of degree, not of kind.I find myself getting less and less taken in by "characters" - they've simply tweaked their animal instincts slightly better than others, but really they're no different, and when you get to know them, they let you down.I find humanity itself interesting, but the life of any one individual is usually pretty routine and boring when you get close enough to see through the smokescreens.

A little Machiavelli in the Brazilian jungle

I was reading an article by an anthropologist called Gertrude Dole, who spent some time living amongst a group of indigenous people in the Brazilian Amazon called Kuikuru. In this society, there is little concept of advanced agriculture, land ownership, or "profit", food is plentiful due to the fertile climate, and the societies are not hierarchical, with almost no recognised leader or concept of law, and that which existed was not backed up by an effective method of enforcement or punishment. Also, social attitudes were extremely permissive, regarding sexual behaviour or personal conduct. In fact, if a person was the victim of a theft, the only chance they had of recovering their property would be to catch the thief in the act and physically take it back. If they were robbed and did not catch the thief in the act and take the possession back, they would be seen as holding a grudge, which was taboo in their society as it led to suspicions of "sorcery", which could have them killed, as it was a crime very feared in that culture. In fact, Kuikuru were under pressure to appear amiable at all times, as not doing so instantly led to suspicions of withcraft and possible killing sanctioned by the whole community.

In such a society, the one individual with a lot of authority - though not hierarchically sanctioned or codified in any economic or legal sense - was the shaman. He was the link to the spirit world, which gave him the power of the "middle man" - one who could appease the spirits by rationing to them human victims on the one hand, and negotiate for better fortune on the other (though it wasn't authority as we know it, because it depended on him being able to "deliver the goods" and cure people, ie the position in itself did not lead to authority). In this way, European colonisers and their white predecessors, who came to recognise the shaman as the religious leader (viewing it through their own christian lens), would treat him as the representative for the Indians, and further elevate his status as middle-man, whereby he would perform the same negotiation with the state and with the god of "global capitalism" that he performed with the spirits. Some view this mythologising of shamanic powers as a supernatural expression of the way in which power was attained by individuals who were able to act as middle-men between the Indians and what were perceived as hostile external forces. But I digress.

One of the leading shamans on one reservation was called Metse. One day, a house caught fire (the one next door to Metse's house in fact) - very serious in a Kuikuru society as the houses were very close together and made of flammable material (though this day there was no wind, so the neighbouring houses were fine). So the people went to the Shamans to ask who had done it. Meste volunteered for the task, being the most respected Shaman in the village. Skilfully, he first consulted with the people to find out what they suspected - they believed it had been a flaming arrow shot by rivals form a neighbouring village, as bad blood already existed. Then, he began to smoke the necessary herbs. Eventually he was on the floor, convulsing. When he finally came out of the trance, he had the answer - the house had been burned down by rival tribesmen. however, there was one crucial addition - they had been trying to enter his house, to place a picture of a blot of lightning inside - a curse which would lead his house to burn down. However, they could not enter, so they entered the house next door and placed the curse there, and then burnt the house down so the curse would pass on to Metse.

2 weeks later, in a thunder storm, Metse's house burnt down. Suspicion immediately passed to the neighbouring tribe. But who could be so powerful to curse a talented shaman in this way? Metse fell ill, and had to be publicly carried to the lake to bathe every day. He then accused the shaman of the neighbouring vilage - who had a feud with Metse's family over a girl stolen from him by Metse's brother - of withcraft. So this powerful rival shaman was killed by the mob, and because of the fact that 1.) he had no family except for one effeminate brother and 2.) there as strong evidence of witchcraft against him, no-one avenged his death. So Metse became undisputed number 1 shaman in the society, with the authority to shape public opinion more than anyone else and effectively decide who lived or died - and his biggest and most motivated rival was eliminated.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think he burnt his own house down.

Some might call these people primitive or imagine their lives were relatively simple and uncomplicated, but they seem to have had a pretty sophisticated "political" system with just as much intrigue as any.

One thing to note is that in this extremely permissive society with very little authority placed on any institution, on private property or on any economic aims other than producing enough to live off - power rested with who you knew and whether or not people liked you enough to defend you and avenge your death (you don't kill someone so lightly if it means their family and friends kill you). Because laws could not really be enforced and those who wanted to defend their property were often accused of withcraft and of threateneing the peaceful and permissive nature of the society, then the shaman served as people's one recourse. In practice, the shaman would usually blame crimes - or witchraft - on unpopular or unintegrated individuals, because it was simply easier than risking the conflict inherent in objective law enforcement and the imposition of certain institutions. So the weak or isolated tended to be under great pressure to either fit in, or pay the price for the communities misfortune.

Also, the shaman could, as we see here, use his power to challenge threats to his status. Of course, it was a double edged sword, because he would not be respected for just being a shaman - he had to have got enough predictions "right" and to have "cured" enough people in order to win his authority.

So anyway, my agenda aside, I like the story. Especially the Machiavellian sophistication of Metse, which would rival any western politician (I think his ploy was MUCH bigger than that Reichstag storm in a teacup).

It's all politics - a forum post outlining my outlook

it is all politics, like it or not. I'm interested in how humans organise themselves, the way different interests compete and co-operate, and the way "identity" is used to win people over to supporting someone else's self-interest. I think the smart person rejects "politics" in the sense that they realise it's all self-interested, and all this nationalism/religion/ideology crap is just a cover for skilled manipulators. But having said that, my "ideology", if you can call it that, it libertarianism, because it's the recognition of self-interest. Anything else is hypocrisy. Which is maybe not always the worst evil, but that's another question.

Equality?

Equality is generally seen as desirable. The belief in striving for equality is expressed even by many conservatives in all countries - and "One Nation" conservatives like Benjamin Disraeli in Britain, or Bismarck in Germany with his "State Socialism" were perhaps the first "liberal reformers". So no-one can be trusted, it seems. This is why I think the labels "left" and "right" are meaningless - true, "left" is pretty much an indicator of strong Marxist influences, but many on the so-called "right" are actually just left-wingers who've been mugged, or authoritarians who will place social order above the rights of the individual. They may see markets as the best way to achieve the "greater good". However, their fundamental belief in the greater good and a more equal society is the same.

Often, the right-wing is more dangerous than the left, because what it grants in slightly more economic freedom it can more than make up for with it's authoritarian leanings.My problem with "equality" being an end in itself is that, if this is the case, then the temptation is not to treat all people equally. We see this in progressive taxation. A richer person has to pay a higher proportion of their salary (not just a higher amount because they earn more, which seems fair to me), they have to be legally punished, legally have their rights to their earnings decreased by the state, as they earn more. Positive discrimination is another example. Humanitarian wars of intervention motivated by bringing "progress" (not out of necessity) are another. Robbing one person to give to another, basically.

Sometimes, we even rob the poor to help the relatively rich, when we want to help keep the first world poor relatively equal to he first world rich, so we simply deny the third world poor the basic human right to even compete on level terms as human beings. The fact that left-wing people can preach equality in one breath and condone this in another astounds me.

So, if equality is an end in itself, then all people are not treated equally. the individual is trampled on. He is at the whim of another, who is granted the right, like a God, to judge his worth, and punish him if he likes. This God-like figure, known as the politician or bureaucrat, can then dole out your money to others in return for their support. You are a means to an end. So are they. And so he is he - his enlightened superiors are using him just like he uses us.

So what's the answer? The answer is to treat each individual as an end in himself. Treat each person the same. Treat each person with respect. Do not subvert them to a greater good. Let each person know that they have something to give, and they can exchange for something they want. And don't forget charity. Rich people give to charity, because people have consciences, and the vast majority of people need to believe they are good people. It's in most people's interests to give to charity, because they want to be happy, and to be happy they must believe they are good people. And even if they do not give to charity, when they spend their money, they create wealth, and when they save it, they keep a lid on inflation. This way, the market regulates itself. People regulate themselves. Each person is an individual, free to relate to others how they choose. The majority should choose to make mutually beneficial arrangements with others, as it's the most efficient way to serve one's own interest