/lit/ - Literature

I am sceptical of the notion that the Moon is made of blue cheese. Wanna start a secret society of sceptics together?

>>5070849
>exploitation
Exploitation is a technical term in social science that relies on differentiated relations to production (ie: class).

Exploitation _only_ exists in class societies.

Alienation in social science is tied up with capitalism's mode of production, so no, you're not going to see "alienation" in the technical social science sense in hunter-gatherer societies.

Hierarchy? I assume you've read family, private property and the state and mutual aid?

>>5070849
Exploitation and alienation are by definition not a part of tribal societies. Although I *am* of the belief that modern hierarchies are just complex codifications of social relation which predate currency/cities/politics/etc.

>>5071132
did you just define exploitation in a way where its impossible for it to be used as a critique against your own philosophy? gj

>>5071142
Time for you to read Marx mate. Its a technical term. And in this instance it mirrors the common usage: differential capacity to appropriate social product.

If you want to ask about pomo-crap, then use the right terms. Around here we know what exploitation means via direct social experience thereof.

>>5070849
You should probably ask /sci/.

To get a significant amount of hierarchy/alienation you need some sort of surplus so the king or whoever can get away with having nothing to do with production.

Check out The Nomadic Brake chapter in Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism by Perry Anderson (http://www.mediafire.com/view/jm9icdgjcvv28cg/Passages_from_Antiquity_to_Feudalism.pdf))

Also check out "A history of Attila and the Huns" to get some idea of how hunter gatherer societies lived.

They simply didn't produce enough resources. If one person had three times as much food as everyone else, everyone else would be dead from starvation

>>5070849
Why would anyone think that anyway? Btw. Graham hancock has a lot to say on that front.

Well obviously because Great Apes are extremely naturally hierarchical creatures, especially humans. This is a natural result of being a social creature by nature. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of bullshit and will NEVER prove it within any Scientific Journal or from nature itself, which has a clear distinction of hierarchy, especially among primates with close relation to homo sapiens.

>>5070849
The indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast lived in hunter-gatherer societies that had hereditary aristocratic privileges and slavery (slaves mainly being prisoners of war). More interestingly, who actually claims that hunter-gatherers don't have exploitation etc.?

>>5071311
[citation needed]

For example, look at hierarchical wolf packs, especially the alpha male and alpha female who are well known to eat first and well. They rarely run out of food and when they do, the omega suffers the most.

It's the same in Great Ape groups with the alpha male.

>>5071351
ted kaczynski

>>5071361
>you know wolves? same thing in apes
lol no
bonobos have no alpha male

>>5071361
>what are bonobos

>>5071366
Excerpts?

I like what he said about leftists and commies, truly enlightening into their psychology and good argument they are the most greedy and power-hungry of all.

>>5071348
You're slipping between biological science and social science definitions of hierarchy in order to push a reactionary line. Your argument that the biological and social are identical is unmade. Feel free. Citations required.

>>5071351
>PNW
Had a mass extraction society in particularly unusual circumstances which resulted in a social surplus and thus classes.

>who actually claims that hunter-gatherers don't have exploitation etc.?

Classlessness = lack of exploitation = undifferentiated relationship to reproduction of society.

PNW and other high intensity extraction societies start producing social surpluses.

Kropotkin opcit (Mutual Aid) ought to help you with the broad terrain.

>>5071351
Exactly.

Right when you study about the Paleolithic, it says clearly and plain as day slavery was practised. This is natural, because tribal wars and slavery both predate recorded history. Also it's obvious there was hierarchy because someone always had to lead the tribe, most likely a dominate alpha male like we see in gorillas and chimpanzees, our closest living relatives.

>>5071373
>>5071371
Alpha female then, sheesh. But there is a clear leader and hierarchy.

>>5071351
Hunter-gatherer societies still existed well into the time civilisation in other parts of the world did, when civilisation did contact them it was recorded they had tribal chiefs and such.

>>5071375
In what way?

How do you feel about sexual dimorphism and its obvious biological (and social) implications?

Please do not tell me you are one of those post-modernist lunatics.

>>5071361
>wolves rarely run out of food
[citation needed]

>>5071391
I don't know how great alpha females have it with bonobos as far as food goes, but the matriarchy of bonobos (who are the closest animals to humans as far as sexuality goes) is not really equivalent to the alpha system of other animals for the very simple reason that you can't have one alpha female impregnated by a ton of males

>>5071366
>It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age

Why would Kaczynski say this?

>>5071379
I'm aware that PNW is a special case given its absurdly high number of resources, but what does it mean to call it a "mass-extraction society"? If a lot of those resources are extracted through hunting and gathering, it's still a hunter-gatherer society, right?

>>5071397
I'm sure PNW isn't the only example, it's just the one that comes easiest to my mind cuz I'm from there. But I'm not sure that just having a chief is "exploitation" in and of itself (if that's what you're trying to say, can't really tell) because the life of the chief is not necessarily hugely different from those of his subjects. In the PNW it is, because being of noble birth entitles you to certain privileges, like learning artisan trades and being initiated into secret societies.

>>5071407
The relationship amongst medieval villagers with a 1:8 controlled production post-exploitation is commonly described as non-hierarchical in social science. (contrast 1:1x10^15+ in capitalism, or 1:16 in soviet style capitalism). This is not commensurable with the biological definition you're using.

>>5071420
>If a lot of those resources are extracted through hunting and gathering, it's still a hunter-gatherer society, right?

And its a radically different society in terms of production to, say, Eora or Wollomi in Australia prior to Eurasian contact. People normally make the assumption that gatherer-hunter societies are universally classness because of the large number of instances of classless gatherer-hunter societies. That's obviously a faulty assumption, and since this discussion centres on hierarchy I want to point out that the extraction in the PNW was mass in nature, not subsistence.

>>5071434
So, "mass extraction" means that the resources aren't extracted for subsistence purposes?

>>5071442
That's what I was gesturing at. Kropotkin (again) summarises a variety of ethnographies of the Siberia going through the development of class relations amongst subsistence communities, and how class develops from social surplus, particularly stored social surplus.

>>5071419
That's an absurd notion, who decides this? Social science might as well be pseudo-science.

>>5071461
>Social science might as well be pseudo-science.
Feyerabend, fuck off.

>who decides this
Reviewed multiple peer reviewed multidisciplinary research projects.

>>5071163
No kidding, 30 posts and not one book recommended nor source cited

>>5071579
The only guy who isn't talking out of his ass cited kropotking multiple times.

>>5071590
And engels

>http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/Anthro%20AER%202001.pdf

There are tons of resources. Joseph Henrich is probably one of the best anthropologists that has done work on the subject. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis are also definitely worth looking into.

Sorry to get pedantic, but:

In anthropology, the term "hunter-gatherer" refers to a form of social and productive organization typified by small bands that work more or less in cooperation and with minimal hierarchy. Where there is differentiation in power, it tends to be provisional and temporary (primus inter pares). Hunter-gatherers employ a variety of social mechanisms to prevent too much inequality, etc--but this is should be understood as largely pragmatic, at least from a critical perspective. There is nothing intrinsic about hunter-gatherer organization that eliminates propensities towards greed, self-serving, or whatever, in any given individual (though ideology is an incredibly powerful motivator).

Read the above study and related literature; it is probably one of the most important work of the field done in the past 50 years.

>>5071590
>>5071606

All works that are over one hundred years old. There have been developments in our understanding since then.

>>5071653
They're also seminal texts, free, and both contain extensive reference to ethnographies.

The "seminal" bit is the most important. Its like you've not eaten all your uncles semen.

>>5071673

Century-plus-old secondary sources that refer to primary sources that are even older, and the product of very crude observational methods. Perfect for an acquaintanceship with the subject, yes, I agree absolutely.

>>5071692
>ignoring seminality

>>5071706

How could I? Your face is covered in it.

>>5071645
Exactly what I was looking for, thank you.

And no need to apologize, I appreciate the perspective.

>>5071708
Yeah, you're not getting why that's a good thing, are you?

>>5071361
Wolves are not this strictly hierarchical. This is outdated information from an incorrectly-done ethology study of captive wolves.

http://io9.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629

I have no background in anthro, but I read this last year and found it interesting.
http://edge.org/conversation/napoleon-chagnon-blood-is-their-argument
I'm not sure if it addresses your questions specifically, but he was embedded with a south american tribe that had no outside contact apart from rival tribes. these were the last people on earth that lived this way, and became more modern during his time with them.

from what I *do* recall, regardless of if the tribe itself was or was not egalitarian, almost every decision the tribe made was affected by the constant threat of death from neighboring tribes, and the inter-tribe politics were really convoluted and not "simple" at all, both of which erode the romantic idea of tribal life.

>>5070849