hs: Do you at least recognize that North Korea is a collectivist state, and suffers from the problem both Vic and I were alluding to earlier about who gets to decide for the collective?
M: Of course. I just don't see it as collectivism. It is actually quite the opposite. A few against the many hiding behind the many in name.
hs: If you can understand why the welfare of the North Koreans is not actually being looked out for (despite the fact that it is the main purpose of such a collectivist government) then you will understand why I am oppossed to colletivism in its modern form (whatever you want to call it, a ducks a duck). It does make a difference because it is at the heart of the problem with trying to apply a collectivist structure where the individual has no inherent rights in today's societies.
M: I do not accept that the main purpose of the North Korean government is to serve the collective, sorry. The issue, naturally is the lack of individual rights whether they be taken by the group in the name of the group or in the name of the individual. The real issue, I think, is consensus and how to get real rational buy in and what to do if that fails.
--------------
hs: So how do you propose we reach consensus? I say the best way is to let every individual have their say, a la the Kung. You disagree? What if the consensus reached is something you don't particularly like? It seems thats what I see in collectivists, they say they want consensus, but all they really want is to have
their consensus imposed on everyone.
M: The thing about consensus is that everybody does buy in so imposition does not arise as a question. I see consensus as the spontaneous result of communal living where human survival is at stake. We are speaking here of people who have not been poisoned by illusions of the importance of their own ego. Where a organically functioning process of consensus building has been functioning properly for milenia the society contains all sorts of genius exponents that know how to make it work. This is how the elderly in a consensus society earn their keep as physically more or less disabled members.
-----------------
hs: Back to the Kung are we? Cool I like thinking about them. You imply they are a good example of collectivism (or whatever we're calling it now) but there are several problems that make it a poor example for modern societies. First they do not deny individuals inherent rights as modern collectivist governments do. Each individual is equal in the group and gets a say in what goes on, almost like form of democracy, which is at odds with modern forms of collectivism where the individual is not trusted and subject to force.
M: Or where individuals in an Individualistic society whose function is vital to the fabric of that society but are not 'paid' by the meat producers commensurate to their contribution and worth, ie, where markets are invented by only certain individuals for their sole benefit, ie, where only some values are valued.
-------------------------
hs: If markets are free then real value will be placed on things which people actually believe have value. You can't force someone to think something is valuable though just because you want it to. And how are free markets invented? I see them as natural and logical extensions of mans behaviour when he trades one thing for another. The only inventions are when some person decides they don't like the market and seek to control it and assign artificial value until it fits their perception of whats right.
M: Man does not live by things alone. We pay nothing for what is of priceless value nor do we value all that which is priceless. The market you worship is all about artificial value. The market exists only is society and must be structured in such a way that it pays dues to the whole. It is a complex barter system that replaces a more primitive structure of unremunerated contribution by all for all and must take up that slack as a replacement. Women and children and the shaman and old all got meat. If you create a market where only meats are sold those who produce no meat will die. Capitalism is a way to kill those whose product is not commoditized.
--------------------------------------
hs: Since they are constantly on the move wherever nature leads them, it is of no advantage to have a lot of material possessions. Also they have no need for property or institutions to handle property claims etc. These things explain why they have no figure of authority or leaders because they don't need one, based on their lifestyle each individual is their own leader. This is completely different compared to modern agrarian and industrial societies where property rights are very important and leaders are necessary to mange things.
M: Why? Who says property rights are very important? Parasites who want to horde from the general society? Why do millions of years of social evolution suddenly go out the window when we start growing plants? How did this sick need to have more than others commence. When did the mighty skills evolution gave the human brain suddenly become personal? Everything you've got evolved to preserve the group. We have nothing but out debt. And think about my argument about meat. The market replaces in a sick way what used to be organic. A substitute that does not substitute is no proper substitute at all.
------------------------
hs: We all say they are important by the way we interact with each other and function. Do you let anyone just barge into your house and start doing as they please as if it were their house? I know its a straw man, sorry. How about your physical self, do you let a stranger tell you what to do and try and control your actions? If you live in a permanent spot it is only natural to gain possessions of things like food, clothing, and other necessities to survive. Once men stopped being dependant on the flow of ature to survive like nomadic hunter-gatheres, it was up to their preparation to survive. Food stockpiles, water, things like that became important. These things are what led to modern society where many more people can survive off the same amount of land that would only support far less hunter-gatherers. Then theres the process of specialization and how certain individuals have skills better suited to certain tasks, that vary with value according to the needs of the group.
M: We have been over all this now I think. Everybody should have a house. I do and chose to live there instead of my neighbors. If I have all the meat should others tell me to share. Of course they shouldn't any more than I wouldn't share. Why would I want to keep all the meat. It wasn't up to individuals to survive when they developed more advanced ways of living. It was up to them to adapt the advances to the benefit of the whole. No skills are of any value without other people. All our skills are the gift of human social evolution. The complexity of our brains are there for social interaction. Even our capacity to think comes from communication with other people. Remember your debt and the source of your illusion of a separate self. You could have no illusion of separateness without a group.
-------------------------------
-----------------------------
hs: This can be seen in other hunter-gatherer societies where the land they live on is very plentiful and they only stay in one place allowing them gather possessions and where a structure of authority is likely to occur.
M: It occurs where weasel egos gang up to seize power.[/quote]
hs: I would appreciate it if you would actually give some elaboration and details on this point. Do you understand what I'm trying to say at least with regards to the different types of hunter-gatherer structured societies based on the environment they live in?
M: As I said, the market is a complex replacement of communal barter and sharing. It is a sick substitute because it does not do what it was intended for as replacement. It is infected with the disease of acquisition at the expense of others who are not playing the same game but provide vital support and infrastructure without which the market could not exist. The whole thrust and purpose of human evolution is to insure the group survives. But we have created an artificiality in which people only look our for themselves. They compete with and exclude other members who by the nature of their social function perform other duties. 'A nation divided against itself shall not stand.'
------------------------------
hs:I disagree that the kung are proof that the natural state of man is to look out for the welfare of the group, well kind of, let me explain. Mans first and foremost instinct is to look out for himself. He uses his intelligence and ability to reason to determine that he can look out for himself best if he is a member of a group where they all agree to look out for each other. So its true that man desires to look out for the group, but only because in doing so he looks out for himself. If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it.
M: Tell that to the soldier who jumps on a grenade or those baboons who killed the leopard.[/quote]
hs: Why do we honor such soldiers that do brave and selfless acts with medals and appreciation? It is because they are the exception to the rule, going beyond just looking out for themselves. If that were the natural state of man it would be no big thing, but we all know it's rare for someone to be truly selfless. We want others to be selfless because it implies they will look out for us rather than themselves.
M: What is rare, fortunately, are situations in which self survival is waved in favor of the group. If the king were demanding each family to provide a human sacrifice we would see it all the time.

And the artificial nature of human life today means you only see real humans when the chips are down. You were also being quite naive when you made this statement: "If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it." This is utter rubbish. If you look, for example, at the ten rings of Zen that depict man's spiritual evolution you will see the Buddha in the tenth ring in the market place dolling out his infinite compassion and love. Remember what the Beatles said? "The love you take is equal to the love you make."
-----------------------
--------------
hs: Interpreting the kung as proof that the welfare of the group matters more than the individual and is justification for a collectivist modern state is a mistake, that I claim leads to things like North Korea's oppresive government. This is because in modern times its a lot harder for the group to determine whats best. For the kung it was determined by consensus among each individual, which is what I believe modern democracies and libertarianism try to replicate. But modern communist states don't allow each individual to decide because of the fear that it will somehow hurt the collective. So the problem is who decides for the collective, if not all the individuals that comprise it? As you say consensus must be reached but how can that happen if individuals are denied their inherent right to choose for themselves? We know from history and present day cases who ultimately endes up deciding and why it never turns out to be in the best interest of the group. Just because the best interst of the group is not acheived, you want to just up and say it no longer meets your definition of collectivism? So what do we call it now when individuals are forcibly denied their inherent rights in the name of the greater good of the 'group'?
M: I call it the same thing as Capitalism, another kind of cult of ego, the illusion that one is any more capable of justly governing ones self any more than others. Nobody wants to pay their debts or exercise self control.
M: And there is no excuse for why we do not seek consensus in our modern would. Have we not moved somewhat in that direction here?
By the way thanks for the well argued and expressive post.
-----------------------
hs: You'l write one for me if I write one for you right?
M: Yup. I want to add to my thesis the lessons of game theory. Cooperation is the winning strategy where self interest only looks like it is. Also, competition is disguised hostility and creates a society filled with violence. That violence is paid for by innocent children every day. It is an endless cycle where monsters create more monsters. All relatively deeply non-violent societies are marked by high levels of cooperation.