Are you or yr band political?

[Kiwi]

[quote name='EssentialTension' post='343740' date='Dec 3 2008, 02:15 AM']You seem to assume that these 'competitive urges' are innate in human nature; so you seem to be claiming a particular view of human nature which, as I suggest above, is exactly what is in dispute here...

...This kind of theory has been commonly known as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism"]Social Darwinism[/url]. The theory doesn't actually go back to Darwin and in fact predates him historically, owing more to Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest"]'survival of the fittest'[/url].[/quote]
But doesn't cooperation allow a group of individuals to be more competitive?

[BigBeefChief]

Yeah! f*** the police!

[Earbrass]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='342820' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:22 AM']If you feel the need to get signed, you'd need to accept the hypocracy that comes with it.[/quote]

An old mate of mine used to say "Don't think of it as 'selling out', think of it as 'buying in'.

[brummie]

Plenty of lubrication and the phone number of a good vet just in case.

Oops - wrong thread. sorry

[MacDaddy]

Dress it up how you will, but it's still the same old Politics of Envy.

[BassMunkee]

Altruism is all very well but ultimately doomed to failure if taken in isolation.
Human beings will compete for territory, resources, recognition, fame, wealth, power because by-and-large that's how we work, and all of us compete to a greater or lesser extent.
In any given social heirachy the less-well-off will push for cooperation because they do not have the recsources available to them to facilitate competition. The more-well-off will advocate competition but will have the luxury of being able to suggest and target cooperation as and when they see fit.
A healthy, competitive society will encourage cooperation and will grow and thrive, a wholly cooperative society will wither and die.
That last sentance is as idealistically naive as the assumption that a state of competitive-less anarchy will lead to some kind of societal nirvana, however I believe to an extent that it's true.
Money and resources are what power a society, regardless of the politics, without money politics would not exist because in order to run a country regardless of whether you're a dictatorship, a democracy, or a communist state, you need to pay for things, or you need to aquire wealth as a symbol of power. Unless the flow of money is distributed perfectly evenly through the system - (which would never happen) - some people will end up richer than others, they will have more power because they have money.
A society where everyone is equal will never happen because people, given half a chance, will climb over each to get what they want and to get where they want.
Philanthropists and those individuals who perform great works of social change are feted precisely because they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Despite our noble intentions and laudable idealism, we are still just apes, and like any other member of the animal kingdom we will cooperate and be charitable when it suits us and when we have the luxury so to do, other than that we will go for what we want, when we want it, you may not like it but it's true.
If you can accept that framework and work within it, then you can facilitate change.
Very simply put; it's the difference between villifying Rage Against The Machine for selling out, and acknowledging that to influence the system, they must be a part of the system, and that ironically there is an inevitability to your becoming a part of it once you reach a threshold.
You can either be outside railing impotently at the injustices that you see, or you can be inside with influence, and yes, money and power - but the power to effect change.
You'll still be just an ape, though.
A clever one, but an ape nonetheless.

[BigBeefChief]

Who the f*** are Rage Against The Machine anyway?

They're hardly bringing the system down from within!

I couldn't even name one of their songs. The only reason I've heard of them is that I've seen them on the T-Shirts worn by spotty 14 year old geeks who wear nhs glasses and are into Games Workshop.

Its probably that horrible shouty music all about goblins, crows and shitting in a nuns mouth.

[birdy]

[quote name='BassMunkee' post='343928' date='Dec 3 2008, 11:54 AM']Altruism is all very well but ultimately doomed to failure if taken in isolation.
Human beings will compete for territory, resources, recognition, fame, wealth, power because by-and-large that's how we work, and all of us compete to a greater or lesser extent.
In any given social heirachy the less-well-off will push for cooperation because they do not have the recsources available to them to facilitate competition. The more-well-off will advocate competition but will have the luxury of being able to suggest and target cooperation as and when they see fit.
A healthy, competitive society will encourage cooperation and will grow and thrive, a wholly cooperative society will wither and die.
That last sentance is as idealistically naive as the assumption that a state of competitive-less anarchy will lead to some kind of societal nirvana, however I believe to an extent that it's true.
Money and resources are what power a society, regardless of the politics, without money politics would not exist because in order to run a country regardless of whether you're a dictatorship, a democracy, or a communist state, you need to pay for things, or you need to aquire wealth as a symbol of power. Unless the flow of money is distributed perfectly evenly through the system - (which would never happen) - some people will end up richer than others, they will have more power because they have money.
A society where everyone is equal will never happen because people, given half a chance, will climb over each to get what they want and to get where they want.
Philanthropists and those individuals who perform great works of social change are feted precisely because they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Despite our noble intentions and laudable idealism, we are still just apes, and like any other member of the animal kingdom we will cooperate and be charitable when it suits us and when we have the luxury so to do, other than that we will go for what we want, when we want it, you may not like it but it's true.
If you can accept that framework and work within it, then you can facilitate change.
Very simply put; it's the difference between villifying Rage Against The Machine for selling out, and acknowledging that to influence the system, they must be a part of the system, and that ironically there is an inevitability to your becoming a part of it once you reach a threshold.
You can either be outside railing impotently at the injustices that you see, or you can be inside with influence, and yes, money and power - but the power to effect change.
You'll still be just an ape, though.
A clever one, but an ape nonetheless.[/quote]

Great Post

Steve

[alexclaber]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='343940' date='Dec 3 2008, 12:10 PM']Who the f*** are Rage Against The Machine anyway?

Its probably that horrible shouty music all about goblins, crows and shitting in a nuns mouth.[/quote]

Yeah, exactly...

Alex

[tauzero]

As far as competition vs. cooperation goes, competition is a natural consequence of the acquisitive nature of humans and the fact that when a resource is in demand, there will be competition to obtain it, especially if the supply is perceived to be insufficient for the demand. There is also a hierarchic form to this - small groups will cooperate internally and compete with other small groups for certain things, but for other, larger things, will cooperate with other small groups to form a large group which will compete with other large groups. Parishes might compete for a new playground, towns for a Tesco, countries for the Olympics, and blocs (eg. the EU) for world trade.

If someone with anarcho-socialist ideals wants to play a bass, what choices are there? Buying any bass from a large manufacturer is implicitly supporting capitalism, so it would have to be obtained from a luthier, but not a luthier who has used their own money to buy their tools and equipment as that is also capitalism. The luthier's tools would have to have been bought and owned by the state. And the tool-making company would also have to have had its equipment bought by the state, as otherwise that's capitalism by the back door. And don't get me started on amplifiers, it might be difficult making valves by hand but it's a lot easier than trying to make transistors or ICs by hand (the state doesn't seem to have got into the ownership of semiconductor fabrication plants yet).

[D-L-B]

Take that Thatcher!



If you want to talk about selling out as a band then lets get pedantic and say that you sell out once you play a gig or put your music infornt of others to be judged or validated, whether it's for money, social approval or otherwise.

[BassMunkee]

[quote]Who the f*** are Rage Against The Machine anyway?

They're hardly bringing the system down from within!

I couldn't even name one of their songs. The only reason I've heard of them is that I've seen them on the T-Shirts worn by spotty 14 year old geeks who wear nhs glasses and are into Games Workshop.

Its probably that horrible shouty music all about goblins, crows and shitting in a nuns mouth.[/quote]
Blimey, and to think that I took you off ignore for that!
I used them as an example because they are (still) thought of by many people as "subversive", doesn't mean I agree with that, it's just an example to illustrate a point.

[Wil]

RATM were the most exciting band ever when I started getting interested in music... In fact, I think I might have to stick their debut on this afternoon to while away some time.