----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Fitch" <gcf at panix.com>
>
> Ian Murray:
> > The Vonnegut-Sterling thesis is looking better every day.
>
> That human beings are genetically indisposed to anything
> better than capitalism -- or worse -- is frequently argued
> seriously. If so, however, nothing can be done, so I
> prefer to think otherwise.
>
> -- Gordon
==========
I'm no genetic reductionist by any means.What I was trying to convey -somewhat facetiously- was that the institutionalization of violence to sustain any status quo and even the use of institutionalized violence to displace the status quo, does not seem to end the human desire to oppress or dominate. Nor do substantive normative-ethical claims [truth aside] seem to eliminate or mitigate the evolution of technologies of mass violence.
A violence free mode of production does not seem humanly possible, given our biological, cognitive and emotional compossibilities -with all their plasticities and rigidities. To believe otherwise, I believe, entails notions of human perfectibility and ethical progress. I thought history has disabused us of that belief. Yoshie's excerpt from Hobbes was quite poignant as the dominant paradigm in US international relations pedagogy and policy is Hobbesian. When we conjoin that with the behavior of the US government over the last century, especially since the advent of the Bomb, any suggestion that collective action on a mass scale would be sufficient to change US government behavior without massive loss of life seems problematic to say the least. I wish this was not true and have acted with others in order to 'falsify' that claim and will continue to act in such a manner.
Like you, I prefer to think otherwise. However, It simply may not be possible to achieve a violence free mode of production without substantial changes to the human body. Reification alert: the human brain is it's own worst enemy. Morphological change may never take place -violence may be used to stop it; if it does, it will be done by some small group that has insulated itself from the larger social system in order to create post-human morphologies-subjectivities-behaviors with attention paid to eliminating aggressive traits. Ecosystem drift may necessitate it in the long run. Again, societies may do all they can to prevent this; 'nature' does not care. For those who would assert this is eugenics, I would reply that all lethal violence is a form of eugenics. We have been practicing eugenics on the rest of the planet's life forms for millennia. I'm *not* advocating a GE path, I'm merely stating it may not be possible to eliminate the institutionalization of violence without it. I'm more than happy to be wrong.
The golden rule is too easy to break - indeed it's name is an oxymoron. It is a free public good, free as the air we breathe. We ignore it at our peril.
Ian