basis of historical social progress: co-operation or conflict? And how "intelligence" ties into this."
One theory, when I was in college, was that the development of agriculture in the Nile crescent (or similar places) *led to* or *required* a hierarchical society, with priests and kings at the top. In that view cooperation was the primary force, with dominance just accidentally happening to come along with it. But it would be easy to say the opposite: that some war lord came first and conscripted a bunch of slaves to build his aquaducts and ditches and then allowed them to become cooperating citizens.
In the history that we're familiar with, from Athens on, conflict and the greediness of monarchs seems to be the driving force, with cooperation more coerced than voluntary. However, according to the standard theory, cooperation enters the *ruling classes* with the coming of capitalism, gradually expanding its application through domestic and international law, but always with mixed results. I guess Marx would agree that the driving force of capitalism, both for good and bad, is conflict.
BobW
--- ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> On 18 Oct, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Miles Jackson wrote:
> > ravi wrote:
> >> First the quote:
> >>
> >> To say that all past historic social
> progress has been the
> >> result of co-operation and not of conflict
> would be ... an
> >> exaggeration. But exaggeration against
> exaggeration, it is
> >> the more reasonable of the two. And it is no
> exaggeration
> >> to say that the measure of civilisation is
> the degree in
> >> which the method of co-operative
> intelligence replaces the
> >> method of brute conflict.
> >>
> >> Most who consider themselves leftists will
> probably neither disagree
> >> not find anything particularly novel in the
> above.
> > I disagree wholeheartedly. The assumption that
> civilisation is
> > characterized by "co-operative intelligence" in
> contradistinction
> > to the
> > brutal conflict in "noncivilized" societies is
> ethnocentric through
> > and
> > through. Comparing social relations in hunting
> and gathering
> > societies
> > and our "civilized" society, ...
>
>
> I wouldn't disagree with your point. I read Dewey
> (or interpret the
> above, my purpose) to mean that the dichotomy is not
> temporal (modern
> "civilised" vs early "uncivilised") but qualitative.
> It is doubtful
> he intended it that way (and yours is the more valid
> reading) but for
> my point, the important thing is the issue of what
> is at the basis of
> historical social progress: co-operation or
> conflict? And how
> "intelligence" ties into this.
>
> --ravi
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>