Violence and civilisation

[Blind groper]

Sometimes the numbers are surprising. During the Vietnam, war, when the casualties among American soldiers caused shock waves across the USA, there were two Americans shot dead in gun homicides back home for every soldier killed in Vietnam. 58,000 American dead in that war seems a lot till you have something to compare it to.

As I pointed out, the number system normally used to put things into perspective is killings per 100,000 people per year. The total in the world today is lower than any other time in history.

The USA had 10 murders per 100,000 per year in 1970, and it is now only 4.3. The number of American soldiers killed in foreign conflicts is a fraction of that.

[JimC]

Sometimes the numbers are surprising. During the Vietnam, war, when the casualties among American soldiers caused shock waves across the USA, there were two Americans shot dead in gun homicides back home for every soldier killed in Vietnam. 58,000 American dead in that war seems a lot till you have something to compare it to.

As I pointed out, the number system normally used to put things into perspective is killings per 100,000 people per year. The total in the world today is lower than any other time in history.

The USA had 10 murders per 100,000 per year in 1970, and it is now only 4.3. The number of American soldiers killed in foreign conflicts is a fraction of that.

And, as much as people rant about it, the number of people killed by the US military, deliberately or accidentally in the post Vietnam war era would be a small fraction of those they killed in WW2. (this says nothing either way as to whether recent conflicts were justified or not)

[Blind groper]

FWIW

Here are a couple more numbers.
Today, 2013, the number people killed in combat comes to 35,000 per year globally, plus or minus a bit. The number killed by murder globally is 500,000.

Anyone care to draw a conclusion?

[pErvinalia]

States are more crafty these days. There's no use in murdering vast numbers of people, as that doesn't lead to good wealth production. Far better to enslave people both psychologically and financially such that most of their existence is concerned with trading the meagre resources they have (their own labour) for even greater wealth at the top end of society. I actually don't find that very civilised.

[Blind groper]

Hmmmm

Even I am not that cynical. I think that people will work to benefit themselves, if given the chance. This work needs to be cooperative to keep them out of prison, and a million people working like that will deliver economic progress.

It has been said that productive economic development leads to progress. War is its opposite, and destructive. Britain, for example, was effectively bankrupted by WWII, though it has since recovered.

[JimC]

States are more crafty these days. There's no use in murdering vast numbers of people, as that doesn't lead to good wealth production. Far better to enslave people both psychologically and financially such that most of their existence is concerned with trading the meagre resources they have (their own labour) for even greater wealth at the top end of society. I actually don't find that very civilised.

I think that "enslave" is a rather extreme statement. Employers can be right bastards, but I'd prefer that to working for a Soviet "collective" anyway. Unions at least give workers some bargaining power...

[pErvinalia]

But we are enslaved. The bottom 90% (or whatever) of society, has no choice but to labour a certain amount dictated by the capitalist system in order to survive. And I qualified that by saying it is psychological and financial enslavement. It goes past simply working to survive. It's about a system the necessitates constant consumerism to sustain itself. If people didn't always strive for more gadgets and junk and more stuff than their neighbours, the whole system would collapse. We are surrounded by propaganda (corporate media and advertising). You aren't a whole human being unless you strive for the latest gadgets and junk. You aren't a successful person if you don't live in an oversized energy hungry house. Filled with TV's and cars and boats etc. It's just a different form of coercion to the outright violence that used to be the norm. Sure, it's more civilised to be alive than dead, but that doesn't make what we are doing civilised. It just makes it less worse than being killed.

[JimC]

But we are enslaved. The bottom 90% (or whatever) of society, has no choice but to labour a certain amount dictated by the capitalist system in order to survive. And I qualified that by saying it is psychological and financial enslavement. It goes past simply working to survive. It's about a system the necessitates constant consumerism to sustain itself. If people didn't always strive for more gadgets and junk and more stuff than their neighbours, the whole system would collapse. We are surrounded by propaganda (corporate media and advertising). You aren't a whole human being unless you strive for the latest gadgets and junk. You aren't a successful person if you don't live in an oversized energy hungry house. Filled with TV's and cars and boats etc. It's just a different form of coercion to the outright violence that used to be the norm. Sure, it's more civilised to be alive than dead, but that doesn't make what we are doing civilised. It just makes it less worse than being killed.

I think you are abusing the term "enslaved"

If you seriously examine slavery in classical times, in arabic states, in the American south, then it becomes almost an insult to those hapless humans to consider workers in democratic modern states to share the same condition. I am not prevented from moving, from marrying, from expressing opinions, and many other basic freedoms that true slaves could only dream of. My principal does not whip me... Consumerism is not something forced on an unwilling population, even if it is encouraged for obvious reasons by our economic system. It can be nudged into a more environmentally sustainable position if we truly wanted to.

This is not to say that there are not serious issues of equity in, for example, modern Australia. The deck is stacked in favour of the big employers, and we need a serious political argument about tax scales, industrial laws, and government action to reduce inequality, and reduce the excessive power wielded by companies. If we had a labour party that was more interested in substantive issues than back-stabbing and personal aggrandisement, we might be in a rather different position in terms of the conversation...

[pErvinalia]

As I said, I'm talking about psychological and financial enslavement. Not physical.

It's why I always go on about our current societies and systems being far more insidious than the Authoritarian communist dictatorships. There you knew exactly where you stood, and there was no way that you could fact check the propaganda. These days, we exist pretty much in a psychological matrix, and only the rational thinkers amongst us (and particularly those of us who understand human psychology) get a peak at what the reality of the system is. That's why it is so insidious. We are basically a society of brainwashed individuals who gladly sacrifice happiness for more "stuff", even though research clearly shows that more "stuff" won't make you happier. I.e we are working against our own best interest. Talk about insidious control!

eta: Regarding the "fact checking" thing, today we have the ability to fact check to a degree thanks to the internet and more independent reporters. But there is a whole sea of corporate media, pushing the dominant narrative, to overcome.

[JimC]

As I said, I'm talking about psychological and financial enslavement. Not physical.

Even then, it's simply too strong a term to be realistic. For true psychological enslavement, try living in North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

And in financial terms, people have at least some choices. Now the choices are constrained by various factors, and those somewhat to the left would argue that those born to wealthy parents have unfair advantages, and we need to address the disparity. But simply having to work, as I've done all my life, I don't regard as financial enslavement, but simply reality. I belong to a union, and have taken part in industrial action to pressure employers to get a somewhat better deal. Still less than what it should be, but if I was truly a "financial slave" I would never be allowed to join a union or take industrial action...

(and I'm pissed off with the Abbot government's decisions about various industrial matters, and hope that the union movement give them a fucking rough time)

[pErvinalia]

Consumerism is not something forced on an unwilling population, even if it is encouraged for obvious reasons by our economic system. It can be nudged into a more environmentally sustainable position if we truly wanted to.

But this comes down to who's in control. Money is power and if it isn't in the interest of that power to be more environmentally sustainable, we won't be. And hence we really aren't, relatively speaking. This is why the system is so insidious. It gives the appearance that the regular people are in control through their "democratic" system. But we clearly aren't. Money is in control. And it gets worse and worse every year (as you would expect, as the disparity in wealth continues to widen).

This is not to say that there are not serious issues of equity in, for example, modern Australia. The deck is stacked in favour of the big employers, and we need a serious political argument about tax scales, industrial laws, and government action to reduce inequality, and reduce the excessive power wielded by companies. If we had a labour party that was more interested in substantive issues than back-stabbing and personal aggrandisement, we might be in a rather different position in terms of the conversation...

Backstabbing and aggrandisment has nothing to do with Labor's fundamental problems (in regard to the points of discussion here). Labor is a neoliberal party just like the Coalition is. Probably more so, when you consider that it was Hawke and Keating who really liberlised the Australian economy in the late 80's and early 90's. They are under the same control of big money as the coalition are. They still possess a spattering of social concern and social policy, but that gets weakened with every successive year (as you'd expect with the wealth disparity widening).

[pErvinalia]

As I said, I'm talking about psychological and financial enslavement. Not physical.

Even then, it's simply too strong a term to be realistic. For true psychological enslavement, try living in North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

There's a fallacy to describe that (can't think what one it is). But just because NK or SA are more psychologically enslaved, doesn't mean we aren't. And as I said, regarding authoritarian communism, in NK at least people know where they stand. There's no illusion that the people are in control through "democratic" elections. There's no illusion that you can change the system.

And in financial terms, people have at least some choices. Now the choices are constrained by various factors, and those somewhat to the left would argue that those born to wealthy parents have unfair advantages, and we need to address the disparity. But simply having to work, as I've done all my life, I don't regard as financial enslavement, but simply reality. I belong to a union, and have taken part in industrial action to pressure employers to get a somewhat better deal. Still less than what it should be, but if I was truly a "financial slave" I would never be allowed to join a union or take industrial action...

Welcome to the coming world, Jim. Just look to neoliberal central (the US) to see what's coming regarding unionisation and their relationship with employers. Hell, just look to what the coalition are trying to introduce (and did introduce with Work Choices last time in government) into the workplace. Look at the changes over time, Jim. Don't just look at changes from a left government to a right government and vice versa. Look at the trends over time and the pattern becomes abundantly clear.

(and I'm pissed off with the Abbot government's decisions about various industrial matters, and hope that the union movement give them a fucking rough time)

You should be pissed off at Labor as well, as they have pretty much foresaken the worker and unions. Hence why unions are now starting to side with Green parties around the world (including here in Australia), and will continue to in increasing numbers. The Labor parties are neoliberal parties and believe in liberalisation of the workplace and the economy. That trend can't coexist with union activity.

[JimC]

Consumerism is not something forced on an unwilling population, even if it is encouraged for obvious reasons by our economic system. It can be nudged into a more environmentally sustainable position if we truly wanted to.

But this comes down to who's in control. Money is power and if it isn't in the interest of that power to be more environmentally sustainable, we won't be. And hence we really aren't, relatively speaking. This is why the system is so insidious. It gives the appearance that the regular people are in control through their "democratic" system. But we clearly aren't. Money is in control. And it gets worse and worse every year (as you would expect, as the disparity in wealth continues to widen).

This is not to say that there are not serious issues of equity in, for example, modern Australia. The deck is stacked in favour of the big employers, and we need a serious political argument about tax scales, industrial laws, and government action to reduce inequality, and reduce the excessive power wielded by companies. If we had a labour party that was more interested in substantive issues than back-stabbing and personal aggrandisement, we might be in a rather different position in terms of the conversation...

Backstabbing and aggrandisment has nothing to do with Labor's fundamental problems (in regard to the points of discussion here). Labor is a neoliberal party just like the Coalition is. Probably more so, when you consider that it was Hawke and Keating who neoliberlised the Australian economy. They are under the same control of big money as the coalition are. They still possess a spattering of social concern and social policy, but that gets weakened with every successive year (as you'd expect with the wealth disparity widening).

Well, your argument only seems to lead to 2 places:

1. Violent revolution

2. Giving up because it's hopeless

Not places I want to go. I'd rather that we muddled on, with some vague hope for an imperfect but survivable future, rather than adopt an absolutist position of either rage or hopelessness... Change is possible, even if there are no guarantees...

[pErvinalia]

Consumerism is not something forced on an unwilling population, even if it is encouraged for obvious reasons by our economic system. It can be nudged into a more environmentally sustainable position if we truly wanted to.

But this comes down to who's in control. Money is power and if it isn't in the interest of that power to be more environmentally sustainable, we won't be. And hence we really aren't, relatively speaking. This is why the system is so insidious. It gives the appearance that the regular people are in control through their "democratic" system. But we clearly aren't. Money is in control. And it gets worse and worse every year (as you would expect, as the disparity in wealth continues to widen).

This is not to say that there are not serious issues of equity in, for example, modern Australia. The deck is stacked in favour of the big employers, and we need a serious political argument about tax scales, industrial laws, and government action to reduce inequality, and reduce the excessive power wielded by companies. If we had a labour party that was more interested in substantive issues than back-stabbing and personal aggrandisement, we might be in a rather different position in terms of the conversation...

Backstabbing and aggrandisment has nothing to do with Labor's fundamental problems (in regard to the points of discussion here). Labor is a neoliberal party just like the Coalition is. Probably more so, when you consider that it was Hawke and Keating who neoliberlised the Australian economy. They are under the same control of big money as the coalition are. They still possess a spattering of social concern and social policy, but that gets weakened with every successive year (as you'd expect with the wealth disparity widening).

Well, your argument only seems to lead to 2 places:

1. Violent revolution

2. Giving up because it's hopeless

Not places I want to go. I'd rather that we muddled on, with some vague hope for an imperfect but survivable future, rather than adopt an absolutist position of either rage or hopelessness... Change is possible, even if there are no guarantees...

You sound like Obamy!

I've got no doubt violent revolutions will continue to spread around the world, and will eventually take hold in the US (and therefore US's lapdogs like Australia/Canada and the UK). The problem I see is that that won't actually lead to a solution. It will just lead to chaos. Hence why i've adopted position 2...

[Blind groper]

Frankly, rEvo's arguments are weird. We are living in a society which is absolute bloody paradise compared to anything ever before in history, or in any place on Earth. Here and now is relative heaven!

We have a consumer society. Wow! How terrible.

Man, what a load of crap. Try being a peasant in medieval England. Or a slave in Arabia. Or any ordinary person, anywhere, anytime, apart from the here and now, and see how you bloody like it. So, rEvo, you are talking a load of crap. Here and now is paradise.

Sure, it is not perfect. Nothing made by humans is ever perfect. But it is better than before, and is improving all the time. Sure, there are problems, but there are always problems. Which problem would you prefer? To face the need to combat global warming, or (as has been the case in most of history) to face having your guts disembowelled by the next invading army, and your children killed and your wife and teenage daughter raped to death.

Violence is at an all time low. More people are fed properly as a percentage of the total than any time in history. We have better education, more security, better access to entertainment and to information than any time or any place else. And some people canot stop moaning. Wow!